Arbitration analysis: This is a relatively rare instance of English courts refusing to recognise and enforce an arbitration award on the basis that doing so would be contrary to UK public policy. The case is a notable addition to the growing case law dealing with crypto-assets disputes, which are spurring the courts to look anew at the impact of the enforcement of awards on public policy in this sphere of financial activity. Mr Chechetkin is a UK-domiciled lawyer. In 2020, he used a cryptocurrency exchange platform operated by Payward’s UK subsidiary to acquire trading positions. He incurred losses in excess of £600,000 on the platform and initiated proceedings in the English courts to recover his funds, arguing that Payward’s operations were unauthorised in the UK, and thus that his contract with Payward was unenforceable under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). Payward’s terms and conditions governing trading on the platform provided that any disputes be resolved through Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (‘JAMS’) arbitration in San Francisco. Payward started arbitration proceedings pursuant to its terms and obtained an award in 2022 declaring that it bore no liability to Mr Chechetkin, and that Mr Chechetkin was required to arbitrate his disputes with Payward. Payward started enforcement proceedings before the English courts. Mr Chechetkin invoked section 103(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), whereby the court may refuse enforcement on the ground of ‘public policy’. In this case, the public policy grounds are the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) and the FSMA. Written by Sophie Nappert, independent arbitrator at 3 Verulam Buildings and co-founder of ArbTech, and Elisabeth Zoe Everson, co-founder of ArbTech.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has updated its webpage on registrations under the cryptoassets: anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CTF) regime, to note that firms can request a pre-application meeting with the regulator. Firms must register with the FCA if they want to provide cryptoasset services that come within the scope of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published updated statistics for September 2024 on the applications for registration made to it by cryptoasset businesses under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (MLRs) and the outcomes of the applications that have been determined. In the month up to 1 September 2024, four applications were determined—three were rejected, one was withdrawn and none were refused. Since January 2020, just 14% of applications have resulted in registration under the MLRs.

TMT analysis: Cryptoasset firms must get ready for the UK’s financial promotion regime or risk fines and jail sentences for illegal ads, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has warned. Although the rules for crypto ads have yet to be finalised, the FCA confirmed on 6 February 2023, it is likely to require specific risk warnings and ‘positive friction’ measures, such as a 24-hour cooling-off period, to give customers time to reflect on their purchases.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court continued a proprietary and worldwide freezing injunction against an unidentified fraudster who had induced the claimant to transfer Bitcoin worth approximately €2.6 million and maintained a Bankers Trust disclosure order against the operator of a cryptocurrency exchange alleged to hold the traced assets. The court held that there was a good arguable case in deceit, that the claimant’s cryptoassets remained identifiable notwithstanding pooling transactions, and that there was a clear risk of dissipation. The judgment also confirms the availability of CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(25) as a gateway for service out in support of Bankers Trust relief and demonstrates the court’s willingness to require disclosure from overseas cryptoasset exchanges where traced assets are believed to be held.

is a digital asset or currency (such as Bitcoin) that takes the form of tokens or ‘coins’ that are located on a decentralised, electronic payment system. Such tokens or coins can be used to purchase services or goods, but are often traded in a similar way to commodities

This Practice Note on cryptoassets (a form of digital asset) for dispute resolution lawyers explains what cryptoassets are and why it is important for dispute resolution lawyers to understand how they work and how they arise in their work, ie the types of claim that may arise (often involving cryptocurrencies) whether centrally in the claim or in the peripheral factual matrix. See: Cryptoassets for dispute resolution lawyers—overview for recognition of the broader scope of digital asset (such as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and digital securities) to which similar issues may arise with regard to the recognition of the status of such assets under English law in terms of the creation, protection and enforcement of rights, particularly given their intangible nature, the new technologies in which they exist/are created and the largely international (and therefore apparently fluid) flavour generally associated with such assets. Note, this is a developing area of law, for which see Practice Note: Tracker—cryptoassets for Dispute Resolution lawyers (although this does not cover the regulatory aspects of digital assets and

This Practice Note provides in summary tabular format a listing of the 2026 key and/or illustrative decisions of the courts of England and Wales on cases involving cryptoassets (cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs)), smart contracts and digital securities. For earlier judgments, see Practice Note: Cryptoassets for Dispute Resolution lawyers—key and illustrative decisions [Archived]. For general guidance on cryptoassets for dispute resolution layers, see: • Practice Note: Cryptoassets for Dispute Resolution lawyers • Practice Note: Crypto and digital assets—what are they and how do they work? • Practice Note: Digital assets—legal status and development • Issues in cryptoasset related civil claims—checklist and related content. To keep up-to-date on the work of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (set up under the LawTech Delivery Panel), whose objective is ‘to demonstrate that English law and the jurisdiction of England and Wales together provide a state-of-the-art foundation for the development of DLT [distributed ledger technology], smart contracts and associated technologies’ and related developments, see Practice Note: Tracker—cryptoassets for Dispute Resolution lawyers. Case details and analysis Nature of dispute Key

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note on cryptoassets for dispute resolution lawyers tracks judicial decisions on cases involving cryptoassets (cryptocurrencies, NFTs), smart contracts and digital securities for the period 2018–2025. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For cases from 2026 onwards, see Practice Note: Cryptoassets for Dispute resolution lawyers—illustrative decisions (2026). As the landscape of cryptoassets and smart contracts continues to develop, the lawmakers likewise are turning their attention to how best to provide for the resolution of disputes involving such novel technologies. This Practice Note provides in summary tabular format a listing of the key and/or illustrative decisions of the courts of England and Wales on cases involving cryptoassets (cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs)), smart contracts and digital securities. For general guidance on cryptoassets for dispute resolution layers, see: • Practice Note: Cryptoassets for Dispute Resolution lawyers • Issues in cryptoasset related civil claims—checklist To keep up-to-date on the work of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (set up under the LawTech Delivery Panel), whose objective

What are cryptoassets and why are they frequently involved in criminal activity? For the purpose of this Practice Note, we adopt the following definition of a cryptoasset: data held on a blockchain which has been given certain characteristics meaning that the data is deemed to be an asset in its own right. See further, Practice Note: Web 3.0, digital assets and cryptoassets-essentials. Cryptoassets have a number of characteristics which render them particularly susceptible to involvement in criminal activity. Arguably the most important of these is the decentralised framework and system in which they (typically, in a normal permission-less blockchain environment) exist and function. This is best explained by way of an example: in order to transfer money electronically, one (effectively) must employ the services of a third party to facilitate the transfer, who will record certain details about the transaction, including, most pertinently, the identity of the payer and the payee. The third party will also likely be regulated and therefore have some

This Practice Note looks at the treatment of cryptoassets such as Bitcoin in family law proceedings, as well as how cryptocurrencies work and their legal and tax status. The approach to cryptoassets within family proceedings is also considered, including as to tracing and disclosure, valuation, expert evidence, and preservation and enforcement. Cryptoassets came into being in 2009 with the emergence of Bitcoin. There is, however, no generally accepted definition of a cryptoasset. Law Society guidance (produced in collaboration with Tech London Advocates and the Society for Computers & Law) refers to distributed ledger technologies (DLT), which are ‘a group of technologies that use different techniques and structures to store, synchronise and maintain a shared ledger of digital records across a network of computing centres’. The guidance uses the term ‘cryptoassets’ to refer to any asset ‘represented digitally on a DLT platform’. The term ‘virtual assets’ may also be encountered. The type of cryptoasset most frequently encountered in family law proceedings is exchange tokens such as Bitcoin, often referred to under the heading ‘cryptocurrency’. Other forms of cryptoasset

Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note provides an overview of the key risks for consumers from various types of cryptoassets and resultant products, such as staking, as well as the current types of consumer protections measures available and/or being considered. What are cryptoassets? One of the hurdles in relation to understanding non-traditional currencies and assets lies in the inconsistent use of language. Regulators and tax authorities, as well as commentators, refer variously to digital currencies, virtual currencies, cryptocurrencies, cryptoassets and crypto tokens, and it is not always clear whether they are using the terms interchangeably or with the specific meaning of each in mind. For more information about how these terms are defined, see Practice Note: Web 3.0, digital assets and cryptoassets—essentials. In this Practice Note, unless otherwise stated, the term ‘cryptoassets’ is used as described in section 417(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended from time to time) (FSMA 2000). Under section 417, a cryptoasset ‘means any cryptographically secured digital representation of value