UK introduces the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025.

The UK has taken a notable step forward in modernising its legal framework with the introduction of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, a short but meaningful statute that confirms digital and electronic items can be the object of personal property rights. This development follows several years of work by the Law Commission, which recognised that many digital assets do not fit neatly into the traditional categories of “things in possession” or “things in action”. Courts had already begun moving in this direction, treating digital assets and NFTs as capable of attracting property rights, but the absence of a statutory foundation left room for uncertainty. The Act responds to that gap by stating, in clear yet deliberately limited terms, that a thing does not lose its ability to be treated as property simply because it falls outside the old classifications.

In practice, the Act offers a firmer footing for owners, custodians and market participants who routinely deal with digital assets. Issues such as ownership disputes, recovery of misappropriated cryptoassets, and the treatment of digital holdings in probate or insolvency should now proceed with greater confidence. The Act also provides reassurance that familiar legal structures such as trusts, agency arrangements, and security interests can apply to digital assets without relying on strained analogies. By recognising digital assets in law, the UK is giving consumers clearer ownership rights, stronger protections, and a more credible route to recovering assets lost through theft or fraud. This recognition aligns the legal system with the realities of how value is increasingly held and transferred in the modern economy.

However, while the Act is undoubtedly a positive and overdue step, it does not create absolute clarity. Parliament stopped short of declaring that digital assets are property - instead, it confirms that they can be treated as such. This distinction is important, as it leaves room for interpretation and development through the courts. The finer details, such as what amounts to “control”, how competing claims should be prioritised, how digital assets will function within layered custody arrangements, and how cross-border issues will be addressed, will inevitably develop through case law and market practice rather than through the wording of the Act itself. In that sense, the Act should be seen as a framework that points the law in the right direction rather than a complete set of rules.

From a Gibraltar perspective, it will be particularly interesting to see how this development is absorbed and whether Gibraltar chooses to follow a similar legislative approach. Gibraltar is no stranger to legal questions surrounding cryptoassets and blockchain technology, and its active, sophisticated digital assets sector means that greater clarity on property rights could prove especially valuable. While Gibraltar’s legal framework is firmly rooted in English common law, updates to English statute law do not automatically extend directly into Gibraltar. Nonetheless, such developments frequently carry persuasive weight and can guide the direction of judicial and policy thinking in Gibraltar.

Overall, the Act represents a welcome modernisation of English law and signals a clear commitment to legal certainty in an increasingly digital world. The coming years will be key in understanding what digital property rights really mean in practice.

What is already apparent, however, is that the UK is moving steadily towards a more robust and coherent crypto framework, one that may in time sit comfortably alongside Gibraltar’s own well-established regime. With the Gibraltar Authorisation Regime (GAR) hopefully coming into full effect in the near future, the prospect of reciprocal market access and more streamlined passporting arrangements between the UK and Gibraltar for digital asset business is becoming increasingly credible. Ongoing alignment may well pave the way for a more connected and supportive environment for firms operating across both jurisdictions.