THE AUTHOR:
Ali Shah Nawaz Niazi, Legal Trainee at Freshfields
Introduction
The increasing popularity of crypto and digital assets has started to intersect with international arbitration, especially in commercial cases related to payments in cryptocurrency, investment in tokens, and blockchain transactions. Even though arbitration is considered flexible and technology-neutral in dispute resolution, the true challenge arises in the enforcement phase. In the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), the enforcement of awards related to crypto assets is fraught with challenges related to the recognition and valuation of property. Even though the UAE is considered a pro-arbitration jurisdiction, reflected in the narrow annulment grounds under Article 53 of UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 and the State’s obligations under Article V(2)(b) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (“New York Convention”), the enforcement of awards related to digital assets is underdeveloped.
One of the most important questions in the enforcement of awards is whether crypto assets are considered “property”. If they are, do they fall within the definition of property that can be enforced? How will they be assessed, and how will the enforcement of awards regarding digital assets be carried out? The UAE law, spanning both the federal civil law system and the common law regimes of the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”), does not provide a single unified definition of cryptocurrency as property in the traditional sense. However, digital assets are increasingly treated as transferable intangible property under the evolving regulatory framework, including the DIFC Digital Assets Law No. 2 of 2024, the ADGM Virtual Asset Framework Regulations 2018, the Dubai Law No. (4) of 2022 Regulating Virtual Assets, and the Decision No. (26/RM) of 2023 concerning Virtual Asset Platform Operators.
In this context, this article will discuss the UAE courts’ approach regarding the enforcement of arbitral awards involving digital assets. It will examine how the existing legal framework is applied to cryptocurrencies and how legal uncertainties, challenges, and grey areas in UAE law remain to be clarified.
On the basis of this analysis, this article argues that UAE courts are not developing an enforcement doctrine based on property rights for digital assets, but rather an evolving control-based enforcement doctrine, whereby the enforceability of crypto-asset awards in practice is contingent on the court’s ability to compel, restrain, or assume control over cryptographic authority rather than traditional proprietary rights.
Are Digital Assets Recognized as Property under UAE Enforcement Law?
The first and most fundamental issue concerns whether digital assets are capable of recognition as property within UAE enforcement law. In Gate MENA DMCC and Huobi MENA FZE v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd and Christian Thurner [2024] DIFC CA 002, the DIFC Court of Appeal accepted that Bitcoin constitutes property, drawing on comparative common law reasoning from AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556, and recognising that crypto assets are definable, identifiable, capable of assumption by third parties, and sufficiently permanent to attract proprietary protection (para. 45).
This identification is important for enforcement analysis because it places cryptocurrencies in a position that goes beyond just economic loss and into proprietary protection, which theoretically opens the door to recovery and control-based remedies. The judgments, however, also highlight the limitations of conventional property doctrine in relation to decentralised assets. The Court acknowledged that the digital currency is intangible and cannot be conventionally possessed; rather, the legally significant idea is control, specifically the capacity to exclude others and exert dominance through access to private keys (paras 55-58). This reasoning has immediate enforcement ramifications since the attachment of cryptocurrency is contingent on the debtor’s ability to maintain sole control over the asset rather than physical custody. Concurrently, the Court acknowledged a structural enforcement limitation. Cryptocurrencies exist only as a record on the blockchain, while wallets merely store private keys that enable control and transfer of the asset (paras 33-36). Therefore, efficient execution ultimately relies on demonstrable control rather than legal classification, even in cases when crypto is acknowledged as property. The jurisprudence of the DIFC thus represents a new but unfinished enforcement framework in which digital assets are legally cognisable and possibly recovered, but their attachability is still functionally linked to possession of cryptographic keys (paras 81-85).
Application of Traditional Enforcement Principles to Digital Assets
The Dubai Court of First Instance, in Case No. 1872/2024, ordered that the defendant surrender certain digital assets, including 29 Bitcoins and 102 Ethereum, or pay the equivalent amount determined on the date of enforcement if the defendant did not comply. The significance of the ruling lies less in recognising cryptocurrency as property, and more in treating digital assets as objects capable of specific performance and judicial recovery (p. 7). By granting restitution in specie, the court impliedly recognised that cryptocurrencies might have identifiable and recoverable proprietary value in addition to being a volatile cash alternative.
In order to safeguard the judgment creditor from value erosion during litigation and to bring enforcement into line with business realities, the court further addressed the structural issue of cryptocurrency volatility by anchoring monetary substitution to the enforcement date (p. 7-8). Although the court did not provide a comprehensive framework for execution, its recognition of cryptocurrency as retrievable suggests that it may be enforceable against digital assets, such as those held through wallet intermediaries or exchanges (p. 4). The practical question of whether courts can order a transfer in which the debtor maintains sole possession of the private keys is not addressed by this decision, though. The decision thus marks a major doctrinal step in the direction of incorporating digital assets into UAE enforcement law, although it does not address the technical boundaries of judicial authority over decentralised property.
Valuation and Conversion of Digital Assets
Valuation and conversion present another unresolved challenge. Between the time of attachment and liquidation, the value of seized crypto assets may fluctuate significantly due to market volatility. Unlike fiat currency, cryptocurrency values can change rapidly, creating uncertainty in determining the appropriate valuation and conversion approach. This difficulty has been widely recognised in comparative legal and policy literature on crypto-assets. Enforcement courts must decide whether to enforce an arbitral award in cryptocurrency or convert it into fiat money when it directs payment in Bitcoin or another digital asset. This question has an impact on the award’s economic substance in addition to being purely technical. Market volatility may considerably favour or disadvantage one party if conversion takes place during the enforcement phase as opposed to the date of the breach or award. While UAE courts have not yet developed clear jurisprudence on this issue, comparative practice indicates that courts may favour fiat conversion to ensure enforceability and certainty. English courts, for instance, have demonstrated flexibility in granting proprietary and control-based remedies in crypto-asset disputes, as seen in Fetch.AI Ltd v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 2254 (Comm) and Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown. A consistent judicial approach on valuation will be essential for predictability in crypto-asset arbitration enforcement.
Practical Enforceability: The Biggest Challenge
Practical enforceability presents perhaps the most difficult challenge. Identifying the actual owner of a cryptocurrency wallet is difficult due to the pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions. Even where a crypto-related award is recognised, execution against digital assets is technically complex. Traditional enforcement mechanisms such as attachment, garnishment, or seizure depend on locating assets within a jurisdiction. Crypto assets, by contrast, are decentralised and typically held in private wallets secured through cryptographic keys.
Without access to those keys, enforcement may become practically impossible. Courts cannot easily compel blockchain transfers in the same way they can freeze bank accounts. If cryptocurrencies are held on a centralised exchange (like Coinbase, Binance), a court order against the exchange can be effective, as the exchange has custody. But if cryptocurrencies are held in a non-custodial wallet where the debtor alone controls the private keys, enforcement becomes much harder without the debtor’s cooperation or the ability to legally compel the disclosure of private keys. Courts can issue orders compelling disclosure, but physical enforcement without cooperation is challenging.
According to Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022 on Civil Procedure Code, the Execution Judge holds coercive powers beyond physical seizure — to compel disclosure of a debtor’s assets (Article 234(2)); to compel compliance via daily fines, detention, or a travel ban (Articles 318, 319, 324); and to restrain dissipation via prejudgment attachment and garnishment (Articles 234(1), 249–252). In the context of crypto assets, this means that the issue of enforceability is not dependent on the physical control of the asset itself, but on the court’s ability to exert legal pressure on the person who is exercising cryptographic authority. Therefore, the key issue in the enforcement of cryptocurrency is not whether the cryptocurrency can be physically seized, but whether the court can compel, restrain, or otherwise exert legal control on the person who possesses the relevant cryptographic authority.
However, Carmon Reestrutura-engenharia E Serviços Técnicos Especiais, (Su) LDA v Antonio Joao Catete Lopes Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003 indicates that the courts are nonetheless capable of exercising effective control over intangible digital assets through more traditional equitable relief. The DIFC Courts’ ruling in Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC (DEC 001/2025), while not directly related to cryptocurrency enforcement, provides important guidance on the UAE courts’ approach to intangible and traceable digital assets. In this case, the Court imposed and upheld a Worldwide Freezing Order over USD 456 million of funds sourced from a stablecoin reserve arrangement, prohibiting dealings not only with the main funds but also with their traceable proceeds and substituted assets (paras 28-31). Instead of emphasising physical possession, the ruling focused on control, traceability, and dissipation risk—principles that are intimately related to the enforcement of crypto-assets (paras 24-32). Importantly, the Court warned that individuals exercising effective control over complex digital-asset structures may incur personal liability for breach of freezing orders (paras 39-41, 81- 82). The case therefore demonstrates that UAE courts possess doctrinal and procedural tools capable of preserving non-physical digital value, an essential precondition for the effective enforcement of arbitral awards involving cryptocurrencies (paras 28-31, 81-82). This raises a fundamental question: can an award be considered effectively enforceable if the asset itself resists state control? The answer remains uncertain in UAE jurisprudence.
Final Remarks
The foregoing cases reveal an emerging UAE enforcement logic in which digital assets are recognised as legally cognisable property, yet judicial control is exercised through tracing, freezing, and authority-based remedies rather than physical possession. This is indicative of a paradigm shift from a possession-based enforcement regime to an authority-based regime for intangible digital assets. It is worth noting that to date, no reported DIFC or UAE case has directly considered the enforcement of an arbitral award mandating the transfer of cryptocurrency, resulting in a doctrinal lacuna that will inevitably be faced by future jurisprudence on the issue. In this evolving paradigm, UAE courts may find persuasive authority in English jurisprudence recognising cryptocurrency as proprietary property subject to tracing, freezing, and authority-based control. English courts have granted proprietary and injunctive relief over digital assets in cases such as Ion Science Ltd v Persons Unknown, Fetch.ai Ltd v Persons Unknown, and Jones v Persons Unknown, reinforcing the view that the enforceability of crypto-assets ultimately depends on effective judicial control rather than physical possession.
In conclusion, the enforcement of arbitral awards that relate to crypto and digital assets in the UAE is still of a legal grey area. The pro-enforcement approach of the UAE judiciary, coupled with the increasing fintech regulatory framework, shows that the courts will eventually be receptive to crypto-related awards. Nevertheless, there are still major analytical hurdles to overcome, especially in relation to property characterization and execution. The future of UAE courts will likely see the development of a control-centric approach to enforcement, based on tracing, freezing, and power-based remedies as opposed to traditional asset possession.
For arbitration practitioners, the ability to enforce crypto-asset awards will depend more on drafting techniques that account for execution realities, such as the necessity for private-key disclosure orders, jurisdiction over custodial intermediaries, and valuation methodology. In digital-asset arbitration, planning for enforcement must begin at the contract stage rather than after the award has been issued.
The future of crypto asset arbitration in the UAE will thus depend not on whether cryptocurrency is considered property under the law, but on whether the courts can compel, restrain, or assume effective control over cryptographic authority. As the jurisprudence in the UAE continues to develop, the enforcement of digital asset awards will likely follow lines that are control-focused, and this will represent a major shift in the law of execution of intangible digital property.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ali Shah Nawaz Niazi is a Legal Trainee in the Disputes Team at Freshfields’ Dubai office. He holds an LLM in International Commercial Arbitration from Stockholm University. His work focuses on international arbitration and cross-border disputes. One of his recent articles was published in Transnational Dispute Management (“TDM”).
*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.
