India

Saraf and Partners successfully represented the State Bank of India (SBI) in a landmark decision, with the Bombay High Court on Friday refusing to quash the bank’s order classifying the loan account of Reliance Communications and its Chairman, Anil Ambani, as "fraud." The order was pronounced by a division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr. Neela Gokhale. The classification, made on June 13, 2025, was issued under the Reserve Bank of India’s Master Directions on Fraud Risk Management and SBI’s internal policies. Mr. Ambani had challenged the action, alleging non-compliance with principles of natural justice, including not being granted an opportunity of hearing prior to the classification and delayed provision of certain material relevant to the decision. The High Court upheld SBI’s action, reinforcing the bank’s authority and discretion to classify accounts under the regulatory framework. A detailed copy of the order is awaited. The Saraf and Partners team representing SBI comprised Founder and Managing Partner, Mohit Saraf and Partners, Sudeshna Guha Roy and Abhiraj Arora.

SNG & Partners has successfully advised on a strategic listed debt issuance of INR 1,100 crores by DLF Cyber City Developers Limited (“DCCDL”), a subsidiary of DLF Limited that houses DLF’s commercial leasing assets, and a leading player in India’s commercial real estate sector. The firm advised the investor and the debenture trustee on the issuance of listed secured non-convertible debentures (NCDs) of an amount aggregating to INR 1,100 crores. The proceeds are earmarked to support DCCDL’s routine operations and the completion of its ongoing projects including, operational expenses of DLF Cyber Green, DCCDL’s commercial project in Gurugram, Haryana. SNG & Partners acted as legal counsel, engaging in the drafting, reviewing, and negotiation of transaction documents, advising on compliance with the Companies Act, 2013 and relevant RBI and SEBI guidelines, and facilitating listing and execution protocols. The transaction was led by Aditya Vikram Dua (Partner and Head of Financial Services), with Aniket Sawant (Associate Partner), Parvathi Menon (Senior Associate) and Aditi Singh (Associate) forming the core execution team.

Abstract Cryptocurrencies and digital assets are now embedded within the corporate balance sheets, investment portfolios, and individual wealth. Their pseudonymous decentralized, and borderless characteristics pose unique difficulties for insolvency practitioners tasked with asset tracing and recovery. This article examines the conceptual and practical challenges of tracing cryptocurrencies in insolvency proceedings, evaluates the legal status of such assets across jurisdictions, and explores judicial developments that shape recovery strategies. Imploring on judicial precedents, statutory guidelines, this article argues for the integration of blockchain analytics, international cooperation, and statutory reform to improve outcomes for creditors. I. Introduction The advent of cryptocurrency has ushered in a paradigm shift in global finance, often described as – ‘the dawn of decentralized era’. This has, in turn, posed novel challenges for the framework of insolvency proceedings. Unlike traditional insolvency practice, where professionals address tangible properties, securities, and bank deposits; digital assets are intangible, borderless and accessible solely through private cryptographic keys on decentralized ledgers. This fundamental difference raises complex questions regarding valuation, custody, and recovery in insolvency proceedings, challenging established legal doctrines and procedural framework. With the continuous expansion of digital assets, it becomes imperative to examine how insolvency laws must adapt to address the unique characteristics and risks posed by cryptocurrencies. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) defines ‘property’ in broader terms but does not explicitly enumerate Virtual Digital Assets (‘VDA’) such as cryptoassets.[1] This lacuna has led to uncertainty: should cryptocurrencies be regarded as property capable of tracing and recovery, or merely as contractual rights lacking proprietary status? Addressing the same, in AA v Persons Unknown, the English High Court recognized that cryptocurrency constitutes property and may be subject to a proprietary injunction.[2] Likewise, the Singapore High Court in CLM v CLN, affirmed that cryptocurrencies qualify as property for the purpose of proprietary remedies.[3] The paradox of cryptoassets is that they are simultaneously transparent and opaque. On one hand, blockchains provide immutable public ledgers of transactions. On the other, pseudonymity and complex technologies make linking wallets to real-world debtors difficult. This duality complicates insolvency proceedings, challenging tracing, valuation and distribution of such assets. II. Taxed but not Tender: Legislative Intent on Recognition of Cryptocurrency The legal status of cryptocurrency in India reflects a cautious yet evolving regulatory approach. While cryptocurrencies are not yet recognized as legal tender, they are permitted to be bought, sold, and held as Virtual Digital Assets under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Judicially, the Supreme Court in Internet and Mobile Association of India v Reserve Bank of India,[4] set aside the RBI’s 2018 ban[5] on banking facilitation of cryptocurrency transactions, reaffirming constitutional freedom to trade in such assets. Subsequent legislative developments, including the proposed but unpassed Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2021, highlighted the State’s intent to restrict private cryptocurrencies while exploring a central bank digital currency. However, with the Union Budget 2022, the government opted for a taxation regime instead – introducing a 1% TDS under Section 194S and a 30% tax on gains under Section 115BBH of the Income Tax Act – thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of crypto transactions as taxable events without according them the status of currency.[6] Parallelly, the regulatory framework has shifted towards compliance and monitoring. In March 2023, the Ministry of Finance issued a notification bringing VDA service providers within the definition of ‘reporting entities’ under section 2(1) (wa) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.[7] Consequently, exchanged and service providers are now required to register with the ‘Financial Intelligence Unit’ and adhere to ‘anti-money laundering’ obligations.[8] This has already resulted in 28 VDA platforms securing registration as reporting entities.[9] The combined effect of these measure reveals a legislative and regulatory trajectory that, while avoiding full recognition of cryptocurrency as money, positions it firmly within India’s taxation and compliance architecture. III. The Core Dilemma of Asset Tracing in Insolvency Tracing cryptoassets in insolvency proceedings poses significant challenges. Their anonymous nature, accompanied with privacy-enhancing tools, and rapid price volatility complicates the identification, recovery and valuation. Traditional approach used for bank accounts and other assets are often inadequate. The following sections examine the key issues: establishing ownership, navigating concealment strategies, and addressing valuation difficulties.   i. Identification of Ownership Establishing ownership of cryptoassets is a central challenge in insolvency proceedings given their anonymous nature and reliance on privacy tools. Courts across multiple jurisdictions have recognized cryptocurrencies as property, enabling proprietary remedies to recover misappropriated assets. As discussed earlier, in AA v Persons Unknown, the English High Court held that cryptocurrency qualifies as property and granted a proprietary injunction, emphasizing the importance of forensic evidence and tracing transactions. Similarly, in CLM v CLN, the Singaporean Court confirmed that cryptocurrencies constitute property under common law principles and allowed a worldwide freezing order against persons unknown. In addition to this, precedents such as Fetch.ai Ltd. v Persons Unknown[10] and Ion Science Ltd. v Persons Unknown[11]  further highlight the use of proprietary injunctions and third-party debt orders to identify wallet owners and recover assets. In Robertson v Persons Unknown[12] [2019] EWHC 358 (Comm) and D’Aloia v Persons Unknown[13] [2020] EWHC 1410 (Comm), the Court reinforced the need for disclosure orders compelling exchanges or intermediaries to reveal wallet ownership. These judgements collectively demonstrate that effective identification of cryptoasset ownership often relies on a combination of forensic blockchain analysis, information from cryptocurrency exchanges, and legal mechanisms like injunctions and disclosure orders. The accumulated jurisprudence establishes that while blockchain’s transparency aids tracing, the anonymous and decentralized nature of cryptoassets requires innovative legal tools and careful evidentiary strategies to connect digital wallets to their rightful owners in insolvency proceedings.   ii. Assets Concealment Strategies The corporate debtors indulge in exploiting various technological tools to frustrate tracing efforts in insolvency proceedings. Mixing services and tumblers, obscure the provenance of funds by pooling and redistributing cryptocurrency among various users, posing it difficult to trace the original source of assets. Privacy-focused cryptocurrencies complicate tracing due to their built-in features that conceal transaction details, including sender and receiver information. ‘Decentralized Exchanges’ (DEXs) without robust ‘anti-money laundering’ (‘AML’) mechanism and ‘Know Your Customer’ (‘KYC’) controls allow rapid and anonymous conversion, enabling debtors to move assets without detection. In response to these challenges, legal system across various jurisdictions have begun amending existing legal framework. In United States of America, the Department of Justice have charged individuals operating crypto mixers under ‘the Bank Secrecy Act’, emphasizing the need for compliance with AML regulations.[14] In addition, the blockchain analytics firms are developing advanced tools to detect and mitigate the risks associated with anonymous strategies, aiming to enhance the traceability of cryptoassets transactions. However, the evolving nature of these technologies presents ongoing challenges for the insolvency practitioners seeking to trace and recover assets effectively.   iii. Challenges in Valuation The valuation of cryptoassets poses significant challenges due to their volatility and the absence of standardized valuation methods. Thus, it makes imperative to ascertain whether the valuation of assets be at the date of commencement of insolvency proceeding, date of realization or date of distribution.  In the case of Mt. Gox Co. Ltd.[15], the Tokyo Court commenced bankruptcy proceedings in February 2024 following the disappearance of approximately 744,800 Bitcoins, valued around $ 473 millions. As of July 2022, approximately 142,000 Bitcoins were located, but the distribution process has been protracted and fraught with challenges. The creditors of the company received distributions based on the value of Bitcoin at the time of insolvency filing, not its later surge, thus causing significant inequity. In FTX Trading Ltd. v Vara,[16] the United States Bankruptcy Court issued a ruling in the FTX Chapter 11 of bankruptcy case, providing guidance on estimating the value of cryptocurrency claims. This decision marked a significant development in the legal treatment of cryptoassets under insolvency proceedings, establishing a framework that could influence future cases. These cases underscored the complexities and uncertainties associated with valuing cryptoassets in the regime of insolvency laws. The lack of established precedents and the volatile nature of cryptocurrencies necessitate careful consideration and innovative approaches by the insolvency practitioners to ensure fair and equitable treatment of creditors. IV. Property or Contractual Right? Why Classification Matters The legal classification of cryptoassets is not a mere academic exercise; it fundamentally determines the remedies available to creditors and insolvency practitioners. Accordingly, crypto being recognized as ‘property’, it opens the door to proprietary remedies – such as constructive trusts, tracing and injunctions – that offer stronger protection and recovery prospects. Conversely, if treated only as contractual rights, creditors are left as unsecured creditors with limited recovery. Thus, the classification debate goes to the heart of how law responds to cryptoassets insolvency.   i. The Property Debate The classification of cryptoassets as ‘property’ is pivotal: it enables remedial frameworks like constructive trusts, tracing, and proprietary injunctions, while a contractual-only characterization relegates creditors to unsecured claims with lower recovery priority. Jurisprudence established across other jurisdictions has largely settled this debate: for instance, in Ruscoe v Crytopia Ltd.,[17] the New Zealand High Court held that cryptocurrency indeed constitutes property. The Court applied the ‘four-part test’ from National Provincial Bank Ltd. v Ainsworth[18] – definability, identifiability by third parties, transferability, and permanence. Conversely, Indian jurisprudence has not yet ventured into this debate with clarity. In Internet and Mobile Association of India v Reserve Bank of India,[19] the Supreme Court invalidated the RBI’s ban on banking facilitation of cryptocurrency transactions on grounds of proportionality and protection of constitutional freedoms under Article 19(1)(g),[20] but deliberately sidestepped the question of whether cryptoassets are property under Indian laws. This omission leaves insolvency framework in India operating within an uncertain legal landscape, with no clear path to employing proprietary remedies for cryptoassets. ii. International Divergences The legal status of cryptoassets remains fragmented across jurisdiction, with courts adopting divergent approaches to classification. In the United States of America, bankruptcy courts have generally treated cryptocurrencies as part of the debtor’s estate under Section 541 of U.S. Bankruptcy Code.[21] Notably, in re Hashfast Technologies LLC,[22] the court recognized Bitcoin as property of the estate, thereby enabling the trustee to pursue avoidance and recovery actions in respect of crypto transfers. By contrast, China has displayed inconsistency. While certain decisions have treated cryptoassets as property entitled to legal protection – as in Li et al. v Liu (Stenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, 2019) – other rulings, following regulatory prohibitions, have emphasized that cryptocurrencies cannot function as legal tenders or tradable financial assets. This divergence underscores the absence of a settled global consensus. Whereas jurisdictions like the United States adopt a functional property analysis to safeguard creditor rights, China’s courts are constrained by regulatory bans, often relegating cryptoassets to a quasi-property status without full proprietary recognition. These differences highlight the risks of cross-border proceedings involving cryptoassets, where the remedies available to creditors may depend less on the nature of the assets than on the forum in which recover is sought. V. Policy and Legislative Reforms for the Digital Assets Era As comparative jurisprudence shows, jurisdictions that recognize cryptoassets as property have made meaningful strides in insolvency recovery. For India to avoid lagging behind, a coherent policy and legislative response must address disclosure, valuation and cross-border cooperation in digital asset cases.   i. Statutory Recognition and Disclosure Obligations The first and most pressing reform is to amend the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to expressly recognize digital assets as ‘property’. Presently, the definition of property under Section 3(27) is broad,[23] but its silence on digital assets breeds uncertainty. Codifying cryptoassets as property would align Indian law with international standards and enable insolvency professionals to employ proprietary remedies such as tracing, freezing and constructive trusts. Debtors should be statutorily required to disclose all wallet addresses, holdings on centralized exchanges, and details of private key custodians. Failure to disclose should attract penalties akin to concealment of assets under existing insolvency laws. Such obligations would mirror disclosure standards in jurisdictions like the United States, where trustees can demand wallet information under Section 521 of 11 United States Code.[24] Without disclosure, the tracing mechanism remains speculative.   ii. Specialized Divisions and Cross-border Cooperation. Given the technical nature of digital assets, the legislatures should consider establishing specialized benches or expert panels within the NCLT/NCLAT. These divisions could be staffed with judicial members and technical experts in blockchain forensics, ensuring informed adjudication. This mirrors developments in other jurisdictions where specialized financial courts handle complex asset recovery cases. As crypto-transactions are inherently borderless, domestic reforms must be supplemented with international cooperation. India must adopt and adapt UNCITRAL’s Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency,[25] which facilitates cooperation between courts of different jurisdictions. Enhanced use of ‘Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties’ (MLATs) and direct judicial communication channels will be critical in tracing assets across exchanges and jurisdictions.   iii. Infrastructural Capacity Finally, institutional capacity must be strengthened. Insolvency professionals, judicial members and regulators require training in blockchain technology, custody mechanisms, and forensic techniques. Investment and partnerships with forensic forms and academic institutions could create a sustainable ecosystem of expertise. Without this capacity, even the strongest statutory reforms risk under-enforcement. VI. Conclusion and Way Forward Tracing and recovering digital assets in insolvency represents one of the most pressing frontiers of modern commercial law. Foreign jurisdiction has begun to chart a path – recognizing cryptoassets as property, experimenting with proprietary remedies, and developing jurisprudence on valuation and recovery. India, by contrast, still grapples with statutory silence and limited judicial engagement, leaving insolvency professionals uncertain about the scope of their powers. The way forward lies in a multi-pronged strategy: legislative reform to expressly classify virtual digital assets as property under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code; procedural innovations such as mandatory disclosure of wallets and custodians; and institutional investment in technical expertise and cross-border cooperation. Embracing these measures, India can equip an insolvency regime that is both technologically attuned and creditor-protective-ensuring that digital assets are no longer insulated from accountability, but integrated into the fabric of commercial justice. [1] Section 3(27), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. [2] AA v Persons Unknown, [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm). [3] CLM v CLN, [2022] SGHC 46. [4] Internet and Mobile Association of India v Reserve Bank of India, (2020) 10 SCC 274. [5] RBI’s Prohibition on dealing in Virtual Currencies, https://www.rbi.org.in/commanman/english/scripts/Notification.aspx?Id=2632. [6] Section 115BBH and 194S, Income Tax Act, 1961. [7] Section 2(1)(wa), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. [8] The Global Legal Post,  https://www.globallegalpost.com/lawoverborders/cryptoassets-1166537785/india-113459270?utm_source=chatgpt.com#4 [9] The Economic Times, Compliance of VDA Platforms to FIU-India https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/28-virtual-digital-assets-platforms-register-with-fiu-india-to-comply-with-pmla-norms/articleshow/105727721.cms [10] Fetch.ai Ltd. v Persons Unknown, [2021} EWHC 2254 (Comm). [11] Ion Science Ltd. v Persons Unknown, [2020] EWHC 290 (Comm). [12] Robertson v Persons Unknown, [2019] EWHC 358 (Comm). [13] D’Aloia v Persons Unknown, [2020} EWHC 1410 (Comm). [14] The Bank Secrecy Act, 31 USC 5311, United States of America. [15] In Re Mt. Gox Co. Ltd., 2014(Fu) No. 3830, Tokyo Bankruptcy Courts. [16] FTX Trading Ltd. v Vara, No. 23-2297 (3rd Cir. 2024), United States Bankruptcy Court. [17] Ruscoe v Crytopia Ltd., [2020] NZHC 728. [18] National Provincial Bank Ltd. v Ainsworth, [1965] AC 1175 (HL). [19] Internet and Mobile Association of India v Reserve Bank of India, (2020) 10 SCC 274. [20] Article 19(1)(g), Constitution of India, 1950. [21] Section 541, United States Bankruptcy Code (Tittle 11 of United State Codes). [22] In re Hashfast Technologies LLC, No. 14-30725 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.2016). [23] Section 3(27), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. [24] Section 521, United States Bankruptcy Code (Tittle 11 of United State Codes). [25] UNCITRAL’s Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency, 1997.

New Delhi, September 2025 – Dua Associates has successfully steered a two-part real estate transaction in the heart of New Delhi’s prestigious Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ), acting for Maharaj Kumar Yashwant Singh Ji Sahib of Alwar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawai_Tej_Singh_Naruka) in both the acquisition of a new residence and the sale of his historic family estate. Part I – A Royal Move to Golf Links in a deal worth ₹100 crores front-ended by Dua Associates In one leg, Dua Associates advised Yashwant Singh, scion of Rajasthan’s erstwhile royal family of Alwar, on the acquisition of a stylish 704.4-sq. yards bungalow in Golf Links for ₹100 crores. The team, led by Partner Salil Gulati along with Partner Sahil Dhawan, Principal Associate Kapil Saxena and real estate subject expert Narinder Mohan, handled every facet of the transaction: exhaustive legal due diligence, structuring, drafting and negotiation of documentation, and seamless closing. The firm also guided on the requisite clearances and the payment of over ₹8 crores in stamp duty, registration fee and corporation tax. The seller, in this transaction was Anu Jindal of DLF “The Camellia”, who was represented by a team from Savills India. Completed in record time, the deal earned the client’s appreciation. Part II – Dua Associates advises on record-setting real estate sale of ₹310 crores Dua Associates being the long-term legal advisers of the Alwar royal family also counselled them on divesting their iconic bungalow on APJ Abdul Kalam Road (formerly Aurangzeb Road)—a colonial-era property spread over 3,540 sq. yards—to Gentex Merchants Pvt. Ltd., a company linked to steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal. Registered at ₹310 crores, the transaction ranks among 2025’s costliest property deals in Delhi, with the buyer paying ₹24.80 crores in stamp duty, registration fee and corporation tax. Again, led by Partner Salil Gulati along with Partner Sahil Dhawan, Principal Associate Kapil Saxena and real estate subject expert Narinder Mohan, under the able guidance of the doyen of real estate advisory, the late Shashivansh Bahadur, the team oversaw legal due diligence, deal structuring, regulatory clearances and approvals and comprehensive documentation, ensuring a swift and secure close to a marquee transaction that underscores the enduring allure of Lutyens Delhi. The purchaser in this transaction was represented by a team from Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas (SAM). Setting a Benchmark in High-Value Real Estate Advisory From sourcing and structuring to execution, Dua Associates’ end-to-end counsel exemplifies the firm’s ability to manage complex, high-value real estate matters with speed, discretion and precision. This two-part transaction—culminating in both a strategic downsizing and a record-setting sale, reaffirms Dua Associates’ position as a go-to advisor for India’s most discerning property clients. About Dua Associates: Dua Associates is a leading law firm in India with a nearly 4-decade track record of delivering critical legal solutions for its clients including Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions, governments and SMEs. The Firm is widely recognized for the depth of experienced legal talent and the significant experience of its 250 professionals including 75 partners.