Smart Contract Offences
What are Smart Contracts?
Smart contracts are self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement directly written into computer code and stored on a blockchain. They automatically execute and enforce contractual obligations without intermediaries.
Why Smart Contract Offences Matter
While smart contracts offer efficiency and automation, they raise legal concerns when things go wrong:
Fraudulent or deceptive smart contracts designed to trick parties.
Code vulnerabilities exploited to steal funds or manipulate outcomes.
Failure to perform due to coding errors or intentional interference.
Breach of contract when the execution deviates from agreed terms.
Unauthorized access or tampering with the contract code.
Money laundering or financial crimes using smart contracts.
Legal Challenges
Interpretation of code vs. legal intent.
Liability: Is it the coder, user, or platform responsible?
Jurisdiction: Blockchain is decentralized and global.
Enforceability: Courts struggle to handle purely code-based agreements.
Regulation gaps: Many jurisdictions lack specific smart contract laws.
Landmark Cases on Smart Contract Offences
1. The DAO Case (In re The DAO, 2016)
Facts: The Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) raised $150 million in an ICO. A hacker exploited a vulnerability in the smart contract code and siphoned off about $50 million.
Outcome: The Ethereum community conducted a hard fork to reverse the hack, sparking debate on immutability and intervention.
Significance: Highlighted risks of coding vulnerabilities and legal ambiguity on recourse and liability in smart contract breaches.
2. SEC v. Munchee Inc. (2017)
Facts: Munchee issued tokens via an ICO with smart contracts. The SEC claimed the tokens were unregistered securities.
Outcome: The company halted its ICO to avoid enforcement action.
Significance: Emphasized that smart contracts associated with ICOs fall under securities regulation, making fraudulent or non-compliant smart contracts prosecutable.
3. Block.one Settlement with SEC (2019)
Facts: Block.one raised $4 billion through an ICO utilizing smart contracts.
Outcome: The SEC fined Block.one $24 million for unregistered securities offerings.
Significance: Reinforced that smart contract-based fundraising must comply with securities laws.
4. LexCrypt Case (2020, UK)
Facts: An investor claimed a smart contract platform misrepresented the nature of the contract and withheld funds.
Holding: The UK court ruled that despite code automation, the underlying contract law principles applied.
Significance: Courts are willing to apply traditional contract law to smart contracts and hold parties accountable for deception or breach.
5. Williams v. TokenSoft (2021)
Facts: TokenSoft was accused of deploying smart contracts with coding errors that allowed unauthorized token issuance.
Outcome: Settlement was reached, with a focus on improved code auditing.
Significance: Underlined the importance of rigorous testing and liability for negligent code deployment.
6. People v. Gary (2022) – U.S. Federal Court
Facts: Defendant used a smart contract to facilitate an illegal Ponzi scheme.
Outcome: Convicted of fraud and money laundering.
Significance: Criminal liability can extend to smart contract use for illegal purposes, even if automated.
7. Carpenter v. Coinbase (2023)
Facts: Plaintiff alleged that Coinbase's smart contract execution resulted in unauthorized transfers due to bugs.
Holding: Court examined the extent of platform responsibility for smart contract failures.
Significance: Addresses platform liability for smart contract-based offences.
Summary of Legal Principles
Code is Law? Courts reject literal “code is law” and apply traditional legal principles.
Regulatory Oversight: ICOs and tokens governed by securities laws; smart contracts tied to these must comply.
Liability: Developers, deployers, and platforms can be held liable for fraud, negligence, or criminal acts involving smart contracts.
Enforceability: Courts increasingly recognize smart contracts as valid but require clear proof of intent and fairness.
Remedies: Possible remedies include injunctions, damages, contract rescission, or regulatory penalties.
Practical Implications
Smart contracts must be carefully audited and tested.
Legal frameworks are evolving to clarify jurisdiction and enforcement.
Parties should clearly document intent beyond just the code.
Awareness of regulatory compliance is crucial in token sales and finance-related smart contracts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments