Advocacy for Legal Measures in Cryptocurrency Theft Case
A well-known eye doctor in Zimbabwe, Dr. Solomon Guramatunhu, is advocating for legal measures after two individuals, Lloyd and Melissa Chiyangwa, were acquitted of charges related to the alleged theft of cryptocurrency valued at over $550,000. Dr. Guramatunhu has urged the National Prosecuting Authority to pursue an appeal against the ruling made by regional magistrate Marehwanazvo Gofa, who dismissed the fraud case due to technical legal arguments.
Legal Interpretation of Cryptocurrency
The crux of the matter revolves around the interpretation of cryptocurrency under Zimbabwean law, where the court declared that digital currencies do not qualify as legal tender. This ruling effectively precluded any possibility of a fraud conviction, a conclusion that has left Dr. Guramatunhu and his legal advisors perplexed.
Contention Over Property Rights
Admire Rubaya, representing Dr. Guramatunhu, contests the magistrate’s reasoning, suggesting a misunderstanding regarding property rights and currency classification. Rubaya emphasizes that digital assets should be recognized as property in Zimbabwe, irrespective of their status as legal tender. He asserts that the ruling undermines the validity of cryptocurrency as valuable property that can be legally protected from theft.
Rubaya argues that cryptocurrencies, as incorporeal rights governed by property laws in Zimbabwe, are subject to wrongful appropriation.
In his detailed rebuttal of the verdict, he contends that the ability to exchange digital currencies for traditional money, such as US dollars, highlights their financial significance, which extends past local legal definitions of currency.
Legal Framework and Arguments
The legal representative cites provisions in Section 112 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, arguing that accounts holding cryptocurrencies should fall within the law’s purview regarding property and theft. According to Rubaya, assets within these cryptocurrency accounts are tangible enough to be subjected to theft laws, regardless of their recognition as valid currency by the state.
Dr. Guramatunhu’s team is advocating for an expansion of legal definitions to assert that control over a cryptocurrency account equates to ownership of the assets contained therein. They allege that the Chiyangwas intentionally and unlawfully transferred digital assets from Dr. Guramatunhu’s accounts to their own, constituting a criminal act of theft.
Rubaya’s appeal letter asserts that this act signifies a deliberate attempt by the suspects to illegitimately claim rights to the doctor’s digital property, which he describes as “the incorporeal right to exercise title to the cryptocurrency tokens.”
