Cryptocurrency sits within the Family Court’s jurisdiction — but it creates practical challenges that don’t arise with any other asset class. Volatile valuations, pseudonymous wallets, decentralised exchanges, and the ease with which digital assets can be moved, converted, or concealed mean that cryptocurrency disputes in family law require a distinct approach to both disclosure and valuation.
Is cryptocurrency property under Australian family law?
Yes. Australian courts have confirmed that cryptocurrency constitutes property for the purposes of the Family Law Act. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other digital assets held by either party on the date of separation are part of the property pool and are subject to division under section 79 (for married couples) or section 90SM (for de facto couples). The same principles that apply to other assets — identification, valuation, contribution assessment, and just and equitable division — apply to crypto holdings.
The valuation problem
Cryptocurrency prices can move dramatically over short periods. The date of valuation matters — and it is a point of genuine dispute in many cases. The court will generally assess the value of assets as at the date of the hearing or trial, but it retains discretion to use a different date where circumstances make that more just. In a volatile market, the difference between valuation at separation and valuation at hearing can be very large.
Disclosure and the concealment risk
The disclosure obligation extends to cryptocurrency holdings. A party that fails to disclose crypto assets risks adverse findings and costs orders. In practice, crypto holdings can be traced through blockchain analysis, exchange records (exchanges operating in Australia are required to comply with AML/CTF obligations and hold KYC records), and subpoenas to financial institutions for fiat on-ramp and off-ramp transactions. Where significant crypto assets are suspected but undisclosed, a specialist digital forensic investigator can be engaged.
Division: in kind or by value?
The court can order crypto assets to be transferred to the other party (in kind), or it can order that they be liquidated and the proceeds distributed, or it can offset their value against other assets allocated to the other party. The appropriate mechanism depends on the volatility risk, the liquidity of the assets, and the technical capacity of both parties to hold and manage digital assets safely.
Questions to consider
• Has the other party disclosed all cryptocurrency holdings — and is there reason to believe that holdings have been moved, converted, or transferred since separation to reduce their visible value?
• What date of valuation is most appropriate, given market volatility — and should orders include a mechanism to account for price movements between agreement and settlement?
• Is the preferred outcome a transfer of the crypto assets themselves, a sale and division of proceeds, or an offset against other assets, and which approach best manages the practical and volatility risks in this matter?