Choice of law issues in crypto-assets

I presented a paper entitled “Conflict of Laws in Blockchain-Based Crypto-Assets” at the Journal of Private International Law Conference on 12 September 2019 in Munich. As the time was limited, I focused on choice of law issues and discussed four broad categories of issues. They were (1) contractual issues, (2) issues of non-contractual obligations, (3) proprietary issues, and (4) issues pertaining to negotiable instruments.
The powerpoint slides prepared for the presentation are attached here. Some takeaways are set out in the last slide. It was meant to make the following points there.

The crypto-assets are unfit to be deemed to be money for the choice-of-law purposes because, inter alia, none of them is currently used as a medium of exchange and it is not possible to draw a line between the crypto-assets which are deemed to be money and those which are not so deemed.

The crypto-assets are difficult to be localised in a single country because they are contained in distributed ledgers on a borderless blockchain. The localisation may exceptionally be possible where all the nodes validating the blocks are by design located in a single country. 

The crypto-assets will pose no particular difficulty in relation to the connecting factors which rely principally on real-life facts and events. Thus, for example, the country with which a contract, tort, or unjust enrichment is most closely connected may be ascertained without particular difficulty stemming from the use of crypto-assets. The ascertainment of the country with which a proprietary issue is most closely connected would be more difficult because the relevant events are mostly on-chain facts.

The crypto-assets will pose no particular difficulty in relation to the principle of party autonomy because the only question for the latter is whether to give effect to the parties’ own choice. Given the difficulty of finding an appropriate connecting factor for proprietary issues in crypto-assets, it is arguable that the principle of party autonomy should be extended to proprietary issues where there is a uniform network-wide choice of law clause. How a single choice of law can be secured is, however, another question.

Conflict of Laws in Blockchain-Based Crypto-Assets

The Journal of Private International Law will be holding its 8th Conference at the University of Munich from 12-14 September 2019. In response to a call for papers, I have submitted the following abstract. I only mentioned choice-of-law issues because of the word limit. In my actual paper, I may as well touch on jurisdictional issues.

This paper will consider a range of choice-of-law issues arising from crypto-assets on blockchains.

(1) Contractual issues. Suppose that a contract is concluded pursuant to which bitcoins are offered to purchase goods. Given that cryptocurrencies are not a fiat currency and might not be seen as goods, is that contract to be characterised as a “sale of goods”, a “barter of goods”, or a “barter of service for goods” for the choice-of-law purposes? Aside from the question of characterization, blockchains will not raise particularly difficult choice-of-law questions in contract since party autonomy is almost universally adopted.

(2) Issues of non-contractual obligations. If bitcoins are stolen and the victim seeks redress from the offender in tort, where is “the country in which the damage occurs”? Again, if bitcoins are transferred by mistake and the transferor demands restitution from the transferee in unjust enrichment, where is “the country in which the unjust enrichment took place”? Such connecting factors raise difficulties because crypto-assets are recorded in distributed ledgers on a borderless network and accordingly cannot be localised in any specific country. But since obligations are owed by, and to, specific persons, it should not be too difficult to identify, as an alternative connecting factor, the country with which the issue in question is most closely connected.

(3) Proprietary issues. If the provider of a cryptocurrency exchange is entrusted with bitcoins from its customers and becomes bankrupt, the customers may seek proprietary restitution from the bankruptcy administrator. Then, what law is applicable? Unlike tangible assets, for which the prevailing choice-of-law rules specify the lex situs, there is no settled choice-of-law rules for intangible assets. With respect to emissions quotas, a species of intangible assets which, like crypto-assets, are financially valuable, I previously argued for the application of the law of the country where they are registered (“Conflict of Laws in Emissions Trading” (2011) 13 Yearbook of Private International Law 145). But this connecting factor would be unworkable with crypto-assets since they are not recorded on a national registry but on distributed ledgers. So proprietary issues of crypto-assets pose a great challenge to the approach of choice of law. Noting this challenge, I previously suggested applying the law of the country with which the issue in question is most closely connected (A note on 4 November 2015 in my blog: Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, Crypto-asset and the Law). While the task of ascertaining that law is not always easy, the subsequent emergence of consortium blockchains and a “constitution”-based public blockchain should make it easier for such blockchains.

(4) Issues pertaining to transferable documents. Suppose that a company purports to issue its stocks or debentures on a blockchain. What law determines whether they are legally valid stocks or debentures? This question is important because the blockchain technology ensures the uniqueness of record, an essential feature of any electronic form of transferable documents. The clarification of law in this area will be a key to developing the “token economy.”

"Implications of the Blockchain Technology for the UNCITRAL Works" – published.

It has come to my attention that my article “Implications of the Blockchain Technology for the UNCITRAL Works” had been published from the United Nations in November last year.
The 50th anniversary Congress was a big occasion for UNCITRAL and it was my great honour to be part of it.
Here is my article excerpted from the book.

An additional note: In my original manuscript, there were some references to specific chapter numbers. I have noticed that in the published version, they have been changed to “Ch. 0” due to the editorial work which has removed all the chapter numbers from the headings. To see where those were actually referring to, please consult my original manuscript here.

Implications of the Blockchain Technology for the UNCITRAL Works

I will be presenting my thoughts on the subject above in the upcoming Congress of the UNCITRAL for the celebration of its 50th anniversary (4-6 July 2017).

My paper currently on the Congress website is a version which I sent to the UNCITRAL Secretariat some months ago and which no longer represents my latest thinking in some significant respects. I am asking the Secretariat to replace it with the latest version, to which I make a link from here. 

The paper gives a particular emphasis on the topic of proprietary restitution of blockchain-based tokens as an area which calls for a globally unified solution.

Postscript: As from 16 June, the Congress website carries the latest version. Many thanks to the Secretariat for swiftly acting on my request. 

Law applicable to a restitutionary claim arising from a mistaken remittance

The bitcoin addresses are randomly generated long alphanumeric strings and prone to be mistyped. If bitcoin is transferred to a wrong address by mistake, what law is applicable to a restitutionary claim by the transferor against the transferee?
This post will consider this question under the Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations) as it is an influential instrument in private international law. Its Article 10 contains choice-of-law rules for unjust enrichment in the following terms:

1. If a non-contractual obligation arising out of unjust enrichment, including payment of amounts wrongly received, concerns a relationship existing between the parties, such as one arising out of a contract or a tort/delict, that is closely connected with that unjust enrichment, it shall be governed by the law that governs that relationship.
2. Where the law applicable cannot be determined on the basis of paragraph 1 and the parties have their habitual residence in the same country when the event giving rise to unjust enrichment occurs, the law of that country shall apply.
3. Where the law applicable cannot be determined on the basis of paragraphs 1 or 2, it shall be the law of the country in which the unjust enrichment took place.
4. Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the non-contractual obligation arising out of unjust enrichment is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, the law of that other country shall apply.

In most cases of mistaken remittance, para. 3 will be applicable. Its connecting factor is the occurrence of the unjust enrichment, as distinguished from the occurrence of the event giving rise to the enrichment.
The application of this provision to mistaken remittance of a bank deposit is not particularly difficult. If, for example, A mistakenly transfers money from his Italian bank account to B’s bank account in Spain, Spanish law is applicable to A’s restitutionary claim against B. It has been suggested that in localising the situs of enrichment, the discrete asset, rather than the centre of wealth of the enriched person, should be focused on (Huber / Huber / Bach, Rome II Regulation (2011), Art. 10, para. 28). Thus, even if B lives in Portugal and maintains all assets there, it is immaterial.
The application of para. 3 is not as simple in the case of remittance of cryptocurrency such as bitcoin, since there is no such thing as a bank account. Remittance of cryptocurrency takes place between addresses on a blockchain. The addresses are not associated with any physical location, unlike bank accounts. Neither is it possible to localise the blockchain since it is a distributed ledger. Faute de mieux, the unjust enrichment should be deemed to have taken place at the habitual residence of the enriched person. The concept of “habitual residence” is elaborated on at Article 23 in the following terms:

1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the habitual residence of companies and other bodies, corporate or unincorporated, shall be the place of central administration.
Where the event giving rise to the damage occurs, or the damage arises, in the course of operation of a branch, agency or any other establishment, the place where the branch, agency or any other establishment is located shall be treated as the place of habitual residence.
2. For the purposes of this Regulation, the habitual residence of a natural person acting in the course of his or her business activity shall be his or her principal place of business.

Paragraph 2 would not be applicable in the context presently discussed because the person enriched by receiving a mistakenly remitted cryptocurrency would not be deemed to be “acting in the course of his or her business activity.” Nor would the second sentence of paragraph 1 be applicable since it seems only concerned with the habitual residence of a tortfeasor.

Choice-of-law aspects of the judgment on the ownership of bitcoins

As I mentioned in my earlier post, the Tokyo District Court in its judgment on 5 August 2015 denied the ownership (more precisely, “shoyûken” in Japanese) of bitcoins. In that post, I have also noted that translating “shoyûken” into the English word “ownership” may be misleading.

In this post, I will look at the choice-of-law aspects. The judgment is based on the assumption that Japanese law was the applicable law without giving any reasons. Nor did either party discuss choice-of-law issues (according to the Court’s summary of their arguments).

The scope of the bankruptcy estate of MTGOX is surely a matter for Japanese law since the bankruptcy proceedings opened in Japan. The effect of Japanese bankruptcy proceedings extends to all assets of the bankrupt wherever in the world they are situated. This follows from the repeal in 2000 of the then Article 3(1) of the Bankruptcy Act which provided:

The bankruptcy which is declared in Japan shall only have effect on the asset of the bankrupt situated in Japan.

The bankruptcy estate of MTGOX, therefore, covers all bitcoin units wherever situated. Here, the borderless nature of the blockchain poses no problem.

On the other hand, it is not as obvious that Japanese law was the governing law of the plaintiff’s ownership-based claim to recover the bitcoin units. On the face of it, the application of Japanese law may seem uncontroversial since there were no strong foreign elements in that case: the plaintiff was an individual residing in Kyoto and the defendant was the bankruptcy representative of the bankrupt MTGOX, a Tokyo-based company, appointed in the Japanese bankruptcy proceedings. But as I noted in my earlier post, choice-of-law rules for determining the ownership of intangible property are not well-established and, depending on the connecting factor to be adopted, the borderless nature of the blockchain may make it difficult to localise bitcoin units in a particular country. If the plaintiff had been a foreigner residing abroad (which would not have been a remote possibility since a majority of the creditors of MTGOX are such persons), the parties and the court might have felt it necessary to address the choice-of-law question.

Difficulty of localisation in choice of law in other areas

In my earlier post, I have noted the difficulty of localising cryptocurrency for the purpose of choice of law for proprietary issues.

The difficulty of localisation in choice of law is not unique to blockchain. The high seas and outer space, too, present the same difficulty since no nation exercise sovereignty over such space. The difficulty does not solely concern proprietary issues but could also arise with respect to other issues such as tort, for which the applicable choice-of-law rules may specify the law of the place of the harmful event. I will discuss three approaches to get around this difficulty below.

One approach is to come up with an alternative connecting factor. Thus, where a ship is involved, its flag may be used as a connecting factor. In a case involving a collision of ships on the high seas, the Sendai District Court in its judgment on 19 March 2009 cumulatively applied the laws of the flag states to a tort claim for damages. It is not, however, easy to conceive of similar connecting factors for cryptocurrencies since their units are stateless by nature.

Another approach is to apply the law of the country with which the issue in question is most closely connected. This approach was taken by the Tokyo High Court in its judgment on 28 February 2013 when it determined the law applicable to a tort claim for damages caused by dangerous cargoes on board a ship while the ship was in transit on the high seas. Since a major (if not the most important) goal of choice of law rules is to ascertain the law of the country with which the issue is most closely connected, this approach pursues this goal directly without relying on other more concrete concept as a connecting factor. This approach could also be taken to determine the proprietary issues of cryptocurrency. But a drawback of this approach is the lack of certainty and predictability since all the relevant factors must be taken into account on a case-by-case basis.
A third approach is to unify the substantive rules of national legal systems. The unification of substantive rules, to the extent it is achieved, dispenses with the need for choice of law. The Cape Town Convention and its Space Protocol would offer many lessons when we consider proprietary issues of cryptocurrencies.

Choice of law rules for proprietary issues

In my earlier post, I have noted why legal ownership of cryptocurrency matters. The use of cryptocurrency as a collateral is also imaginable. 

The prerequisites for acquiring such proprietary rights and their effect are to be determined by legal rules. In the absence of internationally uniform rules, an applicable national legal system must be determined by choice-of-law rules of the country in which such issues are litigated or considered.

With respect to a tangible item, proprietary issues are subject to the law of the country where it is situated (lex situs or lex loci rei sitae) under the prevailing choice of law rules. With respect to intangible goods, choice-of-law rules are not as well established. In one of my articles, I have argued that the proprietary issues of an emissions quota, a species of intangible goods, should be subject to the law of the country where it is registered. 

Cryptocurrency is intangible. It is also a financially valuable data (information) as is an emissions quota. However, unlike the latter which is registrable on a national registry, cryptocurrency is registered on a blockchain which is borderless. This makes it difficult to localise cryptocurrency in a particular country for choice-of-law purposes.