¿Están las criptomonedas fuera del alcance de la legislación convencional? El departamento de Procesal Penal analiza un caso intrigante que planteó un dilema a los jueces cuando se presentó ante el Tribunal Superior.
On March 25 2022 the High Court passed a judgment which deliberated upon significant questions in relation to jurisdiction and cryptocurrency in the case of Tulip Trading Ltd (TTL) v Bitcoin Association for BSV, the original Bitcoin.
La demandante, TTL, es una sociedad de cartera del Dr. Craig Wright, constituida en las Seychelles. TTL alegó que se le impidió el acceso a su cuenta de bitcoins tras un ataque informático al ordenador del Dr. Wright, y que dicho ataque afectó a bitcoins por valor de 1,1 millones de libras esterlinas propiedad de TTL.
Additionally, the private keys needed to access the account had been stolen and deleted from Dr Wright’s computer. Therefore TTL was unable to access or control the Bitcoin.
Unlike other cryptocurrency hacks we have seen recently, the Bitcoin in question had not actually been taken from its original ubicación or transferred elsewhere. However, without the private keys TTL was unable to access it.
In light of this, TTL did not seek remedies against the alleged perpetrators of the hack. Instead, they issued proceedings against the 16 core developers (the defendants) who controlled the software in respect of ‘the Networks’ on which the Bitcoin was stored.
TTL claimed that the defendants owed a fiduciary or tortious duty to assist TTL in regaining control and use of the Bitcoin. If that was not possible, TTL sought equitable compensation or damages if the former remedy was not successful.
A key defining issue in this case, was the fact that none of the defendants were based in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Therefore, as opposed to a full trial, the judgement was in fact an interim application specifically related to a number of defendants’ challenge to the court’s jurisdiction and ability to permit service outside of England and Wales.
In order for the defendants to succeed with their jurisdictional application, the following requirements had to be satisfied:
Si había o no una cuestión grave que juzgar
si existían argumentos sólidos para sostener que el asunto entraba dentro de uno o varios de los criterios de competencia establecidos en el apartado 3.1 de la Directiva 6B del Reglamento de Procedimiento Civil (CPR); y
En cualquier caso:
1. Inglaterra es, de forma clara o inequívoca, el foro adecuado para el enjuiciamiento del litigio; y
2. El tribunal debería hacer uso de su facultad discrecional para autorizar la notificación de las actuaciones fuera de la jurisdicción.
Considering this, the court found that TTL had not established a serious issue to be tried on the merits of its claim. Additionally, it held that developers did not owe TTL any fiduciary duties for the following reasons:
Bitcoin owners could not realistically be described as having entrusted their propiedad to a fluctuating, unidentified body of software developers
The distinctive characteristic of a fiduciary relationship is the obligation of ‘undivided loyalty’. However, the steps that TTL required the defendants to take – such as writing and implementing a software ‘patch’ which would enable TTL to recover the Bitcoin, would only benefit TTL – rather than the other users of the network. In fact, the court argued that the changes sought by TTL could even be disadvantageous to other users of the network; and
Las exigencias de TTL podrían haber expuesto a los demandados a riesgos; por ejemplo, si los desarrolladores hubieran creado el parche de software para TTL, habría existido la posibilidad de que otros posibles reclamantes del bitcoin tuvieran un derecho legítimo frente a los demandados.
It can be deduced from this outcome that although this case has left open a narrow potential route to liability and remedy, the judgment could be seen as highlighting the key concerns that tort and common law may be proving themselves incapable of adapting to new technologies and characteristically international/cross-border business y comercial structures.
Furthermore, while legislation and regulation are the only viable route – any such legislation and regulation must reflect international cooperation. Unless that cooperation is global, it has limited chance of being effective.
Esto nos lleva a preguntarnos: ¿significa esto que el bitcoin y otras criptomonedas están fuera del alcance de la legislación convencional?
The answer is currently being unravelled and it will be interesting to see how legal developments in this space will progress in the coming years, particularly considering the recent volatility of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which may well leave many investors holding a loss.
For further information contact Piers Desser on 020 7613 1402 o correo electrónico
