Ownership of Cryptoassets in Imami Jurisprudence and Iranian Law: An Analysis of Their Susceptibility to Ownership, Transfer, and Judicial Protection

Abstract

The rapid expansion of cryptoassets has created significant legal and jurisprudential questions concerning their proprietary nature, transferability, and judicial protection. Cryptocurrencies, tokens, stablecoins, non-fungible tokens, and other blockchain-based assets have acquired substantial economic value and are increasingly used in investment, commercial exchange, online services, and virtual environments. Nevertheless, their intangible nature, decentralized structure, dependence on private keys, price volatility, and potential association with unlawful activities have produced uncertainty regarding their legal status in Iran. This article examines whether cryptoassets may be recognized as property under Imami jurisprudence and Iranian law and analyzes the legal consequences of such recognition. Using a doctrinal and analytical method, the study investigates the concept of property in Imami jurisprudence, the requirements of lawful economic value and rational benefit, and the capacity of intangible assets to form the subject of ownership. It argues that the absence of physical form does not, by itself, prevent cryptoassets from being classified as property. Where a cryptoasset has identifiable economic value, rational and lawful utility, social recognition, and the capacity for exclusive attribution and control, it may qualify as māl and be capable of private ownership. The article distinguishes between recognizing cryptoassets as proprietary assets and recognizing them as official legal tender. The study further finds that Iranian civil-law principles can support the classification of cryptoassets as movable intangible property capable of acquisition, transfer, donation, inheritance, and compensation. However, the legal validity of cryptoasset transactions depends on consent, capacity, definite subject matter, lawful purpose, and compliance with mandatory regulations. Technical control through a private key should not be treated as conclusive evidence of legal ownership, particularly in cases of hacking, fraud, coercion, or breach of trust. The article concludes that Iranian law requires clearer rules on electronic evidence, asset tracing, judicial seizure, restitution, inheritance, exchange obligations, and cross-border enforcement to provide effective protection for legitimate cryptoasset owners.