Latest News
What Payward v Chechetkin Means for Crypto Regulation
The recent ruling by the High Court of England and Wales in the case of Payward Ltd (trading as Kraken) v Alexander Chechetkin has been hailed as a landmark decision for the regulation of cryptocurrency transactions. In this article, we will examine the background, facts, and implications of this case, and what it means for the future of crypto litigation.
Background
Payward Ltd is a UK-based company that operates Kraken, one of the largest and oldest cryptocurrency exchanges in the world. Kraken allows users to buy, sell, and trade various cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Litecoin, using fiat currencies or other cryptocurrencies. Kraken also provides custodial services, meaning that it holds and stores the cryptocurrencies of its users in its wallets.
Alexander Chechetkin is a Russian national who claimed to be a victim of fraud involving Kraken. Chechetkin transferred about $11.5 million worth of Bitcoin to a third party, who promised to exchange them for US dollars and transfer them back to Chechetkin's bank account. However, the third party never returned the money and disappeared with the Bitcoin. Chechetkin alleged that the third party used Kraken to facilitate the fraud and that Kraken was negligent and in breach of contract for failing to prevent or detect the fraud.
Chechetkin filed a lawsuit against Payward in the High Court of England and Wales, seeking to recover his losses. He also obtained a freezing order against Payward, which prevented Payward from disposing or dealing with any assets up to the value of $11.5 million.
A freezing order is a type of injunction that restrains a party from disposing or dealing with their assets, usually to prevent them from dissipating or hiding them before a judgment is enforced. A freezing order can be granted by a court if there is a good arguable case against the defendant, and there is a real risk that the defendant will dispose of or deal with their assets in a way that will frustrate the enforcement of the judgment.
Issue and Arguments
The main issue in the case was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the claim and whether English law applied to the dispute. Payward argued that the court had no jurisdiction and that Chechetkin's claim was governed by Singapore law, based on the terms and conditions of Kraken's user agreement.
Payward submitted that Chechetkin had agreed to the user agreement when he created his account on Kraken and that the user agreement contained a choice of law clause and a jurisdiction clause. The choice of law clause stated that the user agreement was governed by Singapore law, and the jurisdiction clause stated that any disputes arising from or relating to the user agreement would be resolved by arbitration in Singapore.
Chechetkin disputed that he had agreed to the user agreement and that the choice of law clause and the jurisdiction clause were valid and enforceable. He argued that he had never seen or read the user agreement and that it was not brought to his attention when he signed up on Kraken. He also argued that the user agreement was a standard form of contract that was imposed on him without any negotiation or consent and that it contained unfair and unreasonable terms that deprived him of his legal rights.
Ruling
The court ruled in favour of Payward and dismissed Chechetkin's claim for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that Chechetkin had agreed to the user agreement when he created his account on Kraken and that he was bound by its terms. The court held that the user agreement was sufficiently clear and accessible and that it was not unconscionable or oppressive.
The court also held that the choice of law clause and the jurisdiction clause were valid and enforceable and that they applied to Chechetkin's claim. The court rejected Chechetkin's argument that his claim was not related to the user agreement but to an independent fraud perpetrated by a third party. The court held that Chechetkin's claim was based on his use of Kraken's services, which were governed by the user agreement.
The court further held that there was no reason to disregard or override the choice of law clause and the jurisdiction clause on grounds of public policy or justice. The court noted that Singapore had a reputable and sophisticated legal system and that there was no evidence that Chechetkin would suffer any prejudice or disadvantage if his claim was heard in Singapore.
Implications
The case of Payward v Chechetkin is significant for several reasons. First, it is one of the first cases in England to deal with cryptocurrency transactions and their legal implications. Second, it is one of the first cases in England to uphold a choice of law clause and a jurisdiction clause in favour of foreign law and arbitration in a cryptocurrency dispute. Third, it is one of the first cases in England to recognize and enforce a user agreement between a cryptocurrency exchange and its users.
The case demonstrates that courts in England are willing to respect and apply contractual terms agreed by parties concerning cryptocurrency transactions unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. It also shows that courts in England can deal with complex and novel issues arising from cryptocurrency transactions, such as fraud, negligence, breach of contract, freezing orders, jurisdiction, choice of law, arbitration, etc.
The case also has implications for the regulation of cryptocurrency transactions in general. It suggests that cryptocurrency transactions are not subject to any specific or uniform legal regime, but rather depend on the contractual terms and conditions agreed by the parties involved. It also indicates that cryptocurrency transactions are subject to the laws and jurisdictions of different countries, depending on the choice of law clause and the jurisdiction clause in the user agreement.
The case highlights the importance of being aware and informed of the legal rights and obligations of parties involved in cryptocurrency transactions, especially when using a cryptocurrency exchange or platform. It also underscores the need for caution and diligence when engaging in cryptocurrency transactions, especially when dealing with third parties or unknown entities.
The case of Payward v Chechetkin is a landmark case for the regulation of cryptocurrency transactions, and it will likely have a lasting impact on the future of crypto litigation.
- Payward Ltd (trading as Kraken) is a cryptocurrency exchange platform that sued Alexander Chechetkin, a former employee, for breach of contract and fiduciary duty.
- The court granted an injunction against Chechetkin, prohibiting him from using or disclosing any confidential information or trade secrets belonging to Payward Ltd
- The case is significant as it demonstrates the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and contractual obligations in the fast-growing and competitive cryptocurrency industry.
