Over the past decade, the rapid expansion of blockchain technology has given rise to various cryptoassets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies. Initially developed as a decentralized alternative to traditional financial systems, cryptoassets have permeated numerous sectors, including banking, trading, insurance, and intellectual property rights management.
The British Virgin Islands (BVI) and the Cayman Islands have emerged as the preferred jurisdictions for many developers and entrepreneurs seeking to incorporate cryptocurrency exchanges, structure crypto-asset funds, or establish blockchain enterprises. The combination of favorable tax regimes, well-established legal systems, and business-friendly environments has contributed to the popularity of these offshore jurisdictions for crypto-related ventures.
As a result, when disputes or issues arise concerning cryptoassets—such as unfulfilled trades, frozen accounts, or misappropriation—there is a high likelihood that a BVI or Cayman Islands-based entity is involved. Consequently, understanding the legal landscape and available remedies in these jurisdictions is essential for anyone engaging in crypto-related activities.
Legal Landscape in the BVI and the Cayman Islands 2.1. Reliance on English Law and Case Precedents
The BVI and Cayman Islands courts often rely on English law when addressing crypto-related disputes, as there currently needs to be more local legislation or case law on this subject. Decisions made by the English Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court are highly persuasive, even though they are not binding in these jurisdictions. Additionally, the Privy Council's decisions on appeals originating from other Commonwealth countries also influence the legal frameworks of the BVI and the Cayman Islands.
Recent developments have clarified how the law applies to and governs cryptoassets, providing invaluable guidance for the BVI and Cayman Islands courts as they navigate this emerging field.
Local Legislation and Jurisdictions
In the BVI and the Cayman Islands, there has been a growing body of case law concerning cryptoassets, although it remains limited compared to England. Key decisions in these jurisdictions have primarily echoed the stance taken by English courts, which treat cryptoassets as a form of property.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve in response to the rapid growth of cryptoassets, the BVI and the Cayman Islands will likely develop their own local legislation and case law to address the unique challenges and opportunities presented by this emerging technology.
Holding and Managing Cryptoassets
Centralized Exchanges
Centralized exchanges are the most common way people hold and manage their cryptoassets. These platforms often facilitate trading, staking, earning crypto 'interest,' and providing other services. Although they may resemble traditional banks or brokers, the reality is different.
The rights and obligations between a user and a centralized exchange can vary significantly from those in a traditional banking relationship. For instance, exchanges may co-mingle clients' cryptoassets, hold them in non-segregated accounts, exclude trust relationships through contracts, loan assets without notice or authorization, or treat cryptoassets differently than one might expect from a fiduciary.
Software Wallets
Software wallets offer a more secure alternative to centralized exchanges. These digital wallets store the user's private keys and cryptoassets on a computer or mobile device, allowing users to manage their assets independently. While software wallets reduce the risks associated with centralized exchanges, they also place the responsibility of safeguarding private keys and assets squarely on the user.
Hardware Wallets
Hardware wallets are considered the most secure way to hold and manage cryptoassets. These physical devices store the user's private keys offline, protecting them from hacking and other digital threats. Like software wallets, hardware wallets require users to safeguard their assets. However, they also provide the most robust protection against the risks of holding cryptoassets on centralized exchanges.
Each method of holding and managing cryptoassets has unique advantages and challenges, making it crucial for users to carefully consider their options and prioritize security, convenience, and risk tolerance when choosing how to manage their digital assets.
Cryptoassets as Property
Traditional Categories of Property
Traditionally, common law recognizes two forms of property: things in possession (physical items) and things in action (rights capable of being enforced). Cryptocurrencies need to fit neatly into both categories, which has led to debates about their legal status as property.
Cryptoassets as Property in English Law
In 2019, the UK Jurisdictional Taskforce on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts (UKJT) published a legal statement arguing that a strict interpretation of property categories would be unsuitable and that there were solid grounds for recognizing cryptocurrencies as property.
Following the UKJT Statement, the landmark case of AA v Persons Unknown confirmed that cryptocurrencies should be treated as property under English law. This decision relied on Lord Wilberforce's definition of property, which included criteria such as being definable, identifiable by third parties, capable of assumption by third parties, and having some degree of permanence.
Cryptoassets as Property in BVI and Cayman Islands Law
Like English law, the BVI and Cayman Islands have also accepted the principle that cryptoassets constitute property. In the BVI case of Torque Group Holdings Limited (In Liquidation) v Torque Group Holdings Limited (In Liquidation), it was determined that cryptoassets are property under the BVI Insolvency Act 2003 (as amended). This recognition has important implications for legal remedies available in cases involving cryptoassets, including freezing injunctions, proprietary injunctions, disclosure orders in support of injunctions, and Norwich Pharmacal relief.
Can Cryptoassets be Held on Trust?
The question of whether cryptoassets can be held on trust has emerged in case law over recent years. Trust law is a critical aspect of property law that governs the management and control of assets for the benefit of others. Establishing whether cryptocurrencies can be held on trust is essential for understanding the rights and obligations of parties involved in crypto transactions.
Trust Law Principles Applied to Cryptoassets
Courts in England, Singapore, and New Zealand have confirmed that cryptoassets can indeed be held on trust. In the English case of Wang v Darby, the High Court considered for the first time whether cryptocurrencies could be held on trust for the purpose of establishing a proprietary right over those assets. While it was determined that no form of trust arose in that particular case, the High Court demonstrated its willingness to apply trust law principles to a proprietary claim over cryptoassets in appropriate cases.
The recognition that cryptoassets can be held on trust has significant implications for the legal landscape in the BVI and the Cayman Islands. It further solidifies the status of cryptoassets as property and expands the range of legal remedies available to parties involved in crypto-related disputes.
Legal Remedies in Crypto-Related Disputes
Freezing injunctions are court orders that prevent a party from disposing of or dealing with their assets, including cryptoassets. These orders are particularly useful in cases where there is a risk that the defendant may dissipate their assets before judgment can be enforced.
Proprietary injunctions are a type of injunction that explicitly targets the disputed property. In cryptoassets, a proprietary injunction can be used to prevent the transfer or disposal of the disputed cryptocurrency.
Disclosure orders are court orders that require a party to disclose certain information, typically about the location or control of assets. In crypto-related disputes, disclosure orders can help to trace and recover misappropriated cryptoassets.
Norwich Pharmacal relief is a form of pre-action disclosure that requires a third party, such as an exchange or a wallet provider, to provide information to assist the claimant in identifying the wrongdoer. Norwich Pharmacal Relief can help trace the movement of stolen cryptoassets and identify the individuals responsible in crypto-related disputes.
The Future of Cryptoassets and Legal Remedies in Offshore Jurisdictions
The growth of cryptoassets in offshore jurisdictions like the BVI and the Cayman Islands has increased crypto-related disputes. As courts in these jurisdictions increasingly rely on English law and case precedents, the legal landscape surrounding cryptoassets continues to evolve.
By recognizing cryptoassets as property and applying trust law principles to these assets, courts have expanded the range of legal remedies available to parties involved in crypto-related disputes. As the crypto industry continues to grow and develop, the legal landscape will likely continue to adapt to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by this innovative technology.
DISCLAIMER: The information provided is not legal, tax, or accounting advice and should not be used as such. It is for discussion purposes only. Seek guidance from your legal counsel and advisors on any matters. The views presented are those of the author and not any other individual or organization. The information provided is for general educational purposes only and is not investment advice. The author of this material makes no guarantees or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of the information. A professional should review any action based on the information discussed. The author is not liable for any loss from acting on the information discussed.
Comments