Felix Ng published an article to critically review how the common law has coped so far, in giving effect to property rights in cryptocurrency for civil fraud cases. He gives an analysis on (1) how misdiverted cryptocurrency can be traced into crypto-exchange platforms; and (2) how should the governing law (lex situs) for cryptoassets be determined.
Felix Ng explains how a crypto-fraud victim can trace their misdiverted cryptoassets into crypto-exchange platforms, drawing from traditional principles of tracing applicable to bank accounts:-
“This is analogous to the situation when banks are in receipt of stolen funds: the banknotes are comingled (and are no longer traceable), but the plaintiff (victim of the fraud) is still able to trace to specific bank account credit held by the fraudster. Surely, when asserting a proprietary claim on a fraudster’s bank account, a plaintiff is not ploughing into the bank’s safe to find the original earmarked banknotes defrauded from him: the plaintiff is instead pointing to substituted assets which represent the original stolen banknotes – i.e. the customer’s credit which is ascribed to the fraudster by the bank, upon the bank’s receipt of those banknotes. The same mechanism applies to a plaintiff who has paid cryptocurrencies pursuant to fraudsters’ instructions. Once cryptocurrencies are paid into a crypto-exchange, a customer credit arise in favour of fraudster. The plaintiff traces to that customer credit (not the original coins), and then assert a claim of constructive trust over that customer credit.”
The same article also argues from a conflict of laws point of view, that the governing law of cryptocurrency: should be the same law applicable to the underlying transaction that gives rise to the proprietary claim asserted over the subject cryptocurrency. This obviates the need to determine the lex situs of cryptocurrencies – since by nature, cryptocurrencies are decentralized and do not have a precise location:-
“True, English choice of law rules look traditionally to the law of the place where the property is physically situated as the governing law of the property claim. Given the decentralized nature of cryptocurrency, it is not meaningful to pinpoint the location of the property. The problem with looking instead at the domicile of the person seeking to recover cryptocurrencies can lead to arbitrary results – given the fact that some jurisdictions are yet to recognize cryptocurrency transactions as being valid. I respectfully submit (differing from Professor Dickinson’s view) that the lex situs for crypto-assets should be the governing law of the underlying obligation transaction, which gives rise to the property claim (e.g. if a tort of deceit was committed, and the tort has given rise to a claim for the recovery of crypto-asset, then the governing law of the tort should also be the lex situs for the crypto-asset). The rationale is that the subsistence of property rights depends on the nature of the underlying transaction, not where the plaintiff comes from.”
The full article can be read here. The citation of the article is:-
F Ng, “Blockchain, Cryptocurrency and Asset Recovery Litigation For Web 3.0 Hong Kong”, Hong Kong Lawyer (Thomson Reuters, March 2024), at pp 52-60.
伍樂恒大律師就普通法如何為加密貨幣擁有人， 在商業詐騙案件中保護其物權 ， 撰寫了一片文章 。伍樂恒論述商業詐騙的受害人 ， 如何用傳統普通法之下物權追蹤的原則 ， 把虛擬資產的物權追蹤到加密貨幣交易平台中:
「這個情況等同於銀行收到一疊騙徒騙回來的鈔票 。 受害人要追蹤自己被騙取的鈔票 ， 並非要記住每張被騙的鈔票的號碼， 然後打開銀行的夾萬 ， 翻箱挖籠把那些鈔票逐張找回來 。 受害人的鈔票被放進了銀行 ， 受害人的鈔票必然混入了銀行 本身的其他鈔票 。 受害人要做的，是要把自己的物權追蹤到收款人戶口的結餘 。 銀行收到了鈔票 ， 就把收款人的戶口對應地增加結餘 。 增加的戶口結餘 ， 取代了原先的鈔票 、 作為可被受害人追蹤的替代財產 。 同一個道理 ， 受害人被騙徒行騙 ，把加密貨幣繳付給交易所 ， 受害人也可以把自己的物權 ， 追蹤到交易所給收款人予以增加的存款餘額 (而並非原本的加密貨幣)。構定信託應該被加諸於該存款餘額 ， 作為信託財產。」
在同一篇文章中 ，伍樂恒也從法律衝突角度出發 ， 主張加密貨幣的適用法律 ， 應當用產生出加密貨幣物權 – 的源頭交易的適用法律 – 作為管轄加密貨幣的物權的適用法律 。 這是因為加密貨幣是去中心化的 ，沒有一個確切的所在地:-
「加密資產的『財產之所在地的法律』應該是引起財產索賠的底蘊交易基本義務的管轄適用法律所管轄（例如，如果進行了欺騙侵權行為，並且該侵權行為引起了追討加密資產的主張，則該侵權行為的準據適用法律視作為該加密資產的『財產之所在地的法律』）。然而，在審訊中如何解決這一點仍有待觀察。
不錯 ，傳統上 ，在解決一個物權爭議的時候 ， 普通法會認為該財產的所在地的法律 ， 應當該財產爭議的適用法律。 可是 ，因為加密貨幣去中心化 (分散帳本是由世界各地電腦節點維持的) ，加密貨幣的所在地無法硬性定義出來 。 退而求其次 ， 選擇區塊鏈參與者的住所所在地的法律 ， 作為加密貨幣的適用法律 ，可能會導致一些隨機的結果– 並非所有法域都承認加密貨幣交易為合法有效的交易 。 為了法律更加有確定性和邏輯， 普通法應該審視 加密貨幣爭端的起因 ， 用該訴訟因的適用法律 ， 同樣用來處理該加密貨幣物權的爭端 。物權的有效性應該取決於發生了的事 ， 而並非當事人來自哪裏。Dickinson教授與我，誰對誰錯 (還是我們兩個人都錯) ， 要留待一個經過正審的案件判決 ，才自有分曉 。」
整篇文章可點擊這裏瀏覽 。該文章引述可用以下格式:
伍樂恒 。(2024年3 月)《香港WEB 3.0時代的區塊鏈、加密貨幣和資產追討訴訟》 。 香港律師會會刊 ， 第52至60 頁 。
