Le criptovalute sono fuori dalla portata del diritto convenzionale? Il dipartimento di Contenzioso penale esamina un caso intrigante che ha presentato un dilemma per i giudici quando è stato sottoposto all'Alta Corte.
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.
Il ricorrente, TTL, è una società holding del dottor Craig Wright, registrata alle Seychelles. TTL ha sostenuto di essere stata bloccata dal suo conto Bitcoin in seguito a un hacking del computer del dottor Wright e che Bitcoin per un valore di 1,1 milioni di sterline di proprietà di TTL è stato oggetto di questo hacking.
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 posizione 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:
Se c'era una questione seria da giudicare
Se esiste una buona argomentazione per ritenere che il caso rientri in uno o più dei gateway giurisdizionali indicati nel CPR PD 6B, paragrafo 3.1; e
Se in tutte le circostanze:
1.l'Inghilterra è chiaramente o distintamente il foro appropriato per il giudizio della controversia; e
2. Il tribunale dovrebbe esercitare il proprio potere discrezionale per consentire la notifica del procedimento al di fuori della giurisdizione.
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 proprietà 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
Le richieste di TTL avrebbero potuto esporre i convenuti a rischi, ad esempio se gli sviluppatori avessero creato la patch del software per TTL, ci sarebbe stata la possibilità che i potenziali rivali del Bitcoin avessero avuto una legittima pretesa nei confronti dei convenuti.
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 e commerciale 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.
Ciò pone una domanda: questo significa che il Bitcoin e le altre criptovalute sono al di fuori della portata della legge convenzionale?
The answer is currently being unravelled and it volontà 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 e-mail
