Defense Argues Bitcoin Is Not Property in High Court Theft Case

A legal representative for an alleged thief has argued before the High Court that Bitcoin should not be classified as property. The move seeks to dismantle the legal foundation of theft charges by challenging the very nature of digital assets.

The argument was raised by a barrister, or silk, representing William Wheatley, a former Federal Police officer. Wheatley faces allegations involving the theft of Bitcoin valued at approximately $493,000. The defense contends that Bitcoin is a concept or an idea rather than a tangible or intangible piece of property that can be legally stolen.

The Legal Battle over Digital Assets

This case highlights a persistent tension in the judiciary regarding the classification of cryptocurrencies. While the defense argues that Bitcoin lacks the characteristics of property, other jurisdictions and previous rulings have trended in the opposite direction. In the UK, for example, courts have moved toward treating Bitcoin as property specifically to ensure that victims of fraud and misappropriation have a viable path to legal remedies.

In this specific matter, the progression of the case has seen varying judicial perspectives. While the current arguments are being presented in the High Court, a Victorian magistrate, Michael O’Connell, previously issued a ruling regarding Bitcoin's status as money rather than property. The shift to the High Court suggests a critical attempt to establish a binding precedent on whether digital ledgers fit the statutory definition of property.

Implications for Criminal Law

If the court accepts the argument that Bitcoin is not property, it could create a profound loophole in the criminal justice system. Most theft statutes are predicated on the misappropriation of 'property.' If cryptocurrency is legally redefined as a mere 'concept' or 'idea,' it could become functionally impossible to charge individuals with theft under existing laws, regardless of the amount of value taken.

Such a ruling would not only impact the Wheatley case but could jeopardize thousands of pending cryptocurrency fraud and theft investigations globally. It would force legislatures to rewrite criminal codes to explicitly include digital assets, leaving a window of legal ambiguity where digital thieves might operate with impunity.

What Remains Unconfirmed

It remains to be seen whether the High Court will uphold the traditional definition of property or adopt the defense's conceptual interpretation. The court must now decide if the ability to exclude others from a digital asset—via private keys—is sufficient to grant it the status of property. Until a final judgment is rendered, the legal status of Bitcoin in this jurisdiction remains in a state of flux.