Cryptocurrency on divorce: an international perspective

This spring I had the pleasure of presenting alongside colleagues from Singapore, Australia, and Hong Kong, looking at how each of our jurisdictions approaches cryptocurrency and other digital assets when a marriage comes to an end. Although our procedural frameworks differ in important respects, the discussion revealed a considerable degree of common ground.

Cryptocurrency can no longer be regarded as a marginal concern. In Singapore, reporting suggests that around a third of adults either own or have owned digital assets. In England and Wales, Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins and similar holdings now appear in financial disclosure with a frequency that would have surprised most practitioners only five years ago. The question is no longer whether the family court will encounter cryptocurrency, but how it ought properly to deal with it.

The central conclusion of our discussion was a reassuring one. None of the four jurisdictions treats cryptocurrency as a special or separate category of asset. It is property; it forms part of the matrimonial pool; and it is divided in accordance with established principles.

The position in England and Wales

In England and Wales, the status of digital assets as property has recently been placed on a firmer statutory footing. 

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, which came into force on 2 December 2025, confirms that an asset is not prevented from attracting personal property rights merely because it is neither a tangible thing nor a conventional right enforceable by action. Building on the work of the Law Commission, the Act recognises a third category of personal property capable of encompassing crypto-tokens and non-fungible tokens. For family practitioners, this represents helpful clarification rather than fundamental change. Digital assets were already being treated as property available for distribution, and the broad discretion conferred by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 has always been wide enough to accommodate them. 

The more substantial difficulties lie not in classification, but in disclosure, valuation, and division.

Disclosure is the first and most significant challenge. Where a spouse suspects that holdings have been omitted or understated, carefully framed questionnaires and, in an appropriate case, application for non-party disclosure, become essential. 

For everyday crypto-investors, bank statements often provide one of the most reliable evidential trails, since funds must usually be converted into cryptocurrency, and back again, at some point. Where holdings are more substantial or more sophisticated, it may be proportionate to instruct one of the growing number of forensic firms that now offer cryptocurrency tracing services.

Valuation is the second. Cryptocurrency is notably volatile, and the value of a holding at separation, at the date of any expert report, and at the final hearing may differ markedly. Where digital assets form a meaningful part of the asset pool, the practical question is how to preserve their value, and how to apportion the risk of fluctuation, before an order is implemented. Undertakings and injunctive relief may have roles to play in some cases.

Division then tends to follow familiar lines. The source and use of the assets remain relevant, given the distinction in this jurisdiction between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property. In practice, the cleanest outcome is often to offset cryptocurrency against other assets, leaving one party with the digital holdings and the other with assets of a more conventional nature. A direct transfer of tokens is possible, but rarely advisable where there is a marked disparity in expertise between the parties, and tax considerations, in particular capital gains tax on a sale or transfer, frequently determine the outcome.

Recent changes to the way in which HMRC requires crypto income and gains to be reported, including the reporting framework that took effect in January 2026, are likely to have affected many spouses, and close attention must be paid to any uncrystallised liabilities when digital holdings are brought into the asset schedule.

Comparative perspectives

The experiences of colleagues in other jurisdictions closely mirrored our own.

In Singapore, the Family Justice Rules now expressly recognise cryptocurrency as a form of movable property, and the courts have absorbed it into the established framework under the Women's Charter 1961. Holdings are valued as at the date of the hearing, and the courts have generally declined to divide them in specie. In shorter marriages, where the parties have kept their finances separate, cryptocurrency has been left with the party holding it. 

In Australia, digital assets are treated as property of the parties under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), and the duty of full and frank disclosure plainly extends to them. Interestingly, following recent statutory amendments, the use of ‘add-backs’ (where the value of dissipated assets is notionally restored to the asset pool) is no longer supported in Australia. Any reckless losses incurred by investment in and trading of volatile assets are instead reflected in the assessment of contributions and of the parties’ wider circumstances.

In Hong Kong, there is likewise no bespoke statutory definition, but the courts have confirmed that cryptocurrency constitutes property by reference to long-established common law criteria. The matrimonial courts have built upon that foundation, setting out in practical terms the minimum disclosure expected of a party holding digital assets, extending even to a dated photograph of the wallet evidencing its balance.

A consistent approach

Across all four jurisdictions, then, the message is consistent. Cryptocurrency does not demand special treatment in family law matters, but rather the careful application of the principles we already possess. The challenges are practical rather than conceptual: identifying the assets, valuing them reliably in a market that does not stand still, preserving them until an order can be implemented, and, in cross-border cases, enforcing orders against wallets and platforms that may be located in another jurisdiction entirely.

It is in those cross-border cases that these assets prove most testing. A digital wallet has no obvious situs. Where holdings sit on an overseas exchange, or within an offshore trust or foundation, the familiar questions of control, beneficial ownership and enforcement emerge. These are precisely the issues that benefit from the kind of comparative dialogue our seminar provided, between practitioners who understand their own systems well and are willing to put minds together to compare across borders.