For a lot of the final decade, cryptocurrency disputes in Australia sat awkwardly on the edges of the authorized system. Courts had been requested to cause by analogy, regulators experimented with enforcement methods, and compliance groups had been left to interpret how far present frameworks may stretch. Throughout 2025, that uncertainty narrowed sharply. Digital belongings moved decisively into the mainstream of Australian industrial, prison, insolvency and regulatory litigation. Throughout superior courts nationwide, judges confirmed a transparent willingness to deal with cryptocurrency not as a authorized curiosity, however as one thing able to becoming inside orthodox authorized ideas. On the identical time, regulators intensified their use of present monetary companies legislation.
Australia is already effectively superior in creating digital asset laws, shifting past reliance on present monetary companies legislation. The Federal Authorities has publicly dedicated to a devoted regulatory framework for crypto and digital asset platforms, together with licensing and custody obligations, with laws launched and progressing by means of parliamentary processes, specifically the Companies Modification (Digital Belongings Framework) Invoice 2025.
Towards this backdrop, the Excessive Court docket of Australia in February 2026 granted particular go away to attraction in Poulton v Conrad, a case that will decide whether or not Bitcoin is property able to being possessed at frequent legislation.
Is cryptocurrency “property” beneath Australian legislation?
Australian courts have approached the property standing of cryptocurrency incrementally. One of many earliest and most cited choices is Re Blockchain Tech Pty Ltd, the place the Supreme Court docket of Victoria held that Bitcoin is property.
Justice Attiwill recognized a number of options that supported this conclusion. Bitcoin is identifiable by subject material as an digital coin, identifiable by third events by means of a public ledger, actively traded in international markets, able to being excluded from third-party interference, and sufficiently secure by means of its ledger-based document. Collectively, these traits aligned Bitcoin with different recognised types of intangible property akin to money owed, shares and mental property rights.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court docket drew on worldwide authority, together with the New Zealand Excessive Court docket’s determination in Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd, the place cryptocurrency was recognised as intangible private property able to being held on belief. Justice Attiwill additionally referred to extra-judicial commentary suggesting that Australian courts would probably undertake this place when immediately confronted with the problem.
Later instances have each constructed on and refined this reasoning. In Poulton v Conrad, the Tasmanian courts went additional, holding that cryptocurrency might be possessed for the needs of the torts of detinue and conversion. Management of personal keys was ample to determine possession, a conclusion that intentionally departed from the extra cautious view expressed in Re Blockchain Tech that intangible digital belongings couldn’t be possessed or bailed. This marked a transparent judicial shift towards treating cryptocurrency as absolutely practical property relatively than merely property in identify.
Cryptocurrency as property in prison legislation
The property evaluation has additionally translated into prison legislation. In Yeates v The King, the Victorian Court docket of Attraction held that Bitcoin is able to being stolen beneath the Crimes Act.
The case concerned a former Australian Federal Police officer who had misappropriated 81.6 BTC. The Court docket rejected the argument that Bitcoin was merely data and subsequently incapable of theft. As a substitute, it held that Bitcoin glad the basic indicia of property. It was definable, identifiable, able to assumption by third events, and sufficiently everlasting. This determination firmly embedded cryptocurrency inside the mainstream of prison property offences.
Cryptocurrency in insolvency and fiduciary responsibility instances
Regardless of this, Australian courts have additionally demonstrated little hesitation in making use of orthodox insolvency and fiduciary ideas to digital belongings.
In Mirror Buying and selling Worldwide v Went, the Federal Court docket ordered the return of Bitcoin obtained as a part of an uncommercial transaction arising from a world crypto Ponzi scheme. The Court docket handled the Bitcoin switch no otherwise from a switch of fiat or different property and quantified the clawback obligation in Australian {dollars} utilizing the alternate fee on the date of judgment. That strategy supplies sensible steering for insolvency practitioners coping with risky digital belongings.
Equally, in Ex NF Pty Ltd v Munneke, a director’s declare that cryptocurrency beneath his unique management was personally owned failed. The Court docket traced the funds and held that cryptocurrency bought with firm cash remained firm property all through its conversion into different digital belongings and eventual realisation into fiat. Unique management of personal keys didn’t override fiduciary obligations.
Cryptocurrency and tax: not international foreign money beneath Australian legislation
The place Australian courts have drawn a transparent line is in taxation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal squarely addressed this difficulty in Seribu Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2020] AATA 1840, contemplating whether or not Bitcoin is “international foreign money” for the needs of the Revenue Tax Evaluation Act 1997.
The dispute turned on Division 775, which applies to international foreign money beneficial properties and losses. The taxpayer argued that Bitcoin fell inside the statutory definition of international foreign money as “a foreign money apart from Australian foreign money.” Submissions relied on Excessive Court docket authority exhibiting that “foreign money” needn’t be confined to cash issued by a sovereign state, and on parliamentary supplies indicating an intention to seize all international alternate beneficial properties inside the tax web.
The Tribunal rejected that argument. It held that, for the needs of the Act, “international foreign money” should be learn as referring to an official foreign money issued by a sovereign state. Whereas Bitcoin could perform as a medium of alternate and fulfill a normal definition of foreign money, it didn’t meet the narrower statutory that means adopted by the tax laws. The Tribunal expressly famous that any change to this place was a matter for Parliament, not the courts.
The sensible consequence is evident. Bitcoin is just not international foreign money for Australian earnings tax functions, and Division 775 doesn’t apply. This discovering is more likely to prolong to different decentralised cryptocurrencies.
Regulatory enforcement and monetary companies legislation
Alongside judicial developments, regulators have examined how far present monetary companies legislation can attain. The Australian Securities and Investments Fee has efficiently relied on managed funding scheme provisions to intervene in crypto-related choices that pool investor funds and promise returns.
That strategy culminated within the winding up of the NGS Digital Mining Scheme, and continues to be refined by means of appellate litigation akin to ASIC v Web3 Ventures and ASIC v Pockets Ventures. These instances underline that regulatory characterisation relies upon not solely on know-how, however on the authorized type of the rights created and the character of the consideration concerned.
The Excessive Court docket intervention in Poulton v Conrad: is Bitcoin property able to possession?
Additional readability could quickly come from the Excessive Court docket of Australia, which has granted particular go away to listen to an attraction in Poulton v Conrad on 5 February 2026. The attraction squarely raises the query of whether or not Bitcoin is property able to being possessed at frequent legislation, a degree on which Australian courts have taken more and more progressive however not completely uniform approaches. Whereas decrease courts accepted that cryptocurrency constitutes property, the attraction focuses on whether or not management exercised by means of non-public keys satisfies the authorized idea of possession, which underpins cures akin to conversion and detinue.
The Excessive Court docket’s determination is anticipated to resolve this doctrinal uncertainty and supply authoritative steering on how conventional possession-based ideas apply to decentralised digital belongings. Its ruling may have important implications for prison legislation, insolvency, secured transactions and enforcement, and should decide the complete availability of proprietary cures in relation to cryptocurrency beneath Australian legislation.
Comparability with the UK: statutory readability versus judicial evolution
Australia’s place contrasts sharply with the UK. In England, Wales and Northern Eire, the Property (Digital Belongings and so on) Act locations digital belongings squarely inside the statutory idea of non-public property. The UK strategy supplies legislative certainty and reduces reliance on judicial analogy.
Australia has reached most of the identical outcomes with no devoted statute. Recognition of cryptocurrency as property has emerged by means of prison instances, insolvency proceedings and personal legislation disputes, whereas taxation legislation has taken a extra restrictive view. For compliance professionals, this implies Australian crypto danger assessments should stay delicate to context. An asset could also be property for one goal and excluded for an additional.
Key takeaways on cryptocurrency compliance in Australia
Cryptocurrency is recognised by Australian courts as a type of property, able to being owned, transferred, held on belief, stolen and subjected to insolvency cures, with courts more and more making use of orthodox property ideas to digital belongings.
Management of personal keys has emerged as the sensible basis for questions of possession and possession, though the exact authorized standing of “possession” is now earlier than the Excessive Court docket in Poulton v Conrad, the place authoritative steering is anticipated.
Bitcoin and different decentralised cryptocurrencies will not be handled as international foreign money for Australian earnings tax functions, that means Division 775 doesn’t apply until Parliament amends the statutory framework.
Australian regulators are efficiently counting on present monetary companies and managed funding scheme legal guidelines to manage crypto merchandise that perform like conventional monetary preparations, even within the absence of bespoke digital asset laws.
Australia’s strategy stays judicially pushed and context-specific, contrasting with the UK’s statutory recognition of digital belongings as property, which supplies better baseline certainty for market individuals and compliance groups.
For a lot of the final decade, cryptocurrency disputes in Australia sat awkwardly on the edges of the authorized system. Courts had been requested to cause by analogy, regulators experimented with enforcement methods, and compliance groups had been left to interpret how far present frameworks may stretch. Throughout 2025, that uncertainty narrowed sharply. Digital belongings moved decisively into the mainstream of Australian industrial, prison, insolvency and regulatory litigation. Throughout superior courts nationwide, judges confirmed a transparent willingness to deal with cryptocurrency not as a authorized curiosity, however as one thing able to becoming inside orthodox authorized ideas. On the identical time, regulators intensified their use of present monetary companies legislation.
Australia is already effectively superior in creating digital asset laws, shifting past reliance on present monetary companies legislation. The Federal Authorities has publicly dedicated to a devoted regulatory framework for crypto and digital asset platforms, together with licensing and custody obligations, with laws launched and progressing by means of parliamentary processes, specifically the Companies Modification (Digital Belongings Framework) Invoice 2025.
Towards this backdrop, the Excessive Court docket of Australia in February 2026 granted particular go away to attraction in Poulton v Conrad, a case that will decide whether or not Bitcoin is property able to being possessed at frequent legislation.
Is cryptocurrency “property” beneath Australian legislation?
Australian courts have approached the property standing of cryptocurrency incrementally. One of many earliest and most cited choices is Re Blockchain Tech Pty Ltd, the place the Supreme Court docket of Victoria held that Bitcoin is property.
Justice Attiwill recognized a number of options that supported this conclusion. Bitcoin is identifiable by subject material as an digital coin, identifiable by third events by means of a public ledger, actively traded in international markets, able to being excluded from third-party interference, and sufficiently secure by means of its ledger-based document. Collectively, these traits aligned Bitcoin with different recognised types of intangible property akin to money owed, shares and mental property rights.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court docket drew on worldwide authority, together with the New Zealand Excessive Court docket’s determination in Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd, the place cryptocurrency was recognised as intangible private property able to being held on belief. Justice Attiwill additionally referred to extra-judicial commentary suggesting that Australian courts would probably undertake this place when immediately confronted with the problem.
Later instances have each constructed on and refined this reasoning. In Poulton v Conrad, the Tasmanian courts went additional, holding that cryptocurrency might be possessed for the needs of the torts of detinue and conversion. Management of personal keys was ample to determine possession, a conclusion that intentionally departed from the extra cautious view expressed in Re Blockchain Tech that intangible digital belongings couldn’t be possessed or bailed. This marked a transparent judicial shift towards treating cryptocurrency as absolutely practical property relatively than merely property in identify.
Cryptocurrency as property in prison legislation
The property evaluation has additionally translated into prison legislation. In Yeates v The King, the Victorian Court docket of Attraction held that Bitcoin is able to being stolen beneath the Crimes Act.
The case concerned a former Australian Federal Police officer who had misappropriated 81.6 BTC. The Court docket rejected the argument that Bitcoin was merely data and subsequently incapable of theft. As a substitute, it held that Bitcoin glad the basic indicia of property. It was definable, identifiable, able to assumption by third events, and sufficiently everlasting. This determination firmly embedded cryptocurrency inside the mainstream of prison property offences.
Cryptocurrency in insolvency and fiduciary responsibility instances
Regardless of this, Australian courts have additionally demonstrated little hesitation in making use of orthodox insolvency and fiduciary ideas to digital belongings.
In Mirror Buying and selling Worldwide v Went, the Federal Court docket ordered the return of Bitcoin obtained as a part of an uncommercial transaction arising from a world crypto Ponzi scheme. The Court docket handled the Bitcoin switch no otherwise from a switch of fiat or different property and quantified the clawback obligation in Australian {dollars} utilizing the alternate fee on the date of judgment. That strategy supplies sensible steering for insolvency practitioners coping with risky digital belongings.
Equally, in Ex NF Pty Ltd v Munneke, a director’s declare that cryptocurrency beneath his unique management was personally owned failed. The Court docket traced the funds and held that cryptocurrency bought with firm cash remained firm property all through its conversion into different digital belongings and eventual realisation into fiat. Unique management of personal keys didn’t override fiduciary obligations.
Cryptocurrency and tax: not international foreign money beneath Australian legislation
The place Australian courts have drawn a transparent line is in taxation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal squarely addressed this difficulty in Seribu Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2020] AATA 1840, contemplating whether or not Bitcoin is “international foreign money” for the needs of the Revenue Tax Evaluation Act 1997.
The dispute turned on Division 775, which applies to international foreign money beneficial properties and losses. The taxpayer argued that Bitcoin fell inside the statutory definition of international foreign money as “a foreign money apart from Australian foreign money.” Submissions relied on Excessive Court docket authority exhibiting that “foreign money” needn’t be confined to cash issued by a sovereign state, and on parliamentary supplies indicating an intention to seize all international alternate beneficial properties inside the tax web.
The Tribunal rejected that argument. It held that, for the needs of the Act, “international foreign money” should be learn as referring to an official foreign money issued by a sovereign state. Whereas Bitcoin could perform as a medium of alternate and fulfill a normal definition of foreign money, it didn’t meet the narrower statutory that means adopted by the tax laws. The Tribunal expressly famous that any change to this place was a matter for Parliament, not the courts.
The sensible consequence is evident. Bitcoin is just not international foreign money for Australian earnings tax functions, and Division 775 doesn’t apply. This discovering is more likely to prolong to different decentralised cryptocurrencies.
Regulatory enforcement and monetary companies legislation
Alongside judicial developments, regulators have examined how far present monetary companies legislation can attain. The Australian Securities and Investments Fee has efficiently relied on managed funding scheme provisions to intervene in crypto-related choices that pool investor funds and promise returns.
That strategy culminated within the winding up of the NGS Digital Mining Scheme, and continues to be refined by means of appellate litigation akin to ASIC v Web3 Ventures and ASIC v Pockets Ventures. These instances underline that regulatory characterisation relies upon not solely on know-how, however on the authorized type of the rights created and the character of the consideration concerned.
The Excessive Court docket intervention in Poulton v Conrad: is Bitcoin property able to possession?
Additional readability could quickly come from the Excessive Court docket of Australia, which has granted particular go away to listen to an attraction in Poulton v Conrad on 5 February 2026. The attraction squarely raises the query of whether or not Bitcoin is property able to being possessed at frequent legislation, a degree on which Australian courts have taken more and more progressive however not completely uniform approaches. Whereas decrease courts accepted that cryptocurrency constitutes property, the attraction focuses on whether or not management exercised by means of non-public keys satisfies the authorized idea of possession, which underpins cures akin to conversion and detinue.
The Excessive Court docket’s determination is anticipated to resolve this doctrinal uncertainty and supply authoritative steering on how conventional possession-based ideas apply to decentralised digital belongings. Its ruling may have important implications for prison legislation, insolvency, secured transactions and enforcement, and should decide the complete availability of proprietary cures in relation to cryptocurrency beneath Australian legislation.
Comparability with the UK: statutory readability versus judicial evolution
Australia’s place contrasts sharply with the UK. In England, Wales and Northern Eire, the Property (Digital Belongings and so on) Act locations digital belongings squarely inside the statutory idea of non-public property. The UK strategy supplies legislative certainty and reduces reliance on judicial analogy.
Australia has reached most of the identical outcomes with no devoted statute. Recognition of cryptocurrency as property has emerged by means of prison instances, insolvency proceedings and personal legislation disputes, whereas taxation legislation has taken a extra restrictive view. For compliance professionals, this implies Australian crypto danger assessments should stay delicate to context. An asset could also be property for one goal and excluded for an additional.
Key takeaways on cryptocurrency compliance in Australia
Cryptocurrency is recognised by Australian courts as a type of property, able to being owned, transferred, held on belief, stolen and subjected to insolvency cures, with courts more and more making use of orthodox property ideas to digital belongings.
Management of personal keys has emerged as the sensible basis for questions of possession and possession, though the exact authorized standing of “possession” is now earlier than the Excessive Court docket in Poulton v Conrad, the place authoritative steering is anticipated.
Bitcoin and different decentralised cryptocurrencies will not be handled as international foreign money for Australian earnings tax functions, that means Division 775 doesn’t apply until Parliament amends the statutory framework.
Australian regulators are efficiently counting on present monetary companies and managed funding scheme legal guidelines to manage crypto merchandise that perform like conventional monetary preparations, even within the absence of bespoke digital asset laws.
Australia’s strategy stays judicially pushed and context-specific, contrasting with the UK’s statutory recognition of digital belongings as property, which supplies better baseline certainty for market individuals and compliance groups.
