In May 2019, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (the “UKJT”) of the LawTech Delivery Panel published its public consultation paper on the status of cryptoassets and distributed ledger technology, as well as the enforceability of smart contracts, under English private law. While much of the literature around cryptoassets in the legal context has been centred on their regulation, the UKJT’s consultation paper focuses on the legal characterization of these instruments themselves. In this article, we consider how cryptoassets can be defined using the existing vocabulary of English private law and the implications of this characterization.

There is still no single agreed definition of cryptoassets. The consultation adopts a broad definition of the term as being “often used to describe something which is, or of which at least a component is, represented by certain data (often, although not necessarily, recorded on a distributed ledger) which, by virtue of the design of a broader system, can only be updated upon the satisfaction of specific conditions.”

Under what circumstances would a cryptoasset be characterized as personal property?

This question is fundamental to realizing both the inherent nature and the developing potential of cryptoassets as a means of acquiring, holding and trading international securities. Characterizing a cryptoasset as personal property allows the law to recognize the legal rights of investors in this increasingly valuable asset class.

English personal property law developed in circumstances very different from today’s digital age, but has proved itself capable of innovation in the service of commercial practice. Taking that as the starting point, a close examination of cryptoassets reveals a striking resemblance with traditional types of personal property. In particular, “security tokens”[1] “capture” the obligations of the issuer under a security; the token is a means of recording and transferring title to the securities. The traditional analogue is the bearer security, which is a type of “documentary intangible” – which means that, by legal fiction, the instrument is deemed to constitute and not merely evidence the debt of the issuer.[2]

“Exchange tokens”[3] differ from security tokens and bearer securities because they do not represent or constitute financial claims against an issuer. However, they also share functional similarities with recognized types of bearer instruments – for example, they can be lost for all practical purposes.

Let’s alight on the concept of the “documentary intangible”:

Documentary intangibles are instruments or documents that are so much identified with the obligation embodied in them that the appropriate way to perform or transfer the obligation is through the medium of the document. The abstract intangible right acquires such a degree of concretized expression that it takes on some of the characteristics of a chattel. The document recording the right is itself a tangible thing and thus a chattel, and the right is thoroughly fused with the document”.[4]

Documentary intangibles benefit from the principle of negotiability, which gives them a privileged status over and above other types of personal property. It is  possible to acquire good title to a negotiable instrument from a thief![5] This is the feature that allows transactions in bearer securities to take place without the legal uncertainty that might otherwise arise. Indeed, whilst the current ways in which international securities are transferred have significantly reduced the operational risk associated with the settlement of securities transactions, with electronic transfers across the books and records of regulated custodians replacing movements of paper, thereby increasing liquidity in capital markets, they are inferior from a legal certainty standpoint to dealing in negotiable paper instruments[6]. The documentary intangible/negotiable instrument thesis for analyzing cryptoassets would seem to allow us to have the best of the worlds of digitization and negotiability.

An understandable reaction to the documentary intangible/negotiable instrument analysis is to observe that cryptoassets are not documents or even necessarily evidenced by documentation! However, “documentary intangible” and “negotiable instrument” are not concepts that are “fixed” or “stereoptyped”[7] (in other words, the concepts can be expanded to accommodate new types of assets if that accords with the practice of market participants). Therefore, even without legislation, commercial custom may also come to demand that at least some types of cryptoassets be negotiable[8], which would make them a powerful tool for the international capital markets.

If the documentary intangible/negotiable instrument analogy is not considered the appropriate model for analyzing cryptoassets, rest assured that English law recognizes other means of conferring title to intangible assets that could be applied. For instance the UKJT paper asks whether a distributed ledger could be a register of title (like the CREST system operated by Euroclear UK & Ireland for the settlement of UK shares). For the reasons explained above, amongst others, negotiable instrument status is preferable but the registration model is conceivable too.

Ultimately, it should depend on what the market wants.


Characterizing cryptoassets as personal property has wide-reaching implications on how they can be owned, used and transferred. By refusing to make too much of the formal differences between cryptoassets and traditional asset classes and grounding the analysis of cryptoassets within the established doctrines of English private property law, the secondary questions of how they function, and a starting point for how they should be regulated, fall into place intuitively. For example, the means of transfer of title (arguably, by delivery[9]), whether security can be validly granted over them (yes), how they are to be treated for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 (as “property” within the meaning of section 436), whether they are  “goods” under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (no because, arguably, they are “things in action”[10]) and whether they are “transferrable securities” (we may first need to reconsider the current regulatory framework for securities settlement) become more straightforward.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the established concepts within English property law already present a robust and viable structure for the classification of cryptoassets. Even if we do have to expand our current understanding of traditional concepts, we may not need to reinvent the wheel. The focus can instead be shifted to developing a suitable regulatory framework to mitigate the risks of dealing in cryptoassets.

Going forward

The UKJT plans to publish its conclusions in the late summer of 2019 which should provide greater legal clarity and investor confidence. Cryptoassets are only in their infancy, but answering the questions the UKJT’s consultation asks will help us pin down what they fundamentally are, and shape the discourse of the how going forward in what promises to be an ever-changing space.


[1] The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) identifies as “security tokens” cryptoassets whose characteristics means that they constitute shares, debt or other types of regulated investments (see FCA CP19/3 on “Guidance on Cryptoassets”, available at

[2] J. Benjamin, Interests in Securities (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000) 2.05.

[3] The FCA classifies cryptoassets that are not issued or backed by any central authority and are intended and designed to be used as a means of exchange as “exchange tokens” (FCA CP19/3). Bitcoin is a commonly cited example of an exchange token under this taxonomy.

[4] M. Bridge, Personal Property Law 3rd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002) p.18 (emphasis added).

[5] A bona fide holder of a negotiable instrument takes free from any defect in title of predecessors.

[6] See Financial Markets Law Committee, “Analysis of the need for and nature of legislation relating to property interests in indirectly held investments securities, with a statement of principles for an investment securities statute”, July 2004, pg 13, available at

[7] See Goodwin v Robarts (1875) LR 10 Exch 337, per Cockburn CJ holding that mercantile custom was to be adopted by common law as it evolved.

[8] S. Green & F. Snagg, “Intermediated Securities and Distributed Ledger Technology”, in L. Gullifer and JH. Payne (eds.), Intermediation and Beyond (Oxford, Hart, 2019), p. 348.

[9] If they are negotiable instruments.

[10] Section 61(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979: ““goods” includes all personal chattels other than things in action and money, and in Scotland all corporeal moveables except money…”. The category of “things in action” for these purposes is thought to include shares and other securities, debts, bills of exchange and other negotiable instruments. We therefore argue that cryptoassets are things in action.

On May 2, 2019, a court in the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) held that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) lacked the statutory authority to charter nondepository special purpose national banks (the so-called “FinTech Charter”).  In denying, with one exception, the OCC’s motions to dismiss claims by New York’s Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), the Court held that the OCC could not charter a nondepository “national bank” because the National Bank Act “unambiguously requires that, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, only depository institutions are eligible to receive national bank charters from the OCC.”   Continue Reading Federal District Court Rules OCC Lacks Authority to Issue FinTech Charters

On April 11, 2019, the French parliament adopted a law (the “Loi Pacte”or “Law”)[1] that establishes a new regulatory framework for initial coin offerings (“ICOs”) of blockchain based tokens by entities established or registered in France.  At the heart of the Law’s ICO provisions is an innovative framework that will allow issuers to request an optional visa from the French Financial Markets Authority (the “AMF”) prior to undertaking an ICO.  ICOs of tokens that are not financial instruments will still be permitted without a visa, but the expectation is that issuers obtaining the visa for an offering of such tokens will have a distinct advantage relative to offers that lack such approval.  ICO issuers that do not obtain a visa also will be subject to restrictions on certain kinds of advertising and sales methods.  By “white-listing” issuers serious enough to seek and obtain an AMF visa, France hopes to give investors a new tool for screening out potentially fraudulent offers and help ICO issuers establish the investor confidence necessary to secure funding.  Many of the details of the new framework will be specified in implementing regulations to be adopted by the AMF, which are expected to be issued shortly after the Law is officially promulgated.  The AMF published an overview of its planned regulations on April 15, 2019, providing further clarity on how the regime will work in practice.[2] Continue Reading France’s Parliament Adopts an Innovative New Framework for Approving Initial Coin Offerings

On April 3, 2019, staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission released (1) a framework providing principles for analyzing whether a digital asset constitutes an investment contract, and thus a security, as defined in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. and (2) a no-action letter permitting TurnKey Jet, Inc., without satisfying registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, to offer and sell “tokenized” cards that are recorded on a permissioned blockchain and can be used for the limited purpose of purchasing air charter services.

The framework and no-action letter are a logical expansion of prior SEC statements and actions applying Howey to digital assets, but raises important interpretative issues for newly issued digital assets.

Please click here to read the full alert memorandum.

The United States offers an innovative and diverse marketplace along with a sound infrastructure for new cryptocurrency and digital asset businesses.  However, the U.S. regulatory framework for digital asset businesses creates significant barriers to innovation and risks frittering away the potential benefits of the U.S. markets’ creativity. One of the chief challenges for today’s cryptocurrency businesses, especially those offering exchange, trading, or custody services, is the fragmented and inconsistent state law framework currently applied to many of those businesses.  Continue Reading The Conference of State Banking Supervisors Seeks to Improve Consistency of FinTech Regulation, but Questions Remain

On March 12, the SEC’s Division of Investment Management (“Division”) published a letter from Paul G. Cellupica, Deputy Director and Chief Counsel of the Division, to Karen Barr, President and CEO of the Investment Advisor Association, laying out a number of issues under Rule 206(4)-2 (the “Custody Rule”).  The letter included a request for information on possible revisions to the Custody Rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 focused on a series of open-ended questions on the intersection between digital assets and the Custody Rule. Continue Reading SEC Seeks Comments on Key Issues Around Custody of Digital Assets

On February 26, 2019, Steven Maijoor, the Chair of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), delivered a keynote speech to the 3rd Annual FinTech and Regulation conference in Brussels.  In his speech, he highlighted ESMA’s recent initiatives in the crypto-asset and distributed ledger technology (DLT) space and noted ongoing areas of focus. Continue Reading ESMA Chair Delivers Keynote Speech on Crypto Assets and Distributed Ledger Technology

On February 20, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”) issued a cease-and-desist order against Gladius Network LLC (“Gladius”) concerning its 2017 initial coin offering (“ICO”).  The SEC found that the Gladius ICO violated the Securities Act of 1933’s (“Securities Act”) prohibition against the public offer or sale of any securities not made pursuant to either an effective registration statement on file with the SEC or under an exemption from registration.[1]  While this is far from the first time that the SEC has found that a particular ICO token meets the definition of a “security” under the Securities Act,[2] this is notably the first action involving an ICO token issuer that self-reported its potential violation.  Due to this, and Gladius’s cooperation throughout the investigation, the SEC stopped short of imposing any civil monetary penalties among its ordered remedial measures. Continue Reading SEC Issues First ICO Enforcement Action Against a Self-Reporting Token Issuer

On January 22, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”)[1] released its 2019 Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter (the “Letter”).  The Letter highlights material new priorities for FINRA examinations in the coming year, as well as priorities in areas of ongoing concern.  The topics highlighted in this year’s Letter reflect FINRA’s increasing focus on its members’ interaction with, and adoption of, innovative financial technologies, as well as its implicit acknowledgement of the ability for such innovations to assist in regulatory compliance.  The new priorities highlighted in the Letter include several related to FinTech, including online distribution platforms, use of regulatory technology (or “RegTech”), and supervision of digital asset businesses.  In priority areas of ongoing concern, the Letter confirmed that FINRA will continue to focus on reviewing the adequacy of firms’ cybersecurity programs.  Below we detail FINRA’s discussion of these priorities and analyze them in the context of other recent guidance and enforcement actions. Continue Reading FINRA 2019 Examination Priorities Letter Includes Focus on FinTech and Cybersecurity

On December 21, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced settlements with two robo-advisors, Wealthfront Advisers LLC (Wealthfront) and Hedgeable Inc. (Hedgeable), for making false statements about investment products and engaging in misleading advertising in violation of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (Act). These settlements mark the SEC’s first enforcement actions against robo-advisors and serve as a reminder that, although technology may change how an investment adviser operates, the SEC expects full compliance with all requirements of the Act. Continue Reading The SEC Announces First Enforcement Actions Against Robo-Advisors