The Legal Nature of Crypto-Related Disputes
Disputes connected with crypto assets are often difficult because the transferred property moves in the digital space while the legal dispute is examined in the ordinary order. The Civil Code of Georgia answers these disputes in three directions: by the claim against the pretend creditor, by the rules on unjust enrichment, and by the tortious route of compensation of damage. Where a person transferred a crypto asset for the performance of an obligation that in reality does not exist, or where the recipient was unjustly enriched at another's expense, the law gives the instrument of a claim for return. A purposefully chosen cause of action and a properly assembled body of evidence determine the fate of the decision in these disputes. The three directions are interconnected: on the same factual circumstances different possible grounds may be assessed, and the court chooses the norm that precisely reflects the substance of the dispute. Therefore, when preparing a claim, it is important to restore the chronology of the facts, to determine the character of the parties' relationship and to classify each transfer.
Grounds for the Claim Against the Pretend Creditor
Under the Civil Code, a person who transferred something to another for the performance of an obligation may demand from the pretend creditor — the recipient — its return, where the obligation does not exist due to the voidness of the transaction or another ground, does not arise, or has subsequently terminated, or where such a claim was presented against the obligation that for a long period the presentation of a claim is excluded. In the crypto world this scheme often fits disputes born of fraudulent transactions: the deceived party discovers that the obligation for which the asset was transferred never existed. At the same time, the return claim is excluded where the performance corresponds to moral duties, the limitation period has passed, the recipient could assume that the performer wished the transfer regardless, or the claim contradicts the protective function of the norms on voidness in connection with the performance of a void debt agreement.