Abstract: Technology has ushered in a "digital revolution" for assets, making digital assets a vital part of social and economic life. The imminent listing and issuance of digital assets tied to the real economy presents vast opportunities for the digital economy, necessitating robust legal safeguards. Despite global efforts, there remains no consensus on defining digital assets, creating challenges in ownership, management, transfer, and regulation. Foreign scholarship, legal frameworks, and judicial precedents offer valuable insights for China’s digital asset legislation. While China’s Civil Code (Article 127) provides a foundation for protecting digital assets under "network virtual property," ambiguity persists, leading to judicial inconsistencies. This paper proposes expanding the Civil Code’s interpretation to clarify network virtual property rights and enacting a dedicated Digital Assets Protection Law to classify and safeguard digital assets, addressing inheritance, trust, financing, and related legal challenges.
Key Words:
Digital assets, Concept identification, Legislation, Prospects
Introduction
Rapid technological advancements have transformed tangible assets into intangible digital forms, stored in password-protected accounts. Digital assets now permeate our socio-economic fabric, with research institutions exploring mechanisms for their issuance and trading alongside real-world assets. The emergence of China’s first digital asset trading platform signals a new era for the digital economy. Yet, many underestimate the value and risks of these assets—loss or inaccessibility can lead to significant economic and emotional repercussions.
Proper management, transfer, and distribution of digital assets can mitigate such losses. In civil contexts, trusts offer a viable alternative to wills, ensuring seamless inheritance and management. In commerce, trusts facilitate investment and financing, driving digital economic growth. However, legal innovation is crucial to enable these transitions.
The absence of a clear definition and classification for digital assets hampers ownership, regulation, and transaction frameworks. Clarifying their conceptual and legal nature is essential for cohesive legislation.
Defining Digital Assets: Digitization and Tokenization
1. Conceptual Ambiguity
- Lack of Authority: Terms like "digital assets," "cryptocurrencies," and "tokens" are often used interchangeably, creating confusion. For instance, the UK’s Financial Action Task Force (FATF) uses "virtual assets," while others prefer "crypto-assets."
Broad vs. Narrow Definitions:
- Broad: Any binary-formatted data with economic value (e.g., emails, social media accounts).
- Narrow: Blockchain-based assets like cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum) and tokenized securities.
2. Classification Frameworks
Blockchain vs. Non-Blockchain Assets:
- Blockchain-based: Cryptocurrencies, security tokens, and utility tokens (e.g., NFTs).
- Non-blockchain: Digital files, cloud-stored media, and online accounts.
Functional Categories:
- Payment Tokens (e.g., Bitcoin).
- Security Tokens (representing equity or debt).
- Utility Tokens (access to platforms/services).
Global Legal Perspectives
1. Legislative Approaches
- U.S.: The Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA) defines digital assets as "electronic records" excluding underlying assets unless digitized. Wyoming’s laws classify them as intangible property.
- EU: The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation aims to standardize rules for crypto-assets by 2024.
- Asia: Japan’s Payment Services Act distinguishes crypto-assets from electronic money, while Singapore’s courts recognize cryptocurrencies as trustable property.
2. Judicial Recognition
- Property Status: Courts in Singapore (Quoine v B2C2) and New Zealand (Ruscoe v Cryptopia) affirmed cryptocurrencies as property under trust law.
- Regulatory Gaps: Most jurisdictions lack explicit laws, leaving asset custody, inheritance, and taxation unresolved.
China’s Legislative Path
1. Current Challenges
- Ambiguity in Civil Code: Article 127 vaguely references "network virtual property," leaving digital assets unprotected. Judicial rulings vary, often negating claims.
- Academic Debates: Scholars conflate digital assets with virtual property, data assets, or cryptocurrencies, urging clearer definitions.
2. Proposed Solutions
- Expanding the Civil Code: Clarify "network virtual property" as a property right.
Enacting a Digital Assets Protection Law:
- Classify assets (e.g., blockchain vs. non-blockchain).
- Establish "control equals ownership" for asset custody.
- Address inheritance, trusts, and financing.
Conclusion
The digital asset revolution demands a revolutionary legal framework. By defining digital assets, recognizing their property status, and enacting specialized laws, China can resolve inheritance, trust, and investment hurdles, fostering a secure digital economy.
FAQs
Q1: Are digital assets considered property under Chinese law?
A1: Currently, China’s Civil Code lacks explicit recognition, though some courts treat them as property case-by-case.
Q2: Can cryptocurrencies be inherited?
A2: Yes, but only if recognized as property. Clear legislation is needed to standardize inheritance procedures.
Q3: How do global laws differ in regulating digital assets?
A3: The U.S. and EU have structured frameworks, while many Asian countries rely on judicial interpretations.
👉 Explore more about digital asset regulations
👉 Understanding blockchain and digital assets
Note: All non-essential hyperlinks have been removed per guidelines.