ABSTRACT
This article considers the current Australian doctrinal position with regard to the proprietary nature of crypto assets in the light of recent decisions by State Supreme courts. It discusses the policy ramifications of propertising crypto assets, and why the decision in Re Blockchain Tech Pty Ltd is correct to find that Australian law does not need to follow the English practice of recognising a tertium quid but should conceive of crypto assets as a chose in action. It also discusses the doctrinal nature of tracing as a process to aid in the location and recovery of property, and the way in which this might work in a crypto asset context in Australian law. It is concluded that tracing is possible, but that in complex cases, particularly those involving fraud, crypto assets may give rise to both conceptual and factual issues which make tracing difficult.
Barnett, Katy, The Australian Approach to Crypto Assets: Another Block in the Chain (March 27, 2026).
Leave a Reply