The Future of Dispute Resolution: TIAC as a Forum for Digital Assets Disputes

---

THE AUTHORS:
Anton Maltsev, FCIArb, Partner, Dispute Resolution Practice at Melling, Voitishkin & Partners, Moscow; Vice President of the Board, Russian Arbitration Association
Diana Bayzakova, Director, Tashkent International Arbitration Centre at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Uzbekistan

---

In just the last five years, the world has been reshaped by the pandemic, major geopolitical changes, slowing international trade, and worsening conflict dynamics. These developments have redrawn the map for international business. Governments have become more involved in supply chains through sanctions and tariffs, and trade patterns have shifted.

Technological innovation has assumed a pivotal role in mitigating the challenges arising from the growing fragmentation of global trade. Advances in automation, digitalization, e-commerce, and cryptocurrencies have provided new mechanisms for enhancing efficiency in international business.

As a result, it is not just how businesses operate that has changed – it is also how they now resolve their disputes. Many businesses now choose dispute resolution venues strategically. Forum neutrality, rigorous confidentiality, technological proficiency, and cost-effectiveness are key determinants in the choice of forum.

The changing commercial environment requires a fresh method for managing disputes.

Standard litigation —rigid, public, and drawn-out— operates too slowly for the fast-moving digital economy. Arbitration delivers confidentiality, allows parties to choose qualified experts, and permits tailored procedures, making it a far more efficient remedy.

Recent examples illustrate this development.

A foreign crypto-mining firm places millions of dollars worth of high-tech servers in a foreign data center. Its local partners then use a complex corporate shell game to seize the assets, liquidating the contractual front company while continuing to send invoices. When the scheme is revealed, a criminal investigation becomes stuck: local authorities in certain countries may be simply unprepared to deal with digital evidence and unable to assess the lost crypto assets. With the suspect fleeing the country, the dispute remains in legal limbo. This highlights the paralysis that can occur when corporate fraud meets slow-moving state legal systems (See, A.P. v. R.E., Internal Affairs Department Notice of Declination to Open Investigation, 2024, document provided on a confidential basis, on file with the author).

Another case shows arbitration’s advantage. Two parties team up to set up a crypto-mining joint venture, and agree on profit sharing. An investor is based in one country and the operator is based in another. The parties hold the crypto profits in borderless digital wallets. However, with signed agreements that confirm a large debt, collecting the funds can present significant challenges. The parties therefore design a novel payment mechanism through an international crypto exchange. Unfortunately, this arrangement may not be honored either. A simple debt collection becomes a complex international enforcement puzzle, making a forum whose awards are recognized globally under treaties like the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958) (the “New York Convention“) an absolute necessity (See, A. v. A.D., Request for Arbitration, 2025, document provided on a confidential basis, on file with the author).

These cases reveal common traits of technology-related disputes: intricate technical evidence, intellectual property scrutiny, and a demand for speed. State courts, burdened by caseloads, often lack the specialized expertise and expedited mechanisms needed. Moreover, court proceedings are typically not confidential.  Effective arbitration is a two-part solution that requires both a supportive legal seat and a modern, adaptable institution.

The Importance of a Modern Seat: The Case of Uzbekistan

Arbitration fails unless parties anchor agreements in a safe, stable seat –and this is especially true for digital economy disputes where the legal status of a technology may be uncertain. The arbitral award may be exposed to the risk of being set aside in the country of the seat, which, in turn, can make the arbitral award unenforceable in other countries (Art. V(1)(e) of the New York Convention).

Uzbekistan stands out in East and Central Asia for welcoming the digital economy. It has moved quickly to provide high-quality legislation that legalizes and encourages cryptocurrency mining. Sources rank Uzbekistan as the first in Central Asia/Caucasus and thirty-third worldwide in terms of crypto adoption. It recognizes cryptocurrency as property, legalizes mining subject to certain requirements, and is considered a friendly location for crypto investments. 

But is a crypto-friendly regulatory framework enough to choose a country as a dispute resolution venue?

To arbitrate digital disputes efficiently, consider:

• Financial infrastructure. If the country has key infrastructure, such as crypto exchanges, and cryptocurrency is accepted by major financial institutions, it gives users more flexibility during arbitration and afterwards. This may include the possibility to use cryptocurrency for the payment of arbitration costs or the possibility of enforcement of an arbitral award against crypto assets.
• Politically stable pro-arbitration climate. Political instability can affect both the assets and the regulatory environment relevant to arbitration proceedings.
• Supportive and educated legal system. This includes, in particular, the availability of rules of procedure suitable for the resolution of digital economy (including crypto) disputes, and the familiarity of national courts with the specifics of such disputes when dealing with arbitrator challenges, set-aside applications, or requests for exequatur.
• Enhanced access to interim relief. The speed of digital transactions requires equally swift legal remedies. Official acknowledgment of digital assets is fundamental when courts are asked to grant provisional measures, such as freezing crypto-holdings to prevent their dissipation while an arbitration is pending, or restraining parallel state court proceedings brought in breach of the arbitration agreement. This could be vividly illustrated by a recent case, TrueCoin LLC v. Techteryx, Ltd, in which a stablecoin developer secured an anti-suit injunction to restrain Hong Kong proceedings in favor of an arbitration in Singapore.
• Confidentiality. Confidentiality is a critical consideration in the arbitration of crypto-related disputes. It protects sensitive information and may help preserve market reputation and investor confidence. Not all countries, however, have established a general confidentiality regime applicable to arbitration by default. In the United States, for example, there is no express statutory provision providing for the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings, nor can a general duty of confidentiality in arbitration be deduced from case law.

Uzbekistan has many of these elements in place. Local courts support arbitration and have historically adopted a pro-arbitration stance. They also consistently enforce awards against state-owned companies. Arbitration proceedings in Uzbekistan are confidential by statute (Art. 53 of the Law of Uzbekistan on International Commercial Arbitration), and interim relief is available (Art 14 of said Law). Uzbekistan is also currently working towards integrating mechanisms to enable the use of crypto assets for arbitration fees.

TIAC: An Institution Designed for the Digital Age

The Tashkent International Arbitration Centre (“TIAC”) at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Uzbekistan, established in November 2018 as an independent arbitral institution, administers cases related to investments, intellectual property, and blockchain technologies (See, Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan PP-4001, 5 November 2018). It has experienced significant growth in case volume and international recognition, earning a nomination for “Best Innovation” by Global Arbitration Review in 2024 for its cross-institutional rules with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”).

TIAC’s efficiency makes it compelling for complex cross-border disputes, including in cryptocurrency and the digital economy. It resolves cases faster than many institutions, with a median duration of approximately 8 months. TIAC handles disputes involving non-Uzbek parties (25% of all cases), demonstrating neutrality. Its conflict-of-interest policies exceed the International Bar Association (“IBA”) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest, and its online platform enhances accessibility and reduces costs.

TIAC has distinctive features suitable for digital disputes: TIAC has put in place a rigorous Cybersecurity Protocol, which regulates the protected use and flow of all case-related material. It reassures parties that their most vital information —whether proprietary code, trade secrets, or sensitive financial data— is secure, as per Schedule 2 of the TIAC Rules.

• TIAC offers speedy emergency arbitrator proceedings, as per Schedule 1 of the TIAC Rules.
• TIAC Rules have a zero-admin fee policy for its services, meaning it charges no administration fees for handling arbitrations. The parties only pay a filing fee and arbitrators’ fees.
• A cherry on top: arbitrators’ fees are exempt from income tax in the country (See, Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan PP-4001, 5 November 2018).

The TIAC Rules provide flexibility in the presentation of evidence. For example, a party may demonstrate a software bug in real time or guide the tribunal through the workings of a confidential algorithm in detail. This hands-on approach enables arbitrators, who are chosen for their technical expertise, to develop a substantive understanding of the issues, rather than relying solely on written summaries or abstract descriptions. To this end, it is interesting to look at the tailored protocols of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”), a United States pioneer in blockchain technology disputes. The JAMS Rules Governing Disputes Arising out of Smart Contracts empower arbitrators to extract relevant data straight from the smart contract and restrict evidence production to the formal algorithm, setting a clear presumption that the code is the ultimate reference (See, Rules 12(b) and 13(c) of the JAMS rules).

The TIAC framework, while fully recognizing the evidentiary value of a code, offers additional flexibility suited to more complex cases. For instance, it explicitly accommodates experimental evidence (Article 21) and provides for technical primers and tutorials (Article 22) to assist the tribunal in understanding intricate technical matters. Ultimately, arbitrators render their awards based on the full factual matrix and applicable law, rather than relying solely on the formal algorithm.

Lastly, as digital economy disputes are oftentimes fast-paced, the TIAC rules also include modern tools such as early determination procedure (Article 36) and expedited proceedings (Article 35).

Conclusion

The risks that accompany modern international commerce are complex, particularly where valuable technology and digital assets can cross borders with ease.

The combination of Uzbekistan’s forward-thinking policies and the institutional strengths of TIAC creates such a solution, offering a robust, reliable, and future-ready forum for resolving the international commercial disputes of the twenty-first century.

---

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Anton Maltsev is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution practice of Melling, Voitishkin and Partners in Moscow, an advocate, and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb). He holds a Ph.D. in law and an LL.M. in international business law. With over fifteen years of experience, he represents Russian and international clients in complex commercial disputes in the financial, logistics, energy and chemicals sectors. He is listed as arbitrator in TIAC’s roster and a number of other arbitral centers in Russia, Central and East Asia and the Middle East. He also serves as Vice President of the Board of the Russian Arbitration Association.

Diana Bayzakova is the Director of the Tashkent International Arbitration Centre (TIAC) at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Uzbekistan, which she has led since her appointment in November 2018. She also sits as an arbitrator and is one of Uzbekistan’s designated members of the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators. Her practice focuses on complex cross-border disputes in construction, real estate, energy and natural resources across the CIS region and the Middle East, and she is listed as an arbitrator with several institutions, including the Dubai International Arbitration Centre.

---

*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.