Did you know that Bitcoin theft often goes unpunished in Germany?

A look at Australia shows how it can be done better

A recent ruling from Australia is attracting worldwide attention. On November 26, 2025 the Court of Appeal in Victoria ruled that Bitcoin should be treated as property in legal terms. It is worth noting, however, that this decision merely confirms what has already been on March 21, 2025 was held in the lower court. The County Court of Victoria had already ruled that Bitcoin was property under s 72 of the Crimes Act 1958.

What is new, however, is that now the highest court level in the state of Victoria has not only confirmed this assessment, but has further sharpened it in legal terms. This is the first appellate court decision that comprehensively establishes the property character of Bitcoin and lends additional weight to the previous line. This means that the legal position is now much firmer and more binding for lower courts than ever before.

Australia is thus continuing a previously established line. Both 2019 as well as 2024 Australian courts – including the Supreme Court of Victoria – had already classified Bitcoin as property. The new case is therefore not an isolated event, but marks the culmination of a case law that has been consolidating for years.

Germany, on the other hand, is at a completely different point: a ruling by the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court in the summer of 2025 shows that Bitcoin theft in Germany remains unpunishable in certain constellations.

Australia: Bitcoin is consistently treated as property

The case that has now been decided concerns an Australian Federal Police investigator who received a seed phrase during an investigation and thus received 81.6 Bitcoin to its own address without authorization. The key legal question was:

Is Bitcoin property within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1958?

The first instance decision of March 21, 2025 already affirmed this. The Court of Appeal confirmed this finding on November 26, 2025 and explained the reasons in more detail. The judges clarified:

– Bitcoin is not just a data set, but a digital asset.

– Control over private keys corresponds to exclusive power of disposal over an asset.

– Bitcoin fulfills the classic ownership criteria: definable, controllable, transferable and excludable.

The appeal decision once again clearly emphasizes the importance of this finding: It is not merely a reiteration of the lower court, but an overarching legal affirmation that will be authoritative for future cases. It thus fits in seamlessly with Australian case law, which has been treating Bitcoin as property under civil and criminal law for years.

Germany: Bitcoin theft often goes unpunished

While Australia has long provided legal protection for digital assets, the situation in Germany paints the opposite picture. In July 2025, the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court ruled that the unauthorized transfer of crypto no theft as they were not “physical objects”. Other criminal offenses were also not considered to be fulfilled.

The consequence:

In certain constellations, the seizure of digital assets in Germany has no consequences under criminal law – despite real economic damage.

What the legislator should do now

Two concrete steps are needed to protect citizens and companies in the digital space:

First: Digital assets should be explicitly considered as criminally protected property.

This can be done by supplementing Section 242 StGB or by creating a separate offense.

Secondly: Private keys and seed phrases must be classified as particularly sensitive digital data.

Only in this way can access to digital assets be adequately protected under criminal law.

Conclusion

Australia has been demonstrating for years how modern legal systems can treat digital assets. The decisions of March and November 2025 mark the pinnacle of established case law to date: Bitcoin is property – and its unauthorized appropriation is punishable by law.

Germany, on the other hand, continues to have a legal situation that does not adequately protect digital assets. In order to enable innovation and legal certainty, there finally needs to be clear legal recognition of digital property.