Cryptoassets as property under English Law: surveying the present lie of the land

In this article, Amy Held draws attention to two ways in which fundamental principles of English property law are being distorted in the present discourse on crytpoassets. First, English law is not really prescriptive as to what “things” fall within the scope of property law or “can be property”, but, rather, is concerned with rights in relation to things. The statement, therefore, that cryptoassets “are property” lacks any real meaning. Second, English law has no real concept of “ownership” as distinct from “possession”. Given that English law tends to focus on the latter, it remains unclear what it means for anyone to assert that they are the “owner” of a cryptoasset, how “ownership” is proved and established, and how the right of “ownership” is vindicated in a dispute.