NEW ZEALAND Law and Practice Contributed by: James Cochrane, Andrew Comer, Carlo Wan and Graeme Crombie, Lane Neave
Issues Relating to the Use of Digital Assets in Collateral Arrangements There do not appear to be any specific legal or regula- tory issues precluding the use of digital assets in col- lateral arrangements in New Zealand. Property-related statutes such as the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) and its related registration regime may apply. There have been no legislative or regulatory changes in the last 12 months specifically addressing digital assets in collateral arrangements. Neither the FMA nor the MBIE has issued guidance on the application of the PPSA to digital assets, and practical issues of perfection, control and enforcement in decentralised or self-custodied environments remain unresolved. Commercial interest in crypto-backed lending has nonetheless grown, with fintech platforms piloting crypto-collateralised loan products. In the absence of formal regulation or case law, practitioners are relying on private legal opinions to structure these arrange- ments. 1.2.2 Access to Banking Restrictions on Crypto-Asset Services Accessing Banking and Payment Partners or Services While there are no specific legal restrictions in New Zealand preventing firms that provide crypto-asset services from using ordinary banking or payment part- ners, a study published by Web3NZ and supported by BlockchainNZ (now Blockchain Forum New Zea- land) suggests that digital asset-related businesses do experience challenges with banks. The study stated that 56.8% of surveyed Web3 businesses in New Zealand reported challenges in maintaining local banking access, and noted that 82.4% of respondents are either already relocating their business offshore to address regulatory constraints and banking service issues, or will do so in the future if nothing changes. This suggests that should there be no reform in local practices, crypto-asset businesses are likely to be lost overseas. 1.2.3 ESG/Sustainable Finance There are currently no “crypto-specific” ESG/sustain- able finance requirements applicable to crypto-assets in NZ. However, one of the terms of reference for the Parliamentary Inquiry was “to understand the environ-
In August 2025, BlockchainNZ (as it then was) host- ed CryptoWinter’25, an inaugural blockchain and crypto conference across two days in Queenstown, New Zealand. The event involved keynote speakers, blockchain discussions and interested parties from across the industry, academic sphere and government representatives. The success of CryptoWinter’25 has led to it coming back to Queenstown this August for CryptoWinter’26. In December 2025, BlockchainNZ hosted the annual Blockchain Awards, celebrating notable contributions within Aotearoa ‘s blockchain and Web3 industries. 1.2 Crypto-Assets 1.2.1 Property Considerations New Zealand’s Approach to Crypto-Assets and the Transfer of Crypto-Assets In New Zealand, the ownership and transfer of digital assets are governed by traditional common law and equitable property principles adapted to digital assets and blockchain technology. The landmark case of Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (In Liq) [2020] NZHC 728 established that cryptocurrencies are intangible personal property capable of being held on trust. The High Court held that control over a digital asset – linked to possession of the private crypto- graphic key – is the key element of property owner- ship, analogous to possession under common law. In March 2024, the High Court approved the liquidators’ distribution methodology, recognising that changes in beneficial ownership recorded only on internal ledg- ers (and not on-chain) still constituted valid transfers under trust law. Regarding finality, blockchain transfers are considered final when confirmed on-chain and the recipient gains control through their private key. Where intermediaries (eg, exchanges or custodians) are involved, traditional equitable principles apply – the intermediary may hold assets on trust, and equitable remedies such as trac- ing remain available if assets are misappropriated, provided the recipient’s public address can be identi- fied.
417 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook