Can in‑game currency be stolen under English criminal law?

The ruling has implications that extend well beyond gaming, raising important questions about how theft, ownership and value are assessed in virtual environments.

Background Facts

The case of R v Lakeman concerns allegations against a former content developer for Old School RuneScape, a popular online game with a large global user base. It was alleged that the defendant accessed dozens of player accounts without authorisation and removed significant quantities of in‑game “gold pieces”.

While the game itself prohibits players from trading this virtual currency for real money, the prosecution argued that a well‑established secondary market exists in which such tokens can be exchanged for substantial sums. 

On that basis, the removed gold was said to have a real‑world value in excess of £500,000.

Among other offences, the defendant was charged with theft, which is defined under Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 (“the Act”). He denied that offence, arguing that virtual gold could not amount to “property” within the meaning of the Act.

At an earlier preparatory hearing, the trial judge agreed. The gold pieces were characterised as non‑rivalrous and akin to “pure information”, meaning that they fell outside the scope of criminal theft.

The prosecution appealed.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal overturned the preparatory ruling and held that the in‑game tokens were capable, in principle, of being stolen.

In doing so, the Court of Appeal emphasised that physical existence is not a prerequisite of property for the purposes of the Act. The correct question was not whether the underlying computer code was property, but whether the virtual items themselves functioned as identifiable things which were:

• capable of being controlled;
• capable of being transferred; and
• dishonestly taken.

The Court of Appeal observed that the gold pieces had an independent existence within the game world, formed a core part of gameplay, and could be accumulated, stored and removed. 

When taken this deprived the players, who were their rightful owners, of both use and value.

Against that background, the Court of Appeal concluded that it would be “surprising and unsatisfactory” if dishonest dealings with such assets were beyond the reach of criminal sanctions.

The case will now proceed to trial, with all charges contested.

Why is this decision important?

This decision is another step in the courts’ gradual acceptance that digital assets can attract legal protection even where they exist only virtually.

Although the case arises in a gaming context, its reasoning is not limited to games. 

Many digital environments now involve assets that:

• require time, skill or money to acquire;
• have measurable economic value;
• can be controlled exclusively by users; and
• can be lost, taken or misappropriated.

The Court of Appeal’s analysis aligns with broader legal developments acknowledging that value and function may matter more than physical form when identifying “property which can be the subject of the offence of theft”.

What does this mean for game developers and digital platforms?

For developers and operators, the case is a reminder that internal rules and terms of service will not necessarily define how virtual assets are viewed in the context of criminal law.

Even where platforms prohibit secondary trading, the existence of real‑world value may still be relevant in assessing criminal liability. This may prompt closer scrutiny of:

• internal access controls and audit trails;
• staff permissions and segregation of duties; and
• incident response where player assets are compromised.

It may also encourage clearer contractual drafting around ownership, control and remedies relating to in‑game items.

What does this mean for criminal law more generally?

From a criminal law perspective, this decision supports a flexible, purposive approach to the definition of property in the context of theft in accordance with the Act. 

It suggests that courts are willing to adapt long‑standing concepts to new technological realities, rather than allowing gaps to emerge simply because assets are digital.

That approach may prove significant as prosecutors and courts continue to encounter cases involving cryptocurrencies, digital wallets, tokens, and other non‑physical forms of value.

Looking ahead

The trial court will still need to determine whether the alleged conduct amounted to theft on the facts. However, the Court of Appeal’s decision resolves a key preliminary issue and sets an important marker for future cases.

As digital ecosystems become increasingly complex and valuable, this judgment indicates that criminal law is prepared to follow where real economic harm can be shown, even if that harm occurs entirely in a virtual world.