The precedent was created by the 9th Arbitration Court of Appeal in the decision that it issued on May 7 of this year. For the first time, the court recognized the cryptocurrency as property, while the court ordered the bankrupt debtor to transfer information to the bankruptcy trustee, with the help of which the latter will have the opportunity to freely access the contents of the crypto wallet. This was done in order to include its contents in the bankruptcy estate. Indeed, the case is unique, since the current legislation does not define a cryptocurrency, and also does not regulate transactions for its circulation and use.
Civil legislation gives a clear concept of objects of civil rights, which include: things, including cash and documentary securities, other property, property rights; intellectual property. As you can see, the Germany WhatsApp Number List concept of cryptocurrency does not fall under any of the designated terms. What are the consequences of this decision?
The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, in its decision dated May 7, 2018, for the first time recognized cryptocurrency as property and ordered the bankrupt debtor to give the bankruptcy trustee access to the contents of the crypto wallet to include it in the bankruptcy estate. Indeed, the case is unique, since the concept of cryptocurrency is not regulated in any way by the current legislation.
Thus, Article 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation gives the concept of objects of civil rights, which include: things, including cash and documentary securities, other property, including property rights; results of work and provision of services; protected results of intellectual activity and equivalent means of individualization (intellectual property); intangible benefits. As you can see, the concept of cryptocurrency does not fall under any of the terms designated by Article 128 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
And the essence of the dispute was that, as part of the bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy estate of the debtor was formed, in which it was proposed to include the amount of funds in bitcoins held in the debtor's crypto wallet. The debtor's lawyer was against it, pointing out that Art. 128 of the Civil Code does not designate such a type of property as cryptocurrency.