Civil Law And UAE Cryptocurrency Disputes

1. Introduction

Cryptocurrency disputes in the UAE have developed from relatively novel questions about Bitcoin into a broader body of litigation involving crypto-asset ownership, custody, fraud, contractual obligations, digital wallets, private keys, stablecoins, exchanges, damages, freezing orders, and digital-asset regulation.

The subject now has particular importance in the DIFC, which established a specialist Digital Economy Court. Its current rules expressly include claims involving digital assets, cryptoassets, tokens, smart contracts, blockchain, virtual-asset service providers, DeFi, DAOs and digital payment platforms. (DIFC Courts)

A significant development is the DIFC Digital Assets Law No. 2 of 2024, which expressly treats a digital asset as intangible property and addresses concepts such as title and control. The legislation is not retrospective, so earlier disputes may have to be determined under the law applicable when the relevant events occurred. (DIFC Courts)

This area must nevertheless be approached carefully: DIFC law is not the same as ordinary onshore UAE federal civil law, and DIFC cryptocurrency decisions should not automatically be described as Federal Supreme Court or Dubai Court of Cassation precedents.

2. Meaning of a Cryptocurrency Dispute

A cryptocurrency dispute is a civil or commercial dispute involving a digital asset such as:

Bitcoin;

Ether;

stablecoins;

utility tokens;

security or investment tokens;

exchange accounts;

digital wallets;

private keys;

crypto-custody arrangements;

blockchain transactions;

DeFi arrangements;

tokenised assets.

Typical disputes include:

failure to transfer cryptocurrency;

wrongful transfer of cryptocurrency;

hacking or theft;

loss of private keys;

exchange failures;

custodial negligence;

fraudulent crypto-investment schemes;

contractual disputes involving cryptocurrency;

ownership disputes;

inheritance or succession disputes;

freezing and tracing of cryptoassets;

valuation and damages disputes;

stablecoin reserve disputes;

disputes concerning cryptocurrency exchanges;

regulatory and licensing disputes.

3. Legal Character of Cryptocurrency

One of the first questions is:

Is cryptocurrency legally capable of being treated as property?

This question is critical because property classification affects:

ownership;

transfer;

tracing;

injunctions;

freezing orders;

custody;

damages;

insolvency;

succession;

proprietary remedies.

The DIFC Court of Appeal in the Huobi litigation held that Bitcoin is property and described cryptoassets as a third category of property, rather than simply tangible property or a traditional thing in action. (DIFC Courts)

The Court explained that cryptoassets can be owned and transferred and that factual control over the asset is particularly important.

4. Cryptocurrency Is Not Necessarily the Same as Currency

An important distinction is:

property ≠ currency.

An asset can have proprietary value without necessarily being legally characterised as:

legal tender;

money;

currency;

unit of account.

This distinction became particularly important in the later Huobi retrial.

The Digital Economy Court was specifically asked whether Bitcoin constitutes "money" or "currency" and whether damages could properly be awarded in BTC rather than US dollars. Expert evidence was obtained on those questions. (DIFC Courts)

Therefore, a cryptocurrency dispute may involve two separate legal questions:

Question 1

Is the cryptoasset property?

Question 2

Does it constitute money or currency for the particular legal purpose?

The answer to one does not necessarily determine the other.

5. Contractual Cryptocurrency Disputes

Many UAE cryptocurrency disputes are fundamentally contractual.

For example:

A buyer agrees to purchase 300 BTC from a seller.

The parties may disagree about:

payment;

delivery;

wallet control;

timing;

escrow;

verification;

transfer instructions;

conditions precedent;

custody;

risk allocation.

Ordinary principles of contract formation and interpretation remain important.

The cryptocurrency technology does not eliminate the need to determine:

whether there was a contract;

who the contracting parties were;

what terms were agreed;

whether conditions precedent were satisfied;

whether a party breached the agreement;

what loss resulted.

6. Cryptocurrency Custody

Custody is one of the most difficult areas.

A custodian may have:

access to a wallet;

control over a private key;

partial control through multisignature arrangements;

contractual authority to transfer crypto;

responsibility for security.

The legal question may therefore be:

Did the custodian merely hold technical access, or did it assume legal responsibility for controlling the cryptocurrency?

This issue was central to the Huobi v Tabarak litigation.

The DIFC Court of Appeal considered whether the intermediary had assumed responsibilities concerning the 300 BTC and examined concepts including control, property, contractual obligations and duties of care. (DIFC Courts)

7. Private Keys and Control

A cryptocurrency is not ordinarily controlled like physical cash.

Control may instead depend upon:

private keys;

seed phrases;

hardware wallets;

multisignature arrangements;

exchange credentials;

smart-contract permissions.

Consequently, cryptocurrency disputes often require courts to determine:

Who actually had control over the asset?

This is why the DIFC Digital Assets Law expressly addresses control and title.

The earlier Huobi appellate decision also emphasised that the concept of "control" is more appropriate to digital assets than simply applying traditional physical possession concepts. (DIFC Courts)

8. Cryptocurrency Fraud

Fraud is a major category of cryptocurrency litigation.

Examples include:

fake investment schemes;

fraudulent token offerings;

impersonation of exchanges;

fraudulent wallet transfers;

misappropriation by employees;

fraudulent stablecoin transactions;

fake crypto trading platforms;

phishing;

private-key theft.

Civil claims may seek:

restitution;

damages;

proprietary relief;

tracing;

freezing orders;

disclosure orders;

injunctions.

Where cryptocurrency has been transferred through multiple wallets, the claimant may need sophisticated blockchain tracing evidence.

9. Cryptocurrency and Proprietary Remedies

If Bitcoin is treated as property, an injured claimant may potentially seek remedies directed at the asset itself rather than merely a monetary damages award.

These may include:

Proprietary injunction

Preventing disposal of identifiable cryptocurrency.

Freezing injunction

Restraining dealings with assets pending determination.

Tracing

Following misappropriated cryptocurrency through subsequent transactions.

Delivery or transfer

Ordering transfer of identified digital assets.

Disclosure

Requiring information necessary to identify or trace assets.

The DIFC courts have demonstrated willingness to consider proprietary and freezing relief in cryptocurrency and stablecoin disputes. (DIFC Courts)

10. Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Evidence

Blockchain records can provide important evidence concerning:

wallet addresses;

transaction hashes;

timestamps;

transfers;

transaction sequences;

amounts;

destination wallets.

However:

A blockchain record may establish that a transaction occurred without necessarily establishing who legally owned the relevant wallet.

A court may therefore need additional evidence concerning:

identity;

exchange records;

KYC documents;

private-key control;

contractual relationships;

communications;

bank transfers;

expert blockchain analysis.

11. Expert Evidence

Cryptocurrency disputes can require expert evidence concerning:

blockchain architecture;

wallet control;

transaction tracing;

token mechanics;

exchange systems;

smart contracts;

cybersecurity;

valuation;

cryptocurrency markets.

The Huobi retrial illustrates this point particularly clearly. The parties relied on cryptocurrency experts to address whether BTC was money or currency and how cryptocurrency should be legally and economically characterised. (DIFC Courts)

12. Damages in Cryptocurrency Disputes

A major issue is how damages should be calculated.

Suppose:

100 BTC are wrongfully withheld.

Should the claimant receive:

100 BTC;

the AED value of 100 BTC;

the USD value of 100 BTC;

value at the date of breach;

value at the date of judgment;

value at the date of payment?

These questions become particularly important because cryptocurrency prices can fluctuate dramatically.

The Huobi retrial expressly considered whether damages could be awarded in BTC and whether BTC should be regarded as money or currency for that purpose. (DIFC Courts)

13. Stablecoin Disputes

Stablecoins create another category of civil litigation.

A stablecoin generally attempts to maintain a value connected to an underlying reference asset, often a fiat currency.

Disputes can concern:

reserves;

redemption;

misrepresentation;

issuer obligations;

custody;

fraud;

insolvency;

asset segregation.

The Techteryx proceedings before the DIFC Digital Economy Court concerned alleged fraud relating to reserves backing a stablecoin. The Court continued proprietary and freezing injunctions concerning the dispute. (DIFC Courts)

14. Cryptocurrency Exchanges

An exchange may occupy several legal roles:

broker;

marketplace;

custodian;

technology provider;

payment intermediary;

virtual-asset service provider.

A dispute therefore requires identification of the precise service involved.

An exchange's liability may depend on:

its contractual terms;

applicable regulatory obligations;

custody arrangements;

security procedures;

representations made to customers;

causation;

negligence or other applicable liability principles.

15. Six Important UAE-Related Case Laws

Because cryptocurrency jurisprudence in the UAE is still developing, some of the most significant authorities come from the DIFC Courts, particularly the Digital Economy Court.

They should be identified as DIFC authorities, rather than ordinary onshore UAE precedents.

Case 1 — Gate Mena DMCC / Huobi v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd [2022] DIFC CFI

This was one of the region's earliest major cryptocurrency disputes.

Huobi was involved in an intended sale of 300 BTC. Tabarak acted as an intermediary in the proposed transaction. The cryptocurrency was ultimately misappropriated.

The first-instance proceedings considered:

whether Bitcoin constitutes property;

contractual obligations;

custody;

breach of confidence;

duties of care;

fiduciary duties;

regulatory obligations.

The case was subsequently appealed.

The Court of Appeal recorded that the first-instance judge had held Bitcoin to be property. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

The case established an important foundation for UAE-based cryptocurrency litigation:

Bitcoin can be treated as property for DIFC-law purposes.

Case 2 — Gate Mena DMCC / Huobi v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd [2023] DIFC CA 002

The DIFC Court of Appeal issued its judgment on 13 June 2024 under the citation [2023] DIFC CA 002.

The Court dealt extensively with:

cryptocurrency property;

control;

custody;

contractual obligations;

negligence;

fiduciary obligations;

cryptocurrency transfers.

The Court held that BTC constitutes a form of property and described it as a third category of property, distinct from conventional tangible property and things in action. (DIFC Courts)

The Court also discussed the significance of control over digital assets.

Importance

This is one of the most significant UAE-related judicial authorities concerning the proprietary status of cryptocurrency.

Case 3 — Gate Mena DMCC / Huobi v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd [2024] DIFC DEC 002

Following the Court of Appeal's decision, the matter was remitted to the Digital Economy Court for retrial.

The retrial occurred in February 2026 and involved extensive expert evidence concerning cryptocurrency.

Among the issues were:

whether a new contract existed;

contractual obligations concerning 300 BTC;

causation;

quantum;

mitigation;

whether BTC is money;

whether BTC is currency;

whether damages could be denominated in BTC.

The case demonstrates how cryptocurrency disputes have moved into the specialist Digital Economy Court. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

It demonstrates that the legal classification of cryptoassets may differ depending upon the precise legal question being determined.

Case 4 — Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Others [2025] DIFC DEC 001

This is a major stablecoin-related dispute.

The proceedings concerned alleged fraud involving reserves associated with a cryptocurrency stablecoin.

The DIFC Digital Economy Court granted proprietary and freezing injunctions and subsequently continued those orders pending further determination. (DIFC Courts)

The Court expressly noted that the legal classification of crypto coins as "currency" remained an unresolved question in the relevant context. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

The case demonstrates the availability and importance of:

proprietary remedies;

freezing orders;

asset preservation;

stablecoin-related litigation;

cross-border fraud remedies.

Case 5 — CoinMENA B.S.C. (C) v Foloosi Technologies Ltd [2026] DIFC CFI 067/2025

This is a recent DIFC cryptocurrency-related proceeding involving CoinMENA, a cryptoasset business, and Foloosi Technologies.

The DIFC Court records show multiple procedural orders in 2026, including applications for immediate judgment, strike-out relief, permission to appeal and stays concerning enforcement. (DIFC Courts)

The Court rejected the application for immediate judgment/strike-out and subsequent permission-to-appeal application did not succeed. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

The litigation illustrates that cryptocurrency disputes can involve ordinary procedural questions such as:

summary judgment;

strike-out;

appeals;

costs;

enforcement.

Crypto disputes therefore remain subject to ordinary civil-procedure safeguards.

Case 6 — Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Others — Continuing 2026 Proceedings

The Techteryx litigation has continued through 2026, with the DIFC Digital Economy Court issuing further orders concerning the proprietary and freezing relief.

The DIFC Courts' current case records show continuing orders in August and September 2026. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

This continuing litigation is particularly relevant to the modern development of UAE cryptocurrency disputes because it demonstrates that digital-asset litigation can involve:

international fraud;

stablecoins;

UAE companies;

banks;

proprietary remedies;

freezing relief;

asset preservation;

cross-border enforcement.

16. Important Supporting Authorities From Other Jurisdictions

Although the following are not UAE cases, they have influenced the development of cryptocurrency jurisprudence discussed by UAE/DIFC courts.

AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm)

The English Commercial Court accepted cryptocurrency as capable of constituting property.

The DIFC Court of Appeal discussed this authority when analysing Bitcoin's proprietary character. (DIFC Courts)

B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd

The Singapore litigation addressed cryptocurrency trading, automated contracts and digital assets.

It has been repeatedly considered in international cryptocurrency jurisprudence, including the Huobi proceedings. (DIFC Courts)

These cases are useful comparative authorities, but they should not be presented as UAE precedents.

17. DIFC Digital Assets Law 2024

The DIFC Digital Assets Law is an important legislative development.

The Court of Appeal explained that the law provides that:

a digital asset is intangible property and is neither a thing in possession nor a thing in action.

It also addresses:

title;

control;

transfer;

property rights.

The Court expressly noted that the statute was not retrospective in the Huobi litigation. (DIFC Courts)

Therefore, researchers must distinguish:

Pre-2024 disputes

Primarily governed by the law applicable at the time.

Post-8 March 2024 DIFC digital-asset disputes

Potentially governed by the Digital Assets Law, subject to the applicable jurisdiction and facts.

18. Digital Economy Court

The DIFC Digital Economy Court is especially important for cryptocurrency disputes.

Current Rule 58 defines a digital asset to include:

cryptoassets;

digital tokens;

smart contracts;

coded representations of value;

rights;

obligations;

assets;

transactions.

The Court's jurisdictional subject matter includes:

digital assets;

blockchain;

virtual-asset service providers;

cryptocurrency exchanges;

DeFi;

DAOs;

DApps;

digital payment platforms;

Web3 transactions. (DIFC Courts)

This represents a major institutional development in UAE digital-asset dispute resolution.

19. Onshore UAE Courts Versus DIFC Courts

This distinction is essential.

Therefore, Huobi and Techteryx should not be described as decisions of the UAE Federal Supreme Court.

They are decisions of the DIFC Courts.

20. Cryptocurrency and Civil Liability

A cryptocurrency claimant may potentially formulate claims based upon:

Contract

Failure to perform an agreed crypto transaction.

Tort

Loss caused by unlawful or negligent conduct, where applicable.

Restitution

Recovery of improperly transferred assets.

Proprietary claim

Claim asserting ownership of identifiable cryptoassets.

Fiduciary obligations

Where the relevant legal relationship gives rise to such duties.

Misrepresentation

False statements inducing a cryptocurrency transaction.

Fraud

Intentional deception or misappropriation.

The precise cause of action depends upon the applicable legal system and contractual relationship.

21. Cryptocurrency Theft

Suppose a custodian controls 50 BTC for a client.

An employee obtains the private key and transfers the BTC to another wallet.

The client may seek:

declaration of ownership;

proprietary injunction;

freezing order;

disclosure;

tracing;

restitution;

damages.

The fact that the blockchain records the transfer does not necessarily resolve the legal dispute.

The court may still need to determine:

who owned the BTC;

who controlled the wallet;

whether the transfer was authorised;

who received the BTC;

whether the recipient was a bona fide purchaser;

whether the asset remains identifiable.

22. Cryptocurrency and Insolvency

Crypto insolvency creates additional questions.

For example:

An exchange becomes insolvent while holding 1,000 BTC belonging to customers.

The court may need to distinguish:

company-owned cryptocurrency;

customer-owned cryptocurrency;

cryptocurrency held in custody;

segregated assets;

commingled assets.

The classification of the customer's rights can materially affect recovery.

This is another reason why recognition of cryptoassets as property is significant.

23. Cryptocurrency and Tracing

Blockchain technology can sometimes make tracing easier because transactions are publicly recorded.

However, blockchain tracing is not identical to legal tracing.

A blockchain may show:

Wallet A → Wallet B → Wallet C → Exchange D.

But the claimant may still have to establish:

who controlled Wallet A;

who controlled Wallet B;

who controlled Wallet C;

whether the same asset can legally be traced;

whether the recipient obtained value;

whether the asset was mixed with other assets.

Thus:

Technical traceability does not automatically equal legal traceability.

24. Cryptocurrency and Cross-Border Disputes

Crypto transactions are inherently capable of crossing borders.

A transaction may involve:

UAE claimant;

foreign exchange;

offshore wallet;

foreign defendant;

blockchain validators across multiple jurisdictions.

This creates jurisdictional questions concerning:

forum;

governing law;

service;

evidence;

asset location;

interim relief;

recognition of judgments;

enforcement.

The Techteryx proceedings demonstrate the international character of modern digital-asset disputes. (DIFC Courts)

25. Cryptocurrency and Arbitration

Cryptocurrency contracts frequently contain arbitration clauses.

Disputes may involve:

exchange agreements;

token-sale agreements;

investment contracts;

custody arrangements;

blockchain-development agreements;

smart-contract services.

The parties may therefore have to determine:

whether a valid arbitration agreement exists;

whether the dispute falls within its scope;

which law governs the arbitration agreement;

whether cryptocurrency-related claims are arbitrable;

whether interim measures are necessary;

how a resulting award will be enforced.

26. Smart Contracts

A smart contract creates another category of dispute.

A smart contract may automatically execute:

transfers;

payments;

token issuance;

collateral liquidation.

But an automated transaction does not necessarily eliminate traditional legal questions.

A court may still need to determine:

whether a valid agreement existed;

whether the code accurately represented the parties' agreement;

whether an error occurred;

whether a party was deceived;

whether the transaction was authorised;

who bears technological risk.

The DIFC Digital Economy Court expressly includes smart-contract disputes within its digital-economy framework. (DIFC Courts)

27. Cryptocurrency and Consumer Disputes

Retail users may bring claims against crypto platforms involving:

account freezes;

failed withdrawals;

unauthorised transactions;

misrepresentation;

platform outages;

custody;

transaction errors.

Important evidence may include:

account records;

transaction history;

wallet addresses;

platform terms;

emails;

customer-service messages;

identity-verification records.

28. Regulatory Compliance

A cryptocurrency business operating in the UAE may also face questions concerning:

licensing;

AML requirements;

customer identification;

market conduct;

custody;

financial promotions;

sanctions compliance;

consumer protection.

Civil liability and regulatory liability should not automatically be conflated.

A regulatory violation may be evidence relevant to a civil claim, but the claimant must still establish the elements of the particular civil cause of action.

29. Major Legal Issues in UAE Cryptocurrency Litigation

The principal issues can be summarised as follows:

A. Classification

Is the token property, money, currency, security or another legal category?

B. Ownership

Who legally owns the asset?

C. Control

Who controlled the private key or wallet?

D. Contract

What did the parties agree?

E. Custody

Did an intermediary assume responsibility for safeguarding the asset?

F. Fraud

Was the transaction induced or affected by deception?

G. Evidence

Can blockchain records establish the relevant facts?

H. Valuation

How should cryptocurrency losses be valued?

I. Interim relief

Can the asset be frozen or preserved?

J. Jurisdiction

Which court has authority?

K. Regulation

Was the relevant business legally authorised?

L. Enforcement

How can a judgment concerning cryptocurrency actually be implemented?

30. Case-Law Comparison

The DIFC Courts' records confirm that cryptocurrency disputes are now being handled within a specialised digital-economy judicial structure rather than being treated merely as conventional commercial disputes. (DIFC Courts)

31. Practical Example

Assume:

Company A agrees to sell 500 BTC to Company B.

B pays USD 30 million.

A transfers the BTC to an intermediary wallet.

The intermediary's employee releases the private-key information to a fraudulent purchaser.

The BTC is transferred to several wallets.

Company B could potentially seek:

declaration concerning ownership;

proprietary relief;

freezing orders;

disclosure orders;

blockchain tracing;

damages;

restitution;

interest;

costs.

The court would then examine:

contract;

payment;

authority;

wallet control;

private-key security;

intermediary obligations;

blockchain evidence;

causation;

identification of assets;

applicable law.

This illustrates why cryptocurrency disputes require both traditional civil-law analysis and technological evidence.

32. Practical Checklist

For a UAE cryptocurrency dispute, the parties should preserve:

Transaction documents

purchase agreements;

terms and conditions;

invoices;

escrow agreements.

Blockchain information

wallet addresses;

transaction hashes;

timestamps;

block numbers.

Authentication material

KYC documents;

exchange records;

account information.

Communications

emails;

WhatsApp messages;

platform communications;

trading instructions.

Security information

private-key records;

seed-phrase access;

hardware-wallet records;

multisignature arrangements.

Expert material

blockchain tracing;

valuation reports;

cybersecurity reports;

technical analysis.

Legal material

applicable legislation;

regulatory licences;

contractual governing-law clause;

jurisdiction clause;

arbitration clause.

33. Conclusion

UAE cryptocurrency disputes are developing into a distinct area of civil and commercial law.

The most important legal developments concern the recognition of cryptoassets as property, the importance of control rather than physical possession, the treatment of cryptocurrency custody, proprietary and freezing remedies, valuation of cryptocurrency losses, and the evidentiary significance of blockchain records.

The Huobi/Tabarak litigation is particularly important because the DIFC Court of Appeal recognised Bitcoin as a form of property and characterised cryptoassets as a third category of property. (DIFC Courts)

The subsequent Digital Economy Court retrial demonstrates that the property question is not the end of the analysis: courts may separately have to determine whether Bitcoin constitutes money or currency and how damages should be calculated. (DIFC Courts)

The Techteryx litigation demonstrates the importance of proprietary and freezing remedies in stablecoin-related fraud, while CoinMENA v Foloosi illustrates that crypto businesses remain subject to ordinary civil-procedure mechanisms such as summary judgment, strike-out applications, appeals and costs. (DIFC Courts)

Overall, UAE cryptocurrency litigation can be understood through five interconnected legal questions:

What is the cryptoasset? → Who owns it? → Who controls it? → What legal obligation was breached? → What remedy can the court effectively grant?

The emergence of the DIFC Digital Economy Court and the 2024 DIFC Digital Assets Law means that these questions are increasingly being addressed through a specialised legal framework, while the distinction between onshore UAE law and DIFC law remains essential. (DIFC Courts)