THE AUTHORS:<\/strong> On Tuesday, 24 March 2026, Forensic Risk Alliance hosted a panel discussion on the rising prevalence of cryptocurrency disputes and arbitration. The panel, moderated by Mr\u00a0Derek Patterson<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>(Partner at\u00a0Forensic Risk Alliance<\/a>), included Ms\u00a0Meredith Fitzpatrick<\/strong>\u00a0(Partner at\u00a0Forensic Risk Alliance<\/a>), Ms\u00a0Anne Marechal<\/strong>\u00a0(Partner at\u00a0De Gaulle Fleurance<\/a><\/strong>), Mr\u00a0Charlie Morgan<\/a>\u00a0(Partner at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer), and Ms\u00a0Esperanza Barr\u00f3n Baratech<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(Senior Counsel at\u00a0De Gaulle Fleurance<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The discussion centred on three core themes: first, the emerging legal and regulatory framework governing crypto\u2011assets; second, the scope and nature of disputes now surfacing; and third, the hurdles practitioners face when enforcing arbitral awards. The panel also offered brief reflections on future litigation trends and the prospects for third\u2011party funding in the crypto arena.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Patterson opened the session by observing that cryptocurrency has now entered mainstream finance and is likely to generate a growing number of high-stakes disputes. He highlighted three legislative milestones that now frame the field: EU Regulation 2023\/1114 on Markets in Crypto Assets (\u201cMiCA<\/strong>\u201d), the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (\u201cGENIUS Act<\/strong>\u201d) and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (\u2018\u2018Cryptoassets<\/strong>\u2019\u2019) Regulations 2026 (\u201cFSMA Regs<\/strong>\u201d). Against this backdrop, Mr Patterson emphasised that arbitration is well positioned to play a significant role in resolving cryptocurrency-related disputes, while noting that issues of jurisdiction and arbitrability continue to raise complex and sensitive questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Marechal then charted Europe\u2019s regulatory path. France laid the groundwork with Ordonnance n\u00b0 2017-1674 of 8 December 2017, authorising the issuance and transfer of securities on blockchain, and with the Pacte Law of 2019 (loi Pacte du 22 mai 2019), which introduced the DASP\/CASP regime. These domestic measures informed MiCA, which took effect on 30 June 2024 for stablecoins and on 31 December 2024 for crypto-asset service providers (\u201cCASPs<\/strong>\u201d). MiCA introduces a passport-style license she likened to a banking license in which applicants must pass fit and proper tests, hold adequate capital, implement AML\/Combating Financing Terrorism (\u201cCFT<\/strong>\u201d) controls, segregate client assets, undergo cyber-security audits and, for stablecoins, maintain a 1:1 redemption ratio backed by liquid reserves held within the EU. Roughly seventy firms have begun the licensing process, but every provider operating in the EU must be authorised by July 2026 or cease activity. The aim, she explained, is to protect investors while fostering innovation, an approach that contrasts with the United States\u2019 historically enforcement-heavy stance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Across the Channel, Mr Morgan noted, the United Kingdom still lacks an overarching framework. Regulation has advanced through consultation and enforcement, whereby the Financial Conduct Authority\u2019s (\u201cFCA\u201d) first action against the Panama-based exchange, HTX in October 2025, exemplified a \u201cwatching-brief\u201d strategy. Political shifts have produced regulatory whiplash, and core concepts such as the definition of \u201ccrypto-asset\u201d remain unsettled, even as English courts increasingly treat digital assets as property. Rapid policy reversals and market volatility, he warned, make compliance a moving target.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Fitzpatrick outlined the U.S. perspective. The GENIUS Act addresses only stablecoins, treating them as dollars in digital form whereby issuers must hold fully backed reserves, offer redemption on demand and publish monthly disclosures. She foresaw arbitration claims for misrepresentation, disclosure failures and redemption freezes, especially where reserves prove thin, and the priority between customer claims and reserve assets is contested. Parallel debates over the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, intended to settle the Securities and Exchange Commission (\u201cSEC<\/strong>\u201d) versus Commodity Futures Trading Commission (\u201cCFTC<\/strong>\u201d) turf battle over who regulates them, may themselves trigger disputes over regulatory reach and asset characterisation. As in the UK, the central challenge is definitional. Is a digital asset a \u2018security\u2019, overseen by the SEC, or a \u2018commodity\u2019, falling under the CFTC?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Morgan described the crypto-asset market as decentralised, closely watched by regulators and wildly volatile. He illustrated this volatility by noting that Bitcoin fell from \u20ac125,000 in early October 2025 to \u20ac65,000 in March 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Barr\u00f3n Baratech turned to jurisdiction and dispute types. She said that talk of fully on-chain or smart-contract arbitration had not yet produced real cases. The disputes that do reach tribunals are mostly crypto-adjacent. Parties use tokens as collateral or to fund other deals, and the main issues are valuation and evidence rather than arbitrability. A small but growing line of consumer claims has also appeared. In the past four years, French courts have held that individual crypto-asset investors are consumers under Regulation (EC) No 593\/2008 (Rome I). That status lets them sue in their own courts even when the contract selects another forum. The Cour de Cassation upheld this view on 28 June 2023 in Spectro Finance (n\u00b0 22-12 424), a case involving the SpectroCoin platform. French law also classifies crypto-assets as intangible movable property, which shapes collateral arrangements and limits proprietary remedies when compared with common-law practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue of consumer law and crypto also appeared in the English courts with the matter of Payward Inc v. Chechetkin<\/em> [2023] EWHC 1780 (Comm). Following the case reference, Mr Morgan said judges and arbitrators must become crypto-literate, and he urged lawyers to stay current with the technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shifting to evidence, Mr Morgan observed that successful enforcement of a crypto-based arbitral award, like any other form of arbitration, still depends on tracing assets. He suggested parties engage forensic specialists early, before funds move beyond reach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms Fitzpatrick, who traces assets for a living, explained that following blockchain flows is now routine, but linking a pseudonymous wallet to a person, particularly non-custodial wallets, remains the hardest step in answering the question of \u201cwho financially benefited from this?\u201d She recalled a recent English case involving \u20ac50 million in stolen Bitcoin, where on\u2011chain analytics identified the wallet swiftly, yet proving control required parallel communication record evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Morgan warned that once crypto\u2011assets are mixed with other funds, a proprietary claim can disappear, leaving parties relying on contractual or restitutionary remedies. He advised engaging tracing specialists at the outset to confirm whether the assets remain identifiable property and to tailor the strategy to whether the wallet is single\u2011user or commingled. Courts now accept blockchain analytics as evidence, but speed is critical because funds can cross borders in minutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asked about exchange liability from the audience, Mr Morgan referred to Philipp v Barclays Bank<\/em> [2023] UKSC 25, which sets a high bar for holding banks liable for authorised push-payment fraud; similar hurdles will likely prove relevant to crypto platforms. Ms Fitzpatrick added that, despite a slew of cases brought in the U.S., U.S. courts rarely impose liability on exchanges unless systemic AML, CFT or KYC failures are proven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel briefly looked to the future. Ms Barron Baratech predicted more B2B and collateral\u2011backed disputes and called for greater arbitral training in crypto finance. Ms Fitzpatrick expected \u201cincreasing international cooperation\u201d as exchanges relocate to friendlier jurisdictions, noting that entities can easily move around globally and that, whether it was the USA, Europe or the Middle East, there is definitely a changing landscape. Ms Marechal warned that operators unwilling to embrace regulation \u201chave no future.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n To close, the audience posed a question on the future of third-party funding in the space. The panel agreed that appetite exists but is tempered by volatility risk. Funders weigh asset swings carefully. For example, Binance\u2019s failed, albeit funded, class action at the HKIAC illustrated both interest and peril.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The speakers concluded that as regulatory frameworks consolidate, arbitration practitioners must master both the legal and technical facets of digital assets to steer parties through this fast\u2011moving landscape effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article was originally published in PBA Bulletin on 17 April 2026, as part of a special edition curated by Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a>, in collaboration with Jus Mundi <\/a>and Jus Connect<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Padraic Mc Cafferty<\/strong>, Dual-qualified Solicitor in England & Wales and Ireland, and Barrister at Lincoln\u2019s Inn<\/a><\/strong>
Mauro Rosato<\/strong>, Juris Doctor (International Law) at William & Mary Law School<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
As part of Paris Arbitration Week 2026, Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA)<\/a><\/strong>, in collaboration with Daily Jus<\/a><\/strong> and Jus Mundi<\/a><\/strong>, brings together contributions in a special edition of PBA Bulletin<\/a>,<\/strong> sharing reflections and perspectives from across this year\u2019s events.<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n