Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
Cryptocurrency, proprietary injunctions, freezing orders, and trusts: the law is not cryptic
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Despite the meteoric rise of cryptocurrency as an asset class, there has to date been little case law concerning it. This article looks at a recent cryptocurrency case which applies established principles relating to trusts, proprietary injunctions and worldwide freezing orders to this new asset class: Wang v Darby [2021] EWHC 3054 (Comm). This decision confirms that familiar legal principles apply equally to cryptocurrencies, although digital assets can shine a light on established areas of law. We discuss below the key issues arising from the application of established principles to novel circumstances and the way in which Wang v Darby represents a missed opportunity to address the more interesting points arising in existing case law concerning cryptocurrency.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
