This article is reproduced with authorization from Mankun Blockchain Legal Services, authors: Liu Fuqi, Jin Weilin, copyright belongs to the original authors.
In traditional divorce cases, property division is like a clear card game—real estate, savings, stocks, everything is traceable. But when cryptocurrency enters marriage, the rules suddenly become blurred.
"During the marriage, the other party accumulated a large amount of cryptocurrency, which is quite valuable. However, in court, the other party insists on not handing it over. Without any evidence, I can only watch those cryptocurrencies that could have belonged to the couple's joint property being openly withheld by the other party…"
Such cases are increasingly appearing in courts around the world. With the popularity of cryptocurrency, property division in divorce faces a new test. Its anonymity and irretrievability make the boundaries of "joint property" unprecedentedly vague.
First, according to the "Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks" issued by the People's Bank of China and other ministries in 2013, and the "Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with Risks of Virtual Currency Trading Speculation" in 2021, it is clear that cryptocurrencies and other "virtual currencies" are not recognized as legal tender and do not possess monetary attributes such as legal compensation and compulsion.
However, the above "Notices" clearly define them as "virtual goods," which means that although cryptocurrencies are not "money," their property rights as a type of virtual goods should be protected by law. Cryptocurrency holders enjoy exclusive rights to manage and trade specific virtual currencies, thus possessing property attributes similar to those of virtual goods.
Secondly, to divide any property in a marriage, the primary legal premise is to confirm it as joint property of the couple, and cryptocurrency is no exception.
The corresponding legal interpretation of joint property is as follows:
Article 1062 of the Civil Code stipulates that the income from production, operation, and investment obtained by the couple during the marriage relationship belongs to the couple's joint property.
The interpretation of the Marriage and Family section of the Civil Code (1) Article 25, Paragraph 1 and Article 26 clearly states that the income from investments made by one party during the marriage and the income generated from personal property after marriage should be recognized as joint property of the couple.
From the above legal provisions, it can be seen that whether the cryptocurrency is jointly invested by both parties or obtained by one party's personal operation, as long as it arises within the marriage relationship, its legal nature can be recognized as joint property, thus allowing it to be divided during divorce.
Although the legal level has established the principle that cryptocurrency can be divided, its decentralized and anonymous characteristics make it exceptionally easy for one party to hide assets during divorce, becoming a core difficulty in property division.
(1) Difficulty in Evidence
The anonymity of cryptocurrency makes it difficult for the party claiming division to prove the existence of assets. If they cannot provide key evidence such as wallet addresses or transaction records, the court will have no way to determine the existence of the assets, thus rejecting the request due to "insufficient evidence."
Relevant cases also confirm this point. In a certain cryptocurrency compensation dispute case (1), since the involved platform had long ceased operations, and both parties failed to provide transfer or transaction records of the cryptocurrency within the stipulated period, the asset status could not be clarified. Therefore, the court determined that one party had insufficient evidence and could not support their appeal.
(2) Difficulty in Valuation
Due to the significant price fluctuations in the cryptocurrency market, there is a lack of unified valuation standards. If both parties do not return or quantify the division of cryptocurrency within the agreed time, the court will find it difficult to ascertain the valuation results and standards.
Even if one party can prove the existence of the assets, whether both parties have agreed on the value of the cryptocurrency and how they agreed will still greatly affect the court's final ruling. The following are two common forms:
- No Agreement or Unable to Negotiate
When both parties fail to reach an agreement on the division of cryptocurrency, due to its legal qualification, value assessment, and execution peculiarities, the court usually tends not to handle or support it.
This judicial attitude is reflected in the "Liu vs. Lei and Geng Housing Sale Contract Dispute Case (2)." Liu claimed to have paid a large portion of the house payment with virtual currency, but the court ruled that he could not prove that both parties had reached an agreement and pointed out that virtual currency transactions are not protected by law, ultimately not recognizing that portion of the payment.
- Clear Agreement
In cases where both parties have reached a clear agreement on cryptocurrency and formed a written document, the court usually supports and respects the couple's self-mediation. The premise is that the agreement content is clear and explicit. The following two cases illustrate this from both positive and negative aspects:
Case 1 (3): Both parties clearly agreed on the amount and payment time of the digital currency discount in the divorce agreement, and the court recognized the agreement as valid, supporting the plaintiff's request.
Case 2 (4): Although both parties signed a loan contract agreeing to lend RMB, the actual delivery was cryptocurrency, and the conversion relationship with RMB was not clearly defined, the court ruled the contract invalid and rejected the repayment request.
The key difference between the two cases lies in whether a clear value conversion chain was established. It can be seen that in judicial practice, if both parties have reached a clear and reasonable written agreement on the value and handling of cryptocurrency, the court may recognize it; conversely, if both parties fail to reach an agreement, due to the lack of a unified valuation standard for cryptocurrency and its legality not being universally recognized, the court tends to refrain from handling or valuing it.
(3) Difficulty in Execution
Cryptocurrency faces its unique difficulties in the execution phase: the court cannot directly control the private key like freezing a traditional bank account. Even if the judgment supports property division, if the holder refuses to hand over the private key or claims "the key is lost," judicial authorities lack effective enforcement means, making it difficult to execute the judgment.
The contract dispute execution case of Lu vs. Lu (5) exemplifies this dilemma: the judgment clearly stated that Lu should deliver 60 units of a certain coin to Lu or pay 4.83 million yuan in cash. However, during execution, the court found that the respondent had no other executable assets except for over 22,000 yuan in bank deposits. Ultimately, the court could only seize that small deposit and ruled to terminate the execution procedure due to "no executable assets."
In the face of numerous difficulties in evidence, valuation, and execution regarding cryptocurrency, to make property division smoother and more secure, several directions can be pursued.
Preserve Evidence in Advance:
Given the anonymity and easy transfer characteristics of cryptocurrency, evidence preservation is particularly crucial. It is recommended to systematically sort and secure relevant cryptocurrency assets during the marriage, including wallet addresses, private keys, transaction records, and other core information. If necessary, professional institutions can be entrusted to conduct preliminary assessments of asset value. Physical devices such as cold wallets should also be managed to build a complete evidence chain, laying the foundation for subsequent claims or execution procedures.
Sign Written Agreements:
It is advisable for both parties to sign written agreements in advance, clearly stipulating the method of valuing cryptocurrency and specific division plans. The agreement should include specific clauses regarding the method of division, such as whether to use physical division or cash compensation, ensuring that the exchange link between cryptocurrency and currency is clear and unified, along with corresponding performance guarantees. Due to the frequent fluctuations in the overall market value of cryptocurrency, a well-crafted agreement can help avoid situations where the court does not recognize the legality of cryptocurrency and thus does not handle it.
Clarify Property Boundaries:
For parts clearly identified as personal property, it is recommended to manage them separately through independent wallets to avoid confusion with joint property. Establishing a clear asset boundary can protect personal property rights while effectively defining the scope of division in case of disputes, thus avoiding unnecessary conflicts.
Seek Legal Assistance:
Cryptocurrency cases involve both professionalism and legal complexity. It is advisable to consult professional lawyers with relevant field experience in drafting agreements, defining property, and handling disputes in a timely manner to systematically address potential risks and enhance the feasibility of realizing rights.
In the division of marital property, the establishment and handling of cryptocurrency have indeed become a new type of challenge.
Although some courts have recognized the property attributes of cryptocurrency as "virtual goods," its anonymity, price volatility, and execution difficulties still pose significant challenges to case handling.
Therefore, while the marriage relationship still exists, orderly management and written agreements regarding assets, including cryptocurrency, are key to reducing disputes. If both parties find it difficult to reach an agreement on their own, it is advisable to seek consultation and assistance promptly, obtaining legal support during the negotiation phase. Rational negotiation and respect for rules often leave more dignity and respect than going to court.
Related Reading: Mankun Research | How to Inherit Virtual Currency: Legal Qualification and Real Dilemmas
Original: Mankun Legal | How to Divide Crypto Assets in Divorce?
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
