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
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
