Abstract
One of the selling points of cryptoassets has been the ability to subject them to so‐called ‘smart contracts’ embedded upon blockchains; yet, despite numerous common law decisions accepting cryptoassets as property, until Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person (‘CHEFPIERRE’) no courts have had the occasion to consider how such property (in this case, an NFT) interact with these ‘smart contracts’. The case considers ‘smart contracts’ in the context of decentralised finance (DeFi), thus also raising questions concerning the legal effectiveness and prudence of using cryptoassets as objects of security. Although the non‐participation of the defendant meant that the court was deprived of full arguments, the judgment remains worthy of consideration, both for what the court does consider – specifically, criticisms of the Ainsworth test of property – and what it does not.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
