Directors holding company crypto now have statutory clarity. On 2 December 2025, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act received Royal Assent. It confirms that a thing, including something digital or electronic, is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights simply because it is neither a “thing in possession” nor a “thing in action”. The Act applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and is in force from Royal Assent.

Set aside the press lines about a “crypto revolution” and read what Parliament actually passed. The Act is deliberately short. It does not list which digital assets are property; it sets the rule that courts may recognise them as such. Detail is left to case law. Scotland is not covered because property law there is devolved and follows a different framework. Northern Ireland is included following legislative consent.

The change codifies a direction of travel that has been building for years. The Law Commission’s 2023 report recommended recognising a third category of personal property for digital assets, and the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce’s 2019 Legal Statement had already persuaded judges that crypto can be treated as property. The Act now places that position on a statutory footing.

For directors, the practical effect is immediate in insolvency. Company-held tokens are company property. Office-holders can ask the court to compel delivery of company property and records under section 234 Insolvency Act 1986, require directors and others to co‑operate under section 235, and summon examinations and production of information under section 236. Failure to comply risks fines, warrants and seizure of records.

Expect those orders to extend to devices, hardware wallets, seed phrases and access credentials where they amount to “books, papers or other records” relating to company property. Courts can issue warrants to arrest a non‑attending examinee and seize records, money or goods to bring them before the court. If your company holds crypto, treat key custody and documentation as business records, not personal notes.

The new Act strengthens recovery for victims of fraud and for creditors. English courts were already granting proprietary injunctions over crypto, disclosure orders against exchanges, and even service by NFT. Those tools continue but now rest on clear statute. Decisions such as AA v Persons Unknown (injunctions over Bitcoin), Ion Science (jurisdiction and Bankers Trust disclosure out of the jurisdiction), and D’Aloia (service by NFT) show the pathway directors and creditors can use when assets are siphoned away.

Directors also gain a cleaner route to freezing and tracing when an employee or agent misuses company wallets. In Fetch.ai v Persons Unknown the court granted proprietary and worldwide freezing orders and ordered disclosure against Binance entities to help identify recipients and restrain dissipation. That pattern will likely accelerate post‑Act.

Governance now needs to catch up. If your company holds tokens, adopt a board‑approved digital asset policy that segregates company wallets from any director’s personal holdings, records wallet addresses and derivation paths in an asset register, and uses multi‑signatory controls so no single individual holds unilateral spend power. Build chain‑of‑custody logs for keys and ensure continuity planning so the company, not a departing employee, holds the recovery phrase.

Cost control sits with you. Poor records turn crypto recovery into a long, expensive exercise paid from creditor funds. The Cryptopia liquidation in New Zealand-while outside the UK-shows how wallet mapping, trust questions and tracing can swell costs and delay returns for nearly a million account holders. Directors who maintain clear registers and access logs reduce those costs if an office‑holder later steps in.

If your business is already in distress, resist the temptation to move tokens to friendly wallets. Transactions at an undervalue and preferences can be unwound under sections 238 and 239, and any disposition of company property after a winding‑up has commenced is void unless validated under section 127. In personal bankruptcy, post‑petition dispositions are void under section 284. Crypto is no longer a grey zone for these rules.

Jurisdictional points still matter. English courts have treated the location of a cryptoasset, for interim relief purposes, as the place where the owner is domiciled-helpful when persuading a court to act quickly even if an exchange is offshore. Plan your treasury and exchange relationships with that in mind, and assume disclosure orders may reach overseas entities.

Policy makers frame this as a growth measure; directors should read it as a compliance and protection measure. Your company’s tokens are property. Keep them out of personal accounts, minute wallet decisions, and be ready to deliver records if asked. With the Act in force and ministers confirming its scope in Parliament, the time to put crypto governance on a formal footing is now.