Legal Status of Virtual Assets in Ukraine: Property or Not?

The question “is cryptocurrency legal in Ukraine, and is it property?” sounds simpler than the answer. Formally, a dedicated law was passed back in 2022 — yet it still has not entered into force. That is precisely why crypto today is protected not by that law, but by the general rules of the Civil Code on property. Let us examine the legal field virtual assets actually occupy, whether they can be owned, inherited and pledged, and why the claim that “crypto is outside the law” is a dangerous mistake.

”The law exists but does not apply”: the paradox of Law No. 2074-IX

Ukraine’s parliament (the Verkhovna Rada) passed the Law “On Virtual Assets” (No. 2074-IX) in early 2022. However, its final provisions contain a suspensive condition: the law enters into force only from the day a separate law amending the Tax Code of Ukraine (Podatkovyi kodeks Ukrainy, PKU) on the taxation of virtual-asset transactions takes effect. No such amendments to the PKU have yet been adopted — so an act that was formally passed effectively does not operate.

The result is paradoxical: Ukraine has a ready “framework” of regulation (definitions, classification, regulators, requirements for service providers) that has not yet switched on. For owners and lawyers, this means relying not on a special statute, but on general civil law.

Why this matters in practice

• There is no licensing (authorisation) of providers of virtual-asset-related services under the regime the law envisages.
• There are no special tax rules — income from crypto transactions is taxed under the general provisions of the PKU and administered by the State Tax Service (Derzhavna podatkova sluzhba, DPS), which still generates disputes.
• The special investor-protection mechanisms set out in No. 2074-IX are not available.

What the law calls a virtual asset

Even though the law is dormant, its definitions are worth knowing — they are what everyone will follow once the norm is “switched on,” and they are already cited in professional debate.

The law defines a virtual asset as an intangible good that is an object of civil rights, has value and is expressed as a set of data in electronic form. The existence and transferability of such a good are secured by the virtual-asset circulation system.

Secured and unsecured

The law divides virtual assets into two groups:

• Unsecured — they certify no property or non-property rights (roughly, “pure” cryptocurrency such as bitcoin).
• Secured — they certify property rights, including a right of claim to other objects of civil rights (for example, tokens “pegged” to currency values, securities or other property).

This distinction is not cosmetic: it determines which body regulates the asset and which requirements apply.

Who regulates

The law splits state regulation of the market between two bodies:

• The NKTsPFR (National Securities and Stock Market Commission) — the principal regulator of the virtual-asset market.
• The NBU (National Bank of Ukraine) — for virtual assets secured by currency values.

In addition, providers of virtual-asset-related services are already subjects of primary financial monitoring under Ukraine’s anti-money-laundering legislation (Law No. 361-IX) — meaning they must identify clients and report suspicious transactions to the State Financial Monitoring Service (Derzhfinmonitoryng).

How courts qualify crypto today

Because the special law is inactive, courts and investigators work with crypto through a foundational category of civil law — property. The logic is straightforward: if an object has value, and can be owned, used and disposed of, it is an object of civil rights.

The Civil Code (Tsyvilnyi kodeks, TsK) frames this through several provisions:

Civil Code norm	Subject	Application to crypto
Art. 177	List of objects of civil rights	As “other property” / an intangible good
Art. 179	Concept of a thing (a material-world object)	Crypto is not a “thing” in the classical sense
Art. 190	Concept of property (things + property rights)	Crypto treated as property rights / other property

Cryptocurrency is not a “thing” in the classical sense (it has no material form) and is not a monetary unit — the hryvnia remains the sole legal tender. In practice, therefore, it is treated as other property / property rights — a specific intangible asset that has value. It is this qualification that lets the full toolkit of property protection apply to crypto.

Crypto as an object of ownership, inheritance and collateral

Ownership

If crypto is property, the Civil Code rules on the right of ownership apply — possession, use and disposal. The practical problem lies not in the right but in proof: ownership of bitcoin is not recorded in any state register, so confirmation comes from access to the wallet (private keys, seed phrase), transaction history, exchange documents and contracts. In disputes it is the evidentiary base, not the bare fact of “holding,” that decides the outcome.

Inheritance

An estate includes all of the deceased’s property rights and obligations that did not terminate on death (Art. 1218 of the Civil Code) — so crypto assets are, in theory, inheritable. But without access to the keys, an heir effectively receives nothing: no notary or court can “restore” a private key. This creates a distinct practical risk that should be addressed in advance.

Pledge and seizure

Property may be pledged — so, potentially, may crypto. In practice, however, the more common event is not pledge but seizure of virtual assets in criminal proceedings (Art. 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks, KPK, on the attachment of property): investigators — including detectives of the Bureau of Economic Security (Biuro ekonomichnoi bezpeky, BEB) — and courts attach crypto as a suspect’s property, and engage specialists and experts to detect, identify and value it.

What case law shows

The Unified State Register of Court Decisions (YeDRSR) already contains rulings in which courts, absent special regulation, apply the general rules on property to crypto assets; there are also positions from the cassation instance — the Supreme Court (Verkhovnyi Sud). Several approaches are emerging:

• crypto is recognised as property / a property asset that may be attached;
• in cases on the division of spousal property and in inheritance disputes, crypto assets are treated as part of the property mass;
• in “fraud” cases, the value of stolen crypto is calculated as the amount of property damage.

Crypto disputes arise across different types of proceedings, each governed by its own procedural code: division of spousal property or an inheritance dispute under the Civil Procedure Code (TsPK), a conflict between business entities under the Commercial Procedure Code (HPK), a challenge to a tax authority’s actions under the Code of Administrative Procedure (KASU), and attachment and seizure of assets under the KPK. Whatever the code, the logic is the same: the court establishes the legal consequences, while an expert confirms the factual economic circumstances (the sums, the movement of funds, the value).

At the same time, there is no single settled position yet — the practice is only taking shape, and much depends on the quality of the evidence and the economic substantiation of an asset’s value on the relevant date. In my expert work, the questions of valuation and of tracing the movement of crypto assets are precisely the decisive ones.

Where regulation is heading

The rules will change over the next few years. The main directions to watch:

• Harmonisation with EU law. A revised version of the regulation is being prepared with reference to the European Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), so that Ukrainian rules align with the EU market.
• Taxation. Models for taxing income from virtual-asset transactions are under discussion (rates, the moment income arises, the treatment of costs). It is precisely this “tax” condition that will unlock the entry into force of No. 2074-IX.
• Clarification of the status of regulators and service providers.

Specific bill numbers and rates will still shift, so on practical matters rely on the finally adopted norms rather than on drafts.

Common mistakes

• “Crypto is outside the legal field.” The most widespread and most dangerous error. There is no special law yet, but crypto is protected as property — it can be recovered in court, inherited, included in a division, and awarded as damages.
• “If the law doesn’t apply, there’s no tax.” The absence of special rules does not exempt anyone from general taxation: an individual’s income from crypto transactions falls under personal income tax and the military levy at the general PKU rates.
• Ignoring key access. A right to crypto without the private key is often unenforceable. Arrange for a secure and legally correct transfer of access to heirs.
• Confusing crypto with “money.” It is not a means of payment in Ukraine but a property asset — and transactions must be documented accordingly.

What owners and advisers should do

A few practical, pre-emptive steps:

1. Record the origin of assets — exchange statements, contracts, top-up history. This is both a tax “cushion” and proof of ownership.
2. Document value on key dates (acquisition, inheritance, dispute) — crypto value is volatile, and the valuation date critically affects the amount.
3. Plan inheritance — separately think through the secure transfer of wallet access.
4. In a dispute or investigation, engage economic expertise: tracing the movement of funds between wallets and accounts, and calculating value and the amount of damage, belong to the economic expert specialisms and are performed under the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Expert Examination” and the Instruction on the Appointment and Conduct of Forensic Examinations (Ministry of Justice Order No. 53/5).

Virtual assets in Ukraine are not a “grey zone” — they are property that requires competent documentation and defence. If you face a dispute, inheritance, division of property or criminal proceedings involving cryptocurrency, seek a consultation or a forensic economic examination: we will value the assets and trace their movement through the documents and within the bounds of the law.