I brist på sakrättsliga moment – En undersökning av svensk rätts tolerans för pantsättning av bitcoin
(2021) JURM02 20212Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Bitcoin och andra liknande kryptovalutor är rättsligt sätt relativt nya företeelser. Mot bakgrund av dess våldsamma ökning i värde de senaste åren samt det faktum att många aktörer tycks bli mer och mer positiva till alternativa investeringar i kryptovalutor försöker följande uppsats svara på frågan i vilken ut-sträckning svensk rätt tolererar pantsättning av bitcoin.
För att besvara frågan undersöks under vilket egendomslag bitcoin faller under samt vad det får för effekter rent äganderättsligt. Uppsatsen fokuserar där-efter på pantsättning av lös egendom i allmänhet samt hur olika liknande typer av egendom behandlas panträttsligt i Sverige.
Baserat på undersökningen av liknande egendomstyper appliceras tre olika koncept för... (More) - Bitcoin och andra liknande kryptovalutor är rättsligt sätt relativt nya företeelser. Mot bakgrund av dess våldsamma ökning i värde de senaste åren samt det faktum att många aktörer tycks bli mer och mer positiva till alternativa investeringar i kryptovalutor försöker följande uppsats svara på frågan i vilken ut-sträckning svensk rätt tolererar pantsättning av bitcoin.
För att besvara frågan undersöks under vilket egendomslag bitcoin faller under samt vad det får för effekter rent äganderättsligt. Uppsatsen fokuserar där-efter på pantsättning av lös egendom i allmänhet samt hur olika liknande typer av egendom behandlas panträttsligt i Sverige.
Baserat på undersökningen av liknande egendomstyper appliceras tre olika koncept för pantsättning av lös egendom på bitcoin: (I) pantsättning som fysiskt lösöre, (II) pantsättning genom registrering och (III) pantsättning genom denuntiation till tredje man. Koncept (II) bygger på hur man pantsätter digitala värdepapper, ett koncept som inte är möjligt att applicera på bitcoin då registerpantsättning i svensk rätt kräver lagstöd.
Koncept (I) bygger på att man vid pantsättningen av bitcoin (som utgör icke-fysisk egendom) introducerar ett fysiskt moment genom en fysisk förfogande-legitimation som kan traderas från pantsättaren till panthavaren. Detta kan lik-nas vid olika typer av nyckelpantsättning som tidigare använts för fysisk egendom. En sådan lösning innebär att man kan pantsätta icke-fysisk egen-dom som om den vore fysisk då man introducerar ett förhoppningsvis godtagbart sakrättsligt moment i och med traditionsprincipens uppfyllande.
Koncept (III) bygger vidare på diverse tankar i doktrinen om möjligheten att genom denuntiation pantsätta utsläppsrätter, en slags icke-fysisk egendom som saknar direkt lagstöd för pantsättning. Som följd av likheterna mellan bitcoin och utsläppsrätter borde en analogi mellan tankegångarna kunna göras innebärande att pantsättning genom denuntiation borde tolereras under förut-sättningen att egendomen innehas av tredjeman. (Less) - Abstract
- The topic of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin is rather new phenomenon in Swedish law. The last few years cryptocurrencies, but more specifically, bitcoin has seen rapid growth in value which in turn has led to a growing in-terest in bitcoin as an alternative asset to invest in. The following thesis will try to answer the question to which extent Swedish law tolerate using bitcoin as the asset that is the subject of a lien.
To answer the thesis research question, I examine how to classify bitcoin as property and what effects the classification might have when it comes to property rights. The thesis then focuses on hypothecation of movable property in general as well as hypothecation of property with similar traits as bitcoin.
Based... (More) - The topic of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin is rather new phenomenon in Swedish law. The last few years cryptocurrencies, but more specifically, bitcoin has seen rapid growth in value which in turn has led to a growing in-terest in bitcoin as an alternative asset to invest in. The following thesis will try to answer the question to which extent Swedish law tolerate using bitcoin as the asset that is the subject of a lien.
To answer the thesis research question, I examine how to classify bitcoin as property and what effects the classification might have when it comes to property rights. The thesis then focuses on hypothecation of movable property in general as well as hypothecation of property with similar traits as bitcoin.
Based on the examination of hypothecation of property with similar traits as bitcoin I identify and apply three different methods for hypothecation of mov-able property on bitcoin: (I) hypothecation of movable goods and chattels, (II) hypothecation by registration and (III) hypothecation by measure of information to a third party. The second method (II) is based on hypothecation of digital securities, a method that unfortunately is not applicable on bitcoin since hypothecation by methods of registration only is allowed by Swedish law if there is lex specialis which allows it.
Method (I) is based on the thought that if you introduce a physical element to an object, which by nature is nonphysical, you should be able to hypothecate the nonphysical object like it was a physical one by means of a change in the right of disposition, if the right of disposition is tied to a physical object. The introduction of a physical bitcoin wallet would hopefully meet the criteria set in Swedish law for a valid hypothecation of movable goods and chattels.
Method (III) is sprung from ideas within legal doctrine that it is possible to, by means of measure of information to a third party, hypothecate emission rights. Since there are many similarities between the trading of emission rights and bitcoin the same analogy would be applicable meaning that hypothecation of bitcoin by means of measure of information to a third party who is in pos-session of the asset that is the subject of the lien should be tolerable by Swedish law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9070058
- author
- Mazetti, Björn LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Bitcoin as security – A study of the treatment of bitcoin in Swedish property law
- course
- JURM02 20212
- year
- 2021
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Civilrätt, Sakrätt, Krypovaluta, Bitcoin, Panträtt, Säkerhet
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9070058
- date added to LUP
- 2022-01-27 10:37:25
- date last changed
- 2022-01-27 10:37:25
@misc{9070058,
abstract = {{The topic of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin is rather new phenomenon in Swedish law. The last few years cryptocurrencies, but more specifically, bitcoin has seen rapid growth in value which in turn has led to a growing in-terest in bitcoin as an alternative asset to invest in. The following thesis will try to answer the question to which extent Swedish law tolerate using bitcoin as the asset that is the subject of a lien.
To answer the thesis research question, I examine how to classify bitcoin as property and what effects the classification might have when it comes to property rights. The thesis then focuses on hypothecation of movable property in general as well as hypothecation of property with similar traits as bitcoin.
Based on the examination of hypothecation of property with similar traits as bitcoin I identify and apply three different methods for hypothecation of mov-able property on bitcoin: (I) hypothecation of movable goods and chattels, (II) hypothecation by registration and (III) hypothecation by measure of information to a third party. The second method (II) is based on hypothecation of digital securities, a method that unfortunately is not applicable on bitcoin since hypothecation by methods of registration only is allowed by Swedish law if there is lex specialis which allows it.
Method (I) is based on the thought that if you introduce a physical element to an object, which by nature is nonphysical, you should be able to hypothecate the nonphysical object like it was a physical one by means of a change in the right of disposition, if the right of disposition is tied to a physical object. The introduction of a physical bitcoin wallet would hopefully meet the criteria set in Swedish law for a valid hypothecation of movable goods and chattels.
Method (III) is sprung from ideas within legal doctrine that it is possible to, by means of measure of information to a third party, hypothecate emission rights. Since there are many similarities between the trading of emission rights and bitcoin the same analogy would be applicable meaning that hypothecation of bitcoin by means of measure of information to a third party who is in pos-session of the asset that is the subject of the lien should be tolerable by Swedish law.}},
author = {{Mazetti, Björn}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{I brist på sakrättsliga moment – En undersökning av svensk rätts tolerans för pantsättning av bitcoin}},
year = {{2021}},
}