The UK Court of Appeal has taken a major step toward treating in-game items like real-world property — ruling that virtual gold in Old School RuneScape qualifies as “property” under the Theft Act 1968. The decision paves the way for criminal theft charges over stolen game assets and could reshape how courts treat virtual goods.
What the court decided
- Lord Justice Popplewell found RuneScape gold pieces are “assets which have an ascertainable monetary value and which may be traded for that value both in the game and outside the game.” That language allowed an appeal to proceed against an earlier ruling that had said the gold could not be stolen because it was not “rivalrous” (i.e., it was uncapped in supply).
- Popplewell rejected the idea that an unlimited supply prevents something from being rivalrous. He used a plain-English analogy — comparing RuneScape gold to paper clips, which are still property despite being producible in infinite quantities — and stressed that one player cannot simultaneously own the same coins: transfer of in-game gold involves dispossession of at least one party.
The underlying allegations
- The case centers on Andrew Lakeman, a former Jagex content developer. Prosecutors say he accessed 68 player accounts (by hacking or using account-recovery credentials), removed 705 billion gold pieces, and sold them for a combination of Bitcoin and fiat worth £543,123 (about $748,385).
- Lakeman faces five indictments, including theft, computer misuse and money laundering. The Court of Appeal ruling does not convict him but allows the appeal of the prior legal finding to move forward.
Why this matters — and what it doesn’t
- Criminal vs. civil property: London lawyer Ashley Fairbrother (partner at Edmonds Marshall McMahon) told Decrypt the judgment underlines a key distinction: something can be “property” for criminal law under section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 even if it wouldn’t be treated the same under civil property law. That autonomy was crucial because Jagex’s terms — which state virtual currency is not the user’s “own private property” — might affect civil claims but do not automatically block criminal prosecution.
- Limited effect on cryptocurrency: Fairbrother also noted that this ruling won’t change Bitcoin’s legal status in the UK. English courts have treated Bitcoin as property since the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce’s 2019 legal statement, and the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 — which came into force in December 2025 — further confirms that digital assets like Bitcoin can be property at common law.
Broader implications
- The judgment strengthens the legal footing for prosecuting theft of in-game assets and may encourage victims and platforms to pursue criminal remedies against account hijacking and asset extraction. It also signals courts are prepared to adapt traditional property concepts to digital contexts, focusing on economic value and dispossession rather than an item’s physical limitations.
The appeal will now proceed, and the outcome could set an important precedent for digital-property prosecutions and the enforcement of players’ rights over virtual economies.
Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
