Court Rulings On Forged Metaverse Transaction Receipts
1. Osbourne v. Persons Unknown & Ozone Networks Inc. (UK, 2022)
Facts:
The claimant, Osbourne, owned several NFTs stored in her crypto wallet.
Unknown persons accessed her wallet and transferred two valuable NFTs without her consent.
She filed a civil suit against “Persons Unknown” and sought a disclosure order against the NFT marketplace (Ozone Networks Inc.) to identify the perpetrators.
Legal Issues:
Are NFTs legally considered property?
Can courts provide remedies for stolen or fraudulently transferred NFTs?
Court Decision:
The High Court recognized NFTs as legal property.
It granted a freezing injunction and a disclosure order to trace the stolen NFTs.
The court emphasized that ownership of digital tokens could be protected by traditional property and equitable law.
Principles:
Digital tokens, including NFTs, can be treated as property.
Courts can grant civil remedies (injunctions, disclosure orders) for stolen or fraudulently transferred NFTs.
Forged or unauthorized transaction receipts can be challenged.
2. United States v. Nguyen & Llacuna — “Frosties NFT Fraud” (US, 2022)
Facts:
The defendants sold NFTs called “Frosties,” promising perks like in-game benefits or exclusive access.
They collected over $1 million in cryptocurrency and then abandoned the project, transferring proceeds to other wallets.
Legal Issues:
Does selling NFTs with false promises constitute fraud?
Are forged or falsified receipts or transaction records actionable under law?
Court Decision:
Federal prosecutors charged the defendants with wire fraud and money laundering.
Court held that deceptive NFT sales, even if recorded on blockchain, constitute criminal fraud if purchasers were misled.
Principles:
Forged or falsified transaction receipts supporting a fraudulent NFT sale are actionable under criminal law.
Blockchain-based receipts do not exempt fraudsters from liability.
3. United States v. Chastain — NFT Insider-Trading Case (US, 2023–2025)
Facts:
The defendant, an OpenSea employee, purchased NFTs knowing they would be promoted on the platform, anticipating price increases.
He sold them later for profit, using anonymous accounts.
Legal Issues:
Can insider knowledge about NFTs be considered a property interest for wire fraud?
Is profit from digital asset manipulation criminal?
Trial Court Decision:
Jury convicted him of wire fraud and money laundering.
Appeals Court Decision:
The conviction was vacated because the jury instruction wrongly equated confidential information with a property interest.
The court emphasized that wire fraud requires a tangible economic interest, not just general unfair advantage.
Principles:
Not all NFT-related misconduct qualifies as criminal fraud.
Courts require proof of a real economic/property interest in the digital asset.
4. Hangzhou Internet Court — NFT Infringement (China, 2022)
Facts:
A Chinese NFT marketplace facilitated the sale of digital art NFTs whose underlying works were not authorized by the original creators.
Buyers were misled about the legitimacy of these NFTs.
Legal Issues:
Can the platform be held liable for facilitating unauthorized NFT sales?
Are digital receipts of NFT transactions legally significant?
Court Decision:
The court held that the platform was jointly liable for copyright infringement because it earned commissions and actively participated in sales.
Buyers had a right to challenge unauthorized or forged transaction records.
Principles:
Platforms facilitating NFT sales may be liable for fraud or infringement.
Digital transaction receipts are enforceable if they confer ownership or rights.
5. Fictional Case: Digital Realm v. Apex Metaverse Builders (US, 2023)
Facts:
A developer claimed ownership of virtual land in a metaverse project using allegedly valid purchase receipts.
Investigation revealed the receipts were forged and the land had been sold to multiple parties.
Court Decision:
Court held the receipts were fraudulent and void.
The developer was liable for civil damages and had to compensate the affected buyers.
The court emphasized the importance of verifying transaction records before claiming digital asset ownership.
Principles:
Forged metaverse transaction receipts do not confer ownership.
Civil liability arises from fraudulent documentation, even in virtual environments.
6. Fictional Case: MetaCity v. Digital Horizon (UK, 2024)
Facts:
Digital Horizon claimed they purchased virtual assets in MetaCity using blockchain receipts.
MetaCity alleged the receipts were fabricated to claim control over valuable virtual property.
Court Decision:
Court held the receipts were invalid and forged.
Digital Horizon’s claim to the assets was rejected.
Court allowed MetaCity to reclaim control of virtual property and ordered damages for unauthorized occupation.
Principles:
Courts will scrutinize all evidence of digital ownership in the metaverse.
Forged transaction receipts are legally unenforceable.
🔑 Key Takeaways from Judicial Decisions on Forged Metaverse Receipts:
Digital assets can be treated as legal property, making theft, forgery, or fraud actionable.
Forgery of transaction receipts is invalid and does not confer ownership rights.
Civil remedies (damages, restitution, injunctions) and criminal liability (fraud, money laundering) are available.
Platforms may be liable if they facilitate forged or unauthorized transactions.
Courts require proof of economic interest when determining fraud in NFT/metaverse transactions.
Evidence beyond receipts — such as wallet ownership, blockchain records, and communications — is critical.
RELATED Blog
{!! (isset($postDetail['review_mapping']) && count($postDetail['review_mapping']) > 0 ? count($postDetail['review_mapping']) : 0) }} comments