Delaware Court Of Chancery Denies In Rem Jurisdiction Over Ether Cryptocurrency

The enactment of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act regularized digital assets as a part of the U.S. financial system. However, there remain unresolved questions relating to disputes involving digital assets, including questions of appropriate venue and personal jurisdiction when dealing with digital assets that can be freely transferred between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions.

In Timoria LLC v. Anis, No. 2025-0883 (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2025), Delaware Court of Chancery Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster denied a plaintiff's attempt to assert personal jurisdiction over Ether cryptocurrency wrongfully taken by employees of a Curaçao entity. After the theft, the Curaçao entity transferred title to the stolen cryptocurrency to a Delaware subsidiary and filed suit. The plaintiff-subsidiary sought to restrain and eventually to recover the stolen cryptocurrency, asserting that the Delaware court had jurisdiction over persons who currently hold the cryptocurrency because title to the stolen cryptocurrency was currently in Delaware, that situs to the cryptocurrency was where title was held and, thus, the Delaware court had in rem jurisdiction over the property and could issue orders to persons controlling the cryptocurrency, including restraining transfer or sale.

The court disagreed, determining that assertion of personal jurisdiction on this basis would not comport with due process under Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977). Vice Chancellor Laster did agree that cryptocurrency was intangible property and that its situs was where title was held, although situs could be located in other jurisdictions as well because cryptocurrency is nonexclusive and can be controlled from multiple places at once. However, the court reasoned that because the theft was from a Curaçao entity, the employees would expect to be sued there but not in Delaware, and the subsequent transfer of title was insufficient to satisfy due process.

Vice Chancellor Laster commented that a different result might occur if a specific digital asset had an applicable statute or contract that put users on notice that they should be expected to be sued in a specific jurisdiction or if there existed no jurisdiction that could provide relief to a plaintiff. These latter comments indicate that states could potentially use legislation to extend a court's personal jurisdiction to digital assets to protect residents' use of those assets, although there may still be case-specific due process concerns even if that were to occur. Interestingly, the decision suggests that private actors such as digital asset issuers or intermediaries could use their terms of use to potentially put users of their digital assets on notice that they are agreeing to be subject to the personal jurisdiction of a particular jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

• Cryptocurrencies may be treated as intangible property for jurisdictional purposes.
• An ex post facto transfer of title to intangible property is likely insufficient basis for personal jurisdiction.

The Timoria decision is consistent with the U.S. approach emphasizing due process concerns when considering the assertion of domestic court authority over holders of foreign intangible assets based on the location of the owner's title alone. This U.S. approach stands in contrast to jurisdictions employing British and Commonwealth-derived jurisprudence, which are more amenable to asserting jurisdiction based on the location of an owner's title in the form of worldwide freezing orders or proprietary injunctions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.