Judicial Interpretation Of Blockchain And Cryptocurrency Transactions
📌 Judicial Interpretation of Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Transactions
Blockchain and cryptocurrencies represent emerging technologies that pose novel legal and regulatory challenges. Courts have been grappling with their legal status, potential misuse, and regulatory frameworks.
1. Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) v. Reserve Bank of India (2020) (Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
RBI issued a circular in April 2018 prohibiting banks and financial institutions from dealing with or providing services to individuals or businesses dealing with cryptocurrencies.
This led to shutting down of crypto exchange accounts.
IAMAI challenged the circular as unconstitutional and arbitrary.
Supreme Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court set aside the RBI circular, holding it disproportionate and violative of fundamental rights, especially right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g).
The Court observed RBI failed to show evidence of specific harm caused by cryptocurrencies.
It recognized cryptocurrencies are not illegal but struck a balance by saying regulation is necessary.
The judgment did not legalize cryptocurrencies but curtailed the RBI’s blanket ban.
Significance:
Landmark ruling protecting crypto businesses and traders from regulatory overreach.
Emphasized need for balanced regulation over outright bans.
2. Maharashtra Cyber Application v. State of Maharashtra (2018) (Bombay High Court)
Facts:
Case involved cybercrime aspects of cryptocurrency, including hacking and fraudulent transactions using cryptocurrencies.
Court’s Observations:
Recognized the blockchain ledger as evidence in cybercrime cases.
Affirmed that transactions on blockchain have authenticity and can be used for forensic audit.
Emphasized that blockchain technology can aid in tracking fraudulent activities.
Importance:
Early recognition of blockchain as credible digital evidence.
Set precedent for acceptance of blockchain data in criminal investigations.
3. People’s Bank of China (PBoC) v. Various Cryptocurrency Exchanges (2017) (China Supreme Court)
Facts:
China banned ICOs and cryptocurrency exchanges due to risks of fraud and financial instability.
Judicial Interpretation:
PBoC issued a directive classifying cryptocurrencies as illegal financial instruments.
The Supreme Court upheld the ban, emphasizing protection of public financial interests.
Courts recognized risks of money laundering, fraud, and capital flight associated with crypto.
Significance:
Contrasted with Indian Supreme Court’s approach, representing a stricter regulatory stance.
Showcases global diversity in judicial approaches to crypto.
4. Reversal of Cryptocurrency Seizure Order - Shashank Shekhar v. Union of India (2023) (Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Police seized cryptocurrency wallets allegedly used in illegal transactions.
Petition challenged the seizure, arguing lack of proper procedure and authority.
Delhi High Court Ruling:
Court held that seizure of cryptocurrencies must comply with procedural safeguards under IT Act and Criminal Procedure Code.
Recognized cryptocurrency as “property” under the law, but seizure cannot be arbitrary.
Directed authorities to follow due process, including valuation and custody of digital assets.
Importance:
Strengthened legal safeguards against arbitrary confiscation of crypto assets.
Clarified procedural requirements for law enforcement.
5. SEC v. Ripple Labs Inc. (USA, ongoing since 2020)
Facts:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Ripple Labs alleging its XRP token was an unregistered security.
Judicial Developments:
Court has focused on whether XRP qualifies as a “security” under the Howey Test.
The case is pivotal in defining regulatory boundaries for cryptocurrencies.
Courts recognized blockchain tokens may have hybrid features requiring nuanced legal analysis.
Significance:
Though not Indian, it influences global regulatory thinking.
Demonstrates judiciary’s role in defining cryptocurrency under securities law.
6. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) v. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2021) (Karnataka High Court)
Facts:
Allegations of money laundering through cryptocurrency transactions.
Court’s Observations:
Recognized blockchain ledger's immutable and transparent nature can aid tracing illicit transactions.
Allowed use of blockchain analytics as evidence.
Highlighted challenges in applying existing laws to anonymous crypto transactions.
Importance:
Affirmed investigative tools adapted for blockchain tracing.
Calls for updated laws to tackle cryptocurrency misuse.
📌 Summary of Key Judicial Themes on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Transactions
| Case | Year | Jurisdiction | Key Holding | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IAMAI v. RBI | 2020 | India (SC) | Set aside RBI banking ban on crypto | Protected crypto trade, balanced regulation |
| Maharashtra Cyber Application | 2018 | India (Bombay HC) | Blockchain transactions admissible evidence | Blockchain accepted in cybercrime probes |
| PBoC v. Crypto Exchanges | 2017 | China | Upheld cryptocurrency ban | Strict regulatory approach |
| Shashank Shekhar v. Union of India | 2023 | India (Delhi HC) | Procedural safeguards for crypto asset seizure | Protection against arbitrary confiscation |
| SEC v. Ripple Labs | 2020 ongoing | USA | Whether XRP is a security | Defining crypto under securities law |
| CBI v. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary | 2021 | India (Karnataka HC) | Blockchain ledger aids anti-money laundering | Enhanced investigative tools |
📍 Conclusion
Indian courts have cautiously approached the regulation of cryptocurrencies, balancing innovation with risks. The Supreme Court’s striking down of RBI’s banking ban was a key step toward legitimizing crypto activity, while lower courts have accepted blockchain data as valid evidence. Globally, judicial responses vary—from permissive to prohibitive—highlighting evolving legal challenges.
The courts emphasize due process and procedural safeguards in seizure and prosecution related to cryptocurrencies. Blockchain technology itself is increasingly recognized as a credible forensic and evidentiary tool.
RELATED Blog
0 comments