Top

Singapore High Court Recognizes Cryptocurrency as Personal Property

Policy & Regulation·July 27, 2023, 12:27 AM

In a significant ruling on July 25, Judge Philip Jeyaretnam of the High Court of Singapore declared that cryptocurrency is capable of being held in trust and should be recognized as property.

The judge’s decision came in response to a case brought by Dubai-headquartered crypto exchange Bybit against its former employee, Ho Kai Xin, who was accused of transferring approximately 4.2 million Tether (USDT) from the crypto exchange to her private accounts without authorization.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

 

No fundamental difference

In his ruling, Judge Jeyaretnam emphasized that there is no fundamental difference between cryptocurrencies, fiat money, or even physical objects like shells when it comes to their status as property. He argued that as long as these objects hold value and are based on mutual faith, they can be considered property. The judge’s verdict is seen as a crucial step in establishing the legal status of digital assets within the Singaporean jurisdiction.

Addressing the argument that cryptocurrencies lack physical presence and therefore cannot be considered property, Judge Jeyaretnam drew an analogy, stating: “We identify what is going on as a particular digital token, somewhat like how we give a name to a river even though the water contained within its banks is constantly changing.” By equating cryptocurrencies to named entities, the judge made it clear that physical tangibility is not a prerequisite for something to be classified as property.

 

Cryptocurrencies have value

Furthermore, the ruling challenges the perception that cryptocurrencies have no “real” value. Judge Jeyaretnam firmly refuted this notion, highlighting that the value of any asset, whether physical or digital, is ultimately determined by collective human belief and judgment.

One critical classification made by the judge is grouping cryptocurrencies under the category of “things in action” within British common law. This categorization means that cryptocurrencies are considered a form of property, over which personal rights can be claimed and enforced through legal actions, rather than requiring physical possession.

The judge’s decision also referenced the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) consultation paper, which proposes implementing segregation and custody requirements for digital payment tokens. By taking cues from the MAS’s stance on digital assets, the court emphasized the legality of holding cryptocurrencies on trust, as long as practical methods for identification and segregation are in place.

 

Cues taken from existing law

Singapore’s legal framework for property also played a crucial role in the ruling. Judge Jeyaretnam pointed to Order 22 of Singapore’s Rules of Court 2021, which defines “movable property” to include various assets, such as cash, debts, bonds, shares, and cryptocurrency or other digital currency. This inclusion reinforces the recognition of cryptocurrencies as a valid form of property within Singaporean law.

In April of this year, a Hong Kong court reached a similar conclusion, recognizing cryptocurrency as property. In the High Court of Justice in London the following month, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) were recognized as “private property.”

Overall, Judge Jeyaretnam’s ruling represents a significant milestone in the legal recognition of cryptocurrencies in Singapore. By acknowledging cryptocurrencies as property, the court provides greater clarity and certainty for crypto users and investors while affirming the importance of embracing digital assets within the nation’s legal framework.

More to Read
View All
Policy & Regulation·

Oct 26, 2023

The Legal Future of South Korea’s Crypto Industry: Necessary Legislation and Systems

The Legal Future of South Korea’s Crypto Industry: Necessary Legislation and SystemsA recent National Assembly symposium organized by South Korea’s Digital Asset Policy Forum brought experts together to discuss the challenges and prospects of the implementation of the Virtual Asset User Protection Act at the National Assembly Members’ Office Building in Seoul on Tuesday.Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on UnsplashInternational modelsReferences were made to global examples, such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) — the world’s first standalone virtual asset legislation enacted in the EU — which ensures transparency, disclosure, authorization, and supervision of crypto-asset transactions. However, unlike the capital market, MiCA does not impose regular disclosure reporting requirements or corrections on them. Firms in Japan, on the other hand, are asked to provide disclosure under autonomous regulation through the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA).Notably, in its recent Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets Consultation Report, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) states that it is “seeking to encourage optimal consistency in the way crypto-asset markets and securities markets are regulated within individual IOSCO jurisdictions, in accordance with the principle of ‘same activities, same risks, same regulatory outcomes’.” This principle refers to the concept that any crypto-asset activity that has a similar function and poses similar risks to those in the traditional financial system — such as operating a trading platform or providing custody services — is subject to regulation that ensures equivalent outcomes, as defined by the UK Parliament.The IOSCO report also suggests that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) should disclose information regarding ownership and control of crypto-assets, issuer and business-related information, issuer management teams, transaction history and operational description of crypto-assets, token ownership concentration, transfer protocols, and a given CASP’s treatment of the client crypto-assets and their respective rights and entitlements during events like hard forks and airdrops.Hurdles to overcomeExperts at the forum reflected these considerations in their sentiments. Han Suh-hee, a lawyer at Barun Law Firm, emphasized that it is important to determine what kind of information should be disclosed. She argued that it is necessary to discuss to what extent information about virtual asset issuers should be disclosed and whether mandating firms to disclose their financial and business conditions is efficient.In particular, Han underlined the need to consider the differences between virtual assets and stocks when establishing a framework for the disclosure of virtual assets holdings. Unlike stocks, virtual assets possess distinctive characteristics like their borderless and decentralized nature, unclear issuer backgrounds, and the ability to conduct peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions.Lee Han-jin, a lawyer at Kim & Chang Law Firm, added that the enactment of Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act was aimed at establishing a system directly targeted at regulating virtual assets and virtual asset service operators (VASPs) — a significant development from the Financial Transaction Reporting Act, which had until now been the only legal framework responsible for regulating VASPs along with other entities like casino business operators. Virtual assets are now subject to a more systematized regulatory approach.However, he said that the Virtual Asset User Protection Act still has its setbacks because it is undergoing a two-stage legislative process. Lee criticized the fact that the same definition of VASPs outlined in the Financial Transaction Reporting Act had been brought over, which limits their identity to transaction intermediaries, wallet operators, and custodians while overlooking their other roles like crypto management, crypto deposits, and crypto collective investments.Lee also pointed out another weakness: the scope of prohibition on using undisclosed information and market manipulation is broader in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act than in the Capital Markets Act. He argued that enforcement decrees should stipulate the definition of insiders and exceptional cases when deliberating on the prohibition of insider virtual asset trading.Lee thus emphasized the need for a clear definition of virtual assets in the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, as it is yet unclear whether they are objects or assets. All things considered, he believes there must be a law that can encompass blockchain-based decentralization, outline the similarities and differences between digital assets and financial products, and accommodate new services that utilize smart contracts.“We are in the process of creating a regulatory system similar to those being adopted in other countries based on their respective markets,” said Lee Seok-ran, head of the Financial Innovation Bureau at the Financial Services Commission (FSC). “Unlike the stock market, which is equipped with regulations to prevent fraudulent transactions and misconduct, virtual assets are traded on multiple exchanges, so we are considering how to interpret unfair trading activities and conduct market surveillance.”She explained that the commission is prioritizing user protection measures and subordinate regulations. “I believe we will be able to create a system for subordinate regulations on disclosure once an overall global trajectory is established. But before that happens, we are working on guidelines for defining unfair trading activities with regulators and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA).” Unfair trading activities associated with virtual assets include not only those conducted on exchanges but also under other circumstances.The FSC officer said that the financial authority is set to establish legal criteria to distinguish cases such as false statements in white papers of crypto projects. She added that enforcement decrees will define both the conditions for restricting deposits and withdrawals on crypto exchanges and the corresponding limits.

news
Policy & Regulation·

Feb 17, 2024

Ethiopia may be embracing Bitcoin mining with new data mining partnership

Ethiopian Investment Holdings, the largest sovereign wealth fund in Africa, has announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU), which is suspected to involve a deal on Bitcoin mining. Deal uncertaintyTaking to LinkedIn on Feb. 15, the sovereign wealth fund outlined details of a partnership with Data Center Service, a subsidiary of Hong Kong’s West Data Group. Separately, Kal Kassa, CEO of Ethiopian operations at Hashlabs Mining, posted on the X social media platform, outlining that it was a stakeholder in the project and that it involved Bitcoin mining. The matter lacks full confirmation however, given that Kassa subsequently deleted his post while the sovereign fund’s statement falls short of mentioning Bitcoin mining. Once verified, the project would signify a substantial investment of $250 million. It’s understood that the investment would be directed towards the establishment of state-of-the-art infrastructure tailored for data mining and artificial intelligence (AI) training operations within Ethiopia.Photo by Kelly on PexelsExploiting abundant energy resourcesA key component of this venture may involve the setup of Bitcoin mining operations utilizing Canaan Avalon miners. This initiative would align with Ethiopia's broader strategy to capitalize on its abundant energy resources to attract international investment and stimulate economic growth.Ethiopia has about 5,200 MW of installed generation capacity, 90% of it coming from hydropower and the remainder from wind and thermal sources. While the official confirmation from the government is pending, the ambitious project has sparked both excitement and skepticism within the industry. Concerns linger regarding the energy-intensive nature of Bitcoin mining and its potential strain on the local electricity supply, an issue of particular relevance in a nation where energy accessibility remains a pressing challenge for many. Bloomberg reportEarlier this month, a report from Bloomberg highlighted Ethiopia as being a new haven for Chinese crypto miners. Following the imposition of a mining ban in China in 2021, many operations were redeployed overseas. Kazakhstan in particular was a popular choice. The Eurasian country wasn’t prepared for the influx, leading to power blackouts.Hashlabs Mining co-founders Jaran Mellerud and Alen Makhmetov both featured in the article. Mellerud outlined the difficulty, stating:“Firstly, countries can run out of available electricity, leaving no room for miners to expand. Secondly, miners can suddenly be deemed unwelcome by the government and be forced to pack up and leave.”Makhmetov outlined that he had a 10 MW facility in Kazakhstan which still sits idle today as curbs and taxes enforced in Kazakhstan on miners “basically killed the industry.” Despite these difficulties in Kazakhstan and China's official ban on cryptocurrency trading, the legalization of Bitcoin mining in Ethiopia in 2022 has spurred a notable influx of Chinese miners seeking new investment avenues. Ethiopia will need to be mindful of the difficulties experienced in Kazakhstan. With that, the Ethiopian government's move towards regulating cryptographic products, including mining activities, reflects a measured yet optimistic approach towards harnessing the economic potential of Bitcoin mining. This regulatory framework aims to strike a balance between fostering sector growth and safeguarding the country's energy security and environmental commitments.  

news
Policy & Regulation·

Dec 07, 2023

Japan mulls unrealized crypto gains tax exemption

Japan mulls unrealized crypto gains tax exemptionJapanese lawmakers are currently in discussions about a proposal that could exempt companies from paying taxes on unrealized cryptocurrency gains.Photo by Joshua Tan on UnsplashReforming aggressive crypto tax policyThe plan is anticipated to be incorporated into the fiscal 2024 tax reform agenda, according to a report published by Nikkei Asia on Wednesday.Up until now, Japan has had some of the most aggressive tax rates where cryptocurrencies are concerned when compared internationally. At the moment, corporations have to pay a 30% tax on crypto holdings regardless of whether they’ve sold those digital assets or not. The policy has been criticized broadly by crypto sector participants in Japan. It is seen as inequitable, considering that Japan taxes profits from stocks at a flat 20%.Corporate tax exemptionThe proposal, currently under deliberation by Japan’s ruling coalition, specifically targets Japanese companies holding digital assets for purposes other than short-term trading. If approved, these firms may be granted an exemption from corporate tax, contingent on mark-to-market valuations at the close of the fiscal year.Mark-to-market valuations involve assessing the fair values of assets with periodic fluctuations, such as cryptocurrencies. This exemption is expected to benefit various entities, including venture capital (VC) firms, non-fungible token (NFT) businesses and other blockchain companies holding cryptocurrencies for payment purposes. Additionally, crypto issuers, who are also crypto holders, would not be subjected to these taxes.Policymakers from the Liberal Democratic Party and the ruling coalition partner Komeito engaged in discussions on Tuesday regarding these potential tax exemptions.Bringing clarity to crypto taxationThis move is part of Japan’s ongoing efforts to bring clarity to crypto taxation. In June, the National Tax Agency clarified that crypto issuers in the country would not be liable to pay capital gains taxes on unrealized gains, fostering a more conducive environment for crypto-related businesses.Japan has been actively reviewing its crypto tax policies since last year, aiming to incentivize companies to stay in the country. This initiative follows the departure of several startups due to heavy tax burdens.Industry reactionWith news of this potential Japanese crypto tax reform breaking, crypto community members haven’t wasted any time in providing their thoughts. Taking to the X social media platform, Sota Watanabe, the founder of the Astar Network multichain dApp hub, wrote:”Good move. This is what I requested multiple times to the government over years. Once this issue is solved this year, all companies, especially big enterprises, can hodl crypto like ASTR much easier. Japan weighs ending tax on some corporate crypto holdings.”Former Goldman Sachs Portfolio Manager and Web3 investor, Steve Lee, said that this is “another big move in Japan that would help enterprises push their crypto business.”The Financial Services Agency (FSA), Japan’s top financial regulator, recently submitted legislation-change requests to the government, seeking alterations to the taxation of domestic crypto firms. Critics argue that the existing rule has impeded innovation in the crypto-asset and blockchain sectors, placing an undue burden on companies.On Oct. 16, major businesses in Japan, through the Japan Association of New Economy (JANE), urged the government to implement crypto tax reforms in 2024. Their appeal emphasizes the potential for reduced tax rates to stimulate growth and increase tax revenue.

news
Loading