header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
07 July 2023 / Lauren Pardoe
Issue: 8032 / Categories: Features , Profession , Cyber , Technology , Cybercrime
printer mail-detail

Cryptocurrency watch: tiptoeing through the tulips

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
129411
Could software developers be held accountable in cryptocurrency hacking cases? Lauren Pardoe considers the definition of ‘fiduciary’ in a fast-developing area of the law
  • A recent jurisdiction challenge has raised the question of whether cryptocurrency network developers are accountable as fiduciaries.
  • The Court of Appeal concluded it is possible for developers to meet the fiduciary definition.
  • This may have implications for victims of cryptocurrency fraud.

Cryptocurrency is a new and fast-developing area, in which there has to date been little in the way of judicial intervention, and in which there is little regulation. The argument lies in whether the developers of cryptocurrency networks, working on behalf of bitcoin owners, are accountable as fiduciaries if such networks are hacked, as seen in Tulip Trading Ltd (a Seychelles company) v Van Der Laan and others [2023] EWCA Civ 83, [2023] All ER (D) 27 (Feb).

Case summary

This claim was brought by a Seychelles-registered company, Tulip Trading Ltd, which is the owner of some bitcoin (valued at

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll