In a landmark development for digital asset regulation, Hong Kong’s courts have reaffirmed that established legal principles—such as trust obligations and injunctions—apply equally to cryptocurrencies. This ruling offers critical clarity for businesses and individuals navigating the evolving landscape of virtual asset transactions.
The High Court of Hong Kong delivered a pivotal judgment in Nico Constantijn v. Stive Jean-Paul Dan (2022), one of the first cases in which a cryptocurrency freezing order was granted. The decision underscores that traditional legal remedies remain effective tools for protecting digital assets and recovering losses in cases of fraud or breach of duty.
Understanding the Court’s Ruling
In this case, the defendant acted as a sales agent for the plaintiff, responsible for selling Bitcoin on their behalf. However, the defendant failed to report or remit proceeds from the sales, nor did they return unsold Bitcoin. The court found that this conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
Crucially, the court ruled that the defendant held both the unsold Bitcoin and the proceeds from sold coins in trust for the plaintiff. This determination is significant because it establishes a legal framework under which digital assets can be recognized as property subject to equitable remedies like constructive trusts and freezing orders.
This precedent confirms that even in the absence of specific cryptocurrency legislation, existing common law doctrines can be effectively applied to protect virtual asset holders.
👉 Discover how secure digital asset management starts with the right legal and technical safeguards.
Why This Matters for Businesses
As cryptocurrency markets continue to mature—and face volatility—the need for robust legal protections has never been greater. Enterprises engaging in digital asset transactions must proactively implement risk mitigation strategies to safeguard their investments.
Key protective measures include:
- Formalizing agreements in writing: Clearly define roles, responsibilities, commission structures, and asset ownership.
- Maintaining comprehensive transaction records: Document wallet addresses, amounts, timestamps, and transaction hashes.
- Establishing incident response protocols: Prepare for potential fraud or unauthorized transfers with predefined legal and technical actions.
Without these safeguards, businesses risk not only financial loss but also diminished chances of successful legal recourse.
Practical Implications for Virtual Asset Transactions
1. Document Agreements Clearly
In the Constantijn case, the absence of a written agency agreement led to disputes over terms and commissions. To avoid ambiguity, parties should formalize all arrangements—especially in cross-border dealings—by specifying:
- The type and quantity of cryptocurrency involved
- Wallet addresses for sending and receiving funds
- Payment terms and fee structures
- Governing law and dispute resolution mechanisms
Choosing a clear governing law is particularly important in international transactions where parties operate across different jurisdictions.
2. Maintain Immutable Transaction Records
Every blockchain transaction generates a unique hash that can be publicly verified. By preserving these identifiers, businesses create an auditable trail of ownership and transfer history. This transparency strengthens legal claims in court and supports enforcement actions.
For example, if funds are misappropriated, a transaction hash allows investigators—and courts—to trace the flow of assets across wallets, potentially identifying third-party intermediaries such as exchanges.
3. Secure Private Keys and Recovery Phrases
Access to cryptocurrency wallets depends entirely on private keys and seed phrases. Losing them means permanent loss of access to assets—a reality emphasized by numerous high-profile cases.
Best practices include:
- Storing keys offline (cold storage)
- Using hardware wallets
- Implementing multi-signature authorization for large transfers
- Regularly backing up recovery phrases in secure locations
👉 Learn how professional-grade security protocols can protect your digital wealth.
Responding to Fraud: Time Is Critical
When fraud is suspected, swift action is essential. Delaying legal intervention may reduce the likelihood of recovering stolen assets, especially given the speed at which cryptocurrencies can be moved or laundered.
Victims should consider applying for:
- Freezing injunctions to prevent disposal of assets
- Norwich Pharmacal orders to compel third parties (e.g., exchanges) to disclose information about anonymous counterparties
- Asset tracing through blockchain analytics tools
Early engagement with legal counsel increases the chances of successful recovery and strengthens the evidentiary foundation for court proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Can cryptocurrency be legally recognized as property in Hong Kong?
A: Yes. Hong Kong courts have consistently treated cryptocurrency as property capable of being held in trust, making it subject to legal remedies like freezing orders and constructive trusts.
Q: What is a freezing injunction in the context of crypto?
A: It’s a court order that prevents a party from disposing of or transferring digital assets during ongoing litigation, preserving them for potential recovery.
Q: How can I trace stolen cryptocurrency?
A: By analyzing blockchain transaction data using specialized tools. While transactions are pseudonymous, exchanges and other intermediaries may provide identifying information when legally compelled.
Q: Do I need a written contract for crypto transactions?
A: Strongly recommended. Oral agreements are difficult to enforce, especially across borders. A written contract clarifies intent, terms, and responsibilities.
Q: What happens if my private key is lost or stolen?
A: Loss means irreversible loss of access. Theft requires immediate action—reporting to authorities, notifying exchanges, and potentially seeking emergency injunctions.
Q: Can I get help from a crypto exchange to identify a fraudster?
A: Yes, through court orders like Norwich Pharmacal or Banker’s Trust orders, which compel exchanges to disclose user information linked to wallet addresses.
Looking Ahead: Proactive Protection Is Key
The Constantijn ruling sends a clear message: Hong Kong’s legal system is equipped to handle disputes involving digital assets using well-established principles. However, courts cannot act without evidence or timely applications.
Businesses must adopt a dual strategy—combining sound legal documentation with advanced technical security—to fully protect their digital interests. As regulatory frameworks evolve globally, early compliance and preparedness will define resilience in the face of fraud.
👉 Stay ahead with secure, compliant solutions designed for the future of finance.
By integrating legal awareness with operational diligence, organizations can confidently engage in the digital economy while minimizing exposure to risk. In an era where assets are increasingly intangible, understanding your rights—and how to enforce them—is more important than ever.