{"title":"转换加密资产","authors":"Jiabin Lai","doi":"10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>It is common for cryptoassets to be stolen, which raises the legal issue of whether cryptoassets can be converted. Under the current law, the tort of conversion applies only to tangibles. Cryptoassets cannot be converted because they are intangible. However, this article argues that it is arbitrary to determine whether cryptoassets are amenable to conversion based on the tangible/intangible distinction. Refusing to extend the tort of conversion to cryptoassets will lead to unfair treatment between cryptoassets and other assets. It will also provide inadequate protection for cryptoassets, which can be interfered with in ways similar to tangibles. This article argues that the tort of conversion should be extended to cryptoassets because they are property capable of possession. A tort for conversion of cryptoassets is established when a defendant has deliberately and exclusively interfered with a claimant's cryptoassets, and the defendant does not have a defence. Since conversion is a tort of strict liability, extending the tort to cryptoassets may create uncertain legal risks to third parties. To protect innocent third parties robustly, five defences should be established: innocent purchaser defence, abandonment, consent, self-help and safe harbour.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51516,"journal":{"name":"Computer Law & Security Review","volume":"55 ","pages":"Article 106060"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conversion of cryptoassets\",\"authors\":\"Jiabin Lai\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>It is common for cryptoassets to be stolen, which raises the legal issue of whether cryptoassets can be converted. Under the current law, the tort of conversion applies only to tangibles. Cryptoassets cannot be converted because they are intangible. However, this article argues that it is arbitrary to determine whether cryptoassets are amenable to conversion based on the tangible/intangible distinction. Refusing to extend the tort of conversion to cryptoassets will lead to unfair treatment between cryptoassets and other assets. It will also provide inadequate protection for cryptoassets, which can be interfered with in ways similar to tangibles. This article argues that the tort of conversion should be extended to cryptoassets because they are property capable of possession. A tort for conversion of cryptoassets is established when a defendant has deliberately and exclusively interfered with a claimant's cryptoassets, and the defendant does not have a defence. Since conversion is a tort of strict liability, extending the tort to cryptoassets may create uncertain legal risks to third parties. To protect innocent third parties robustly, five defences should be established: innocent purchaser defence, abandonment, consent, self-help and safe harbour.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"volume\":\"55 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106060\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computer Law & Security Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924001262\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Law & Security Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924001262","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
It is common for cryptoassets to be stolen, which raises the legal issue of whether cryptoassets can be converted. Under the current law, the tort of conversion applies only to tangibles. Cryptoassets cannot be converted because they are intangible. However, this article argues that it is arbitrary to determine whether cryptoassets are amenable to conversion based on the tangible/intangible distinction. Refusing to extend the tort of conversion to cryptoassets will lead to unfair treatment between cryptoassets and other assets. It will also provide inadequate protection for cryptoassets, which can be interfered with in ways similar to tangibles. This article argues that the tort of conversion should be extended to cryptoassets because they are property capable of possession. A tort for conversion of cryptoassets is established when a defendant has deliberately and exclusively interfered with a claimant's cryptoassets, and the defendant does not have a defence. Since conversion is a tort of strict liability, extending the tort to cryptoassets may create uncertain legal risks to third parties. To protect innocent third parties robustly, five defences should be established: innocent purchaser defence, abandonment, consent, self-help and safe harbour.
期刊介绍:
CLSR publishes refereed academic and practitioner papers on topics such as Web 2.0, IT security, Identity management, ID cards, RFID, interference with privacy, Internet law, telecoms regulation, online broadcasting, intellectual property, software law, e-commerce, outsourcing, data protection, EU policy, freedom of information, computer security and many other topics. In addition it provides a regular update on European Union developments, national news from more than 20 jurisdictions in both Europe and the Pacific Rim. It is looking for papers within the subject area that display good quality legal analysis and new lines of legal thought or policy development that go beyond mere description of the subject area, however accurate that may be.