Next week we turn to Poulton v Conrad [2025] TASFC 7, a decision of the Tasmanian Full Court that may prove to be the most radical judgment yet on Bitcoin. The Court upheld liability in conversion and detinue for Bitcoin retained by an intermediary, despite orthodox authority that those torts do not apply to intangibles such as bank account money. The Court effectively created a new category of property — “rivalrous, intangible digital assets” — that can be possessed through control of private keys, and thus protected by conversion and detinue which otherwise only applies to physical assets.
Case Summary
- Facts: Conrad gave Poulton $10,000 in 2013 to buy Bitcoin. Poulton acquired Bitcoin partly through exchanges and partly from his own pool, transferred 6 BTC to a paper wallet for Conrad, but retained the balance as his “fee.”
- Trial: The Magistrate held Bitcoin was property satisfying the Ainsworth test, that Poulton had been in possession until delivery, and that his retention was wrongful. Damages of $46,000 were awarded (jurisdictional cap).
- Appeals: Brett J and then the Full Court dismissed Poulton’s appeals. Estcourt J, in particular, declared that cryptoassets warranted recognition as a new third category of intangible property. Conversion and detinue could therefore apply to Bitcoin, even though they remain unavailable for choses in action like bank balances.
- Outcome: Poulton was liable in conversion and detinue, and damages were payable in money rather than restitution of Bitcoin.
Discussion Focus
- Whether conversion and detinue extends beyond tangible property to cover rivalrous digital assets.
- The inconsistency: why Bitcoin attracts stronger proprietary protection than bank account money, which remains a chose in action not susceptible to conversion.
Poulton v Conrad represents a judicial leap — treating Bitcoin more like coins or notes than like bank balances. But in doing so, the Court risks creating a new class of property rights in mere information, born from a misunderstanding of the technical nature of crypto. This has consequences that extend far beyond tax: it unsettles the settled limits of property law, blurring the line between information, rights, and things, and may destabilise the coherence of remedies across the legal system.
Please see below link to case materials which is assumed reading in order to participate in the discussion:
Poulton v Conrad [2025] TASSC 2
Discussion led by Adrian Cartland