For much of the last decade, cryptocurrency disputes in Australia sat awkwardly at the edges of the legal system. Courts were asked to reason by analogy, regulators experimented with enforcement strategies, and compliance teams were left to interpret how far existing frameworks could stretch. During 2025, that uncertainty narrowed sharply. Digital assets moved decisively into the mainstream of Australian commercial, criminal, insolvency and regulatory litigation. Across superior courts nationwide, judges showed a clear willingness to treat cryptocurrency not as a legal curiosity, but as something capable of fitting within orthodox legal principles. At the same time, regulators intensified their use of existing financial services law.
Australia is already well advanced in developing digital asset legislation, moving beyond reliance on existing financial services law. The Federal Government has publicly committed to a dedicated regulatory framework for crypto and digital asset platforms, including licensing and custody obligations, with legislation introduced and progressing through parliamentary processes, namely the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025.
Against this backdrop, the High Court of Australia in February 2026 granted special leave to appeal in Poulton v Conrad, a case that may determine whether Bitcoin is property capable of being possessed at common law.
Is cryptocurrency “property” under Australian law?
Australian courts have approached the property status of cryptocurrency incrementally. One of the earliest and most cited decisions is Re Blockchain Tech Pty Ltd, where the Supreme Court of Victoria held that Bitcoin is property.
Justice Attiwill identified several features that supported this conclusion. Bitcoin is identifiable by subject matter as an electronic coin, identifiable by third parties through a public ledger, actively traded in global markets, capable of being excluded from third-party interference, and sufficiently stable through its ledger-based record. Together, those characteristics aligned Bitcoin with other recognised forms of intangible property such as debts, shares and intellectual property rights.
In reaching that conclusion, the Court drew on international authority, including the New Zealand High Court’s decision in Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd, where cryptocurrency was recognised as intangible personal property capable of being held on trust. Justice Attiwill also referred to extra-judicial commentary suggesting that Australian courts would likely adopt this position when directly confronted with the issue.
Later cases have both built on and refined this reasoning. In Poulton v Conrad, the Tasmanian courts went further, holding that cryptocurrency can be possessed for the purposes of the torts of detinue and conversion. Control of private keys was sufficient to establish possession, a conclusion that deliberately departed from the more cautious view expressed in Re Blockchain Tech that intangible digital assets could not be possessed or bailed. This marked a clear judicial shift toward treating cryptocurrency as fully functional property rather than merely property in name.
Cryptocurrency as property in criminal law
The property analysis has also translated into criminal law. In Yeates v The King, the Victorian Court of Appeal held that Bitcoin is capable of being stolen under the Crimes Act.
The case involved a former Australian Federal Police officer who had misappropriated 81.6 BTC. The Court rejected the argument that Bitcoin was merely information and therefore incapable of theft. Instead, it held that Bitcoin satisfied the classic indicia of property. It was definable, identifiable, capable of assumption by third parties, and sufficiently permanent. This decision firmly embedded cryptocurrency within the mainstream of criminal property offences.
Cryptocurrency in insolvency and fiduciary duty cases
Despite this, Australian courts have also demonstrated little hesitation in applying orthodox insolvency and fiduciary principles to digital assets.
In Mirror Trading International v Went, the Federal Court ordered the return of Bitcoin received as part of an uncommercial transaction arising from a global crypto Ponzi scheme. The Court treated the Bitcoin transfer no differently from a transfer of fiat or other property and quantified the clawback obligation in Australian dollars using the exchange rate at the date of judgment. That approach provides practical guidance for insolvency practitioners dealing with volatile digital assets.
Similarly, in Ex NF Pty Ltd v Munneke, a director’s claim that cryptocurrency under his exclusive control was personally owned failed. The Court traced the funds and held that cryptocurrency purchased with company money remained company property throughout its conversion into other digital assets and eventual realisation into fiat. Exclusive control of private keys did not override fiduciary obligations.
Cryptocurrency and tax: not foreign currency under Australian law
Where Australian courts have drawn a clear line is in taxation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal squarely addressed this issue in Seribu Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation [2020] AATA 1840, considering whether Bitcoin is “foreign currency” for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.
The dispute turned on Division 775, which applies to foreign currency gains and losses. The taxpayer argued that Bitcoin fell within the statutory definition of foreign currency as “a currency other than Australian currency.” Submissions relied on High Court authority showing that “currency” need not be confined to money issued by a sovereign state, and on parliamentary materials indicating an intention to capture all foreign exchange gains within the tax net.
The Tribunal rejected that argument. It held that, for the purposes of the Act, “foreign currency” must be read as referring to an official currency issued by a sovereign state. While Bitcoin may function as a medium of exchange and satisfy a general definition of currency, it did not meet the narrower statutory meaning adopted by the tax legislation. The Tribunal expressly noted that any change to this position was a matter for Parliament, not the courts.
The practical consequence is clear. Bitcoin is not foreign currency for Australian income tax purposes, and Division 775 does not apply. This finding is likely to extend to other decentralised cryptocurrencies.
Regulatory enforcement and financial services law
Alongside judicial developments, regulators have tested how far existing financial services law can reach. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has successfully relied on managed investment scheme provisions to intervene in crypto-related offerings that pool investor funds and promise returns.
That approach culminated in the winding up of the NGS Digital Mining Scheme, and continues to be refined through appellate litigation such as ASIC v Web3 Ventures and ASIC v Wallet Ventures. These cases underline that regulatory characterisation depends not only on technology, but on the legal form of the rights created and the nature of the consideration involved.
The High Court intervention in Poulton v Conrad: is Bitcoin property capable of possession?
Further clarity may soon come from the High Court of Australia, which has granted special leave to hear an appeal in Poulton v Conrad on 5 February 2026. The appeal squarely raises the question of whether Bitcoin is property capable of being possessed at common law, a point on which Australian courts have taken increasingly progressive but not entirely uniform approaches. While lower courts accepted that cryptocurrency constitutes property, the appeal focuses on whether control exercised through private keys satisfies the legal concept of possession, which underpins remedies such as conversion and detinue.
The High Court’s decision is expected to resolve this doctrinal uncertainty and provide authoritative guidance on how traditional possession-based concepts apply to decentralised digital assets. Its ruling will have significant implications for criminal law, insolvency, secured transactions and enforcement, and may determine the full availability of proprietary remedies in relation to cryptocurrency under Australian law.
Comparison with the UK: statutory clarity versus judicial evolution
Australia’s position contrasts sharply with the United Kingdom. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act places digital assets squarely within the statutory concept of personal property. The UK approach provides legislative certainty and reduces reliance on judicial analogy.
Australia has reached many of the same outcomes without a dedicated statute. Recognition of cryptocurrency as property has emerged through criminal cases, insolvency proceedings and private law disputes, while taxation law has taken a more restrictive view. For compliance professionals, this means Australian crypto risk assessments must remain sensitive to context. An asset may be property for one purpose and excluded for another.
Key takeaways on cryptocurrency compliance in Australia
Cryptocurrency is recognised by Australian courts as a form of property, capable of being owned, transferred, held on trust, stolen and subjected to insolvency remedies, with courts increasingly applying orthodox property principles to digital assets.
Control of private keys has emerged as the practical foundation for questions of ownership and possession, although the precise legal status of “possession” is now before the High Court in Poulton v Conrad, where authoritative guidance is expected.
Bitcoin and other decentralised cryptocurrencies are not treated as foreign currency for Australian income tax purposes, meaning Division 775 does not apply unless Parliament amends the statutory framework.
Australian regulators are successfully relying on existing financial services and managed investment scheme laws to regulate crypto products that function like traditional financial arrangements, even in the absence of bespoke digital asset legislation.
Australia’s approach remains judicially driven and context-specific, contrasting with the UK’s statutory recognition of digital assets as property, which provides greater baseline certainty for market participants and compliance teams.
