Investment in cryptocurrency and digital assets has surged in recent years. As of early 2025, around one in three Australian adults had owned some form of crypto. However, crypto can be quickly moved, hard to trace and difficult to value. This has created new concerns for separating couples, with important implications for how the court approaches property settlement. 

Australian Family Law readily applies to cryptocurrency and other digital assets, though parties should be aware of how these assets fit into the property settlement process. 

Digital assets must be disclosed, valued and considered when assessing a fair division of assets. If a party withholds or improperly discloses their ownership of or investment in of digital assets, the court may account for that in its orders.

Are digital assets considered ‘property’?

The legal status of digital assets is clear. If a party owns, controls, or benefits from digital assets, including cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, or digital artworks like non-Fungible Tokens (NFTS), they are treated as property. Even though the Family law Act does not specifically mention these assets, the court has on numerous occasions treated them as property to be divided.

Does the duty to disclose apply to crypto and other digital assets?

Parties in family law proceedings must comply with the duty of full, frank and timely disclosure of all relevant financial information and documents. This includes earnings, property interests, liabilities, trusts, financial resources, disposals of property and more. 

As with any significant asset, whether a car, heirloom, or shareholding, parties are expected to provide evidence of the digital assets they hold and what they are worth. 

After separation, the court must assess the parties’ combined property pool and its value to determine a fair and just division that reflects each person’s circumstances and contributions. 

If someone fails to disclose assets in property settlement, the court can:

• make cost orders against them (1)
• draw adverse inferences (2)
• stay or dismiss their case of part of their case (3)
• in extreme cases, impose criminal penalties (4) like fines or imprisonment

In short, hiding digital assets almost always makes the outcome worse for the person who hides them.

---

1. Family Court Rules (r 6.06),
2. Powell v Christensen [2020] FamCA 944
3. Muir v Rodelo (No 2), [2023] FedCFamC1F 845 (2023)
4. Fowles v Fowles [2025] FedCFamC1A 147

---

How the court now deals with missing or hidden crypto

In the past, if it was revealed that a party spent or hid money and property, including digital assets, the court often “added it back” into the property pool as if it still existed (5). After the decision in Shinohara [2025] FedCFamC1A 126, that approach no longer applies.

The court now focuses on existing property. At present, the consequences of non-disclosure, dissipation or concealment of digital assets are addressed by the Family Law Act. While the recent amendments to Family Law influence the court’s contributions analysis and the current and future factors they are directed to consider, the court maintains a firm stance against failures and often deliberate attempts to violate the duty of disclosure.

The court may adjust the settlement or make orders against a non-complying party where they have:

• intentionally or recklessly disposed of crypto, amounting to wastage of property (6)
• transferred assets to friends, relatives, or new wallets to avoid disclosure 
• engaged in high-risk or speculative trading that caused significant losses
• accumulated crypto or digital tokens without disclosure
• created liabilities (e.g., tax obligations triggered by disposal, margin calls)
• affected the party’s financial position through their dealings. (7)

This allows the court to respond to circumstances involving cryptocurrency even if the asset itself cannot be brought back into the property pool.

---

5. Powell v Christensen [2020] FamCA 944; Muir v Rodelo (No 2), [2023] FedCFamC1F 845 (2023)
6. S 79(5)(d)
7. S 79(5)(n)

---

Where to look when crypto activity isn’t obvious

Where it is hard to determine whether a person owns digital assets, or through which platform they may be held, there are other ways that parties and practitioners can read between the lines to identify ownership and investment. Common sources of information include:

• Traditional banking material is often the first place to start. Account and credit-card statements may disclose transfers and exchanges to and from fintech and cryptocurrency platforms.
• Subpoenas remain an important tool financial disclosure. Domestic subpoenas are relatively straightforward, though compelling offshore institutions to produce records can be more onerous, costly, or sometimes unavailable. 
• Emails provide another avenue of inquiry. Registration confirmations, security alerts, verification emails or receipts can all expose the existence of wallets or exchange accounts.
• Taxation documents can also be revealing. Capital gains, crypto-related returns, or even unexplained disparities between declared income and expenditure may point to activity that warrants inquiry. 
• Digital records may be informative. This includes social media profiles, online shopping websites like eBay, and gambling accounts. 
• Irregular financial behaviour can point to undisclosed cryptocurrency. The sudden depletion of assets, unusual and substantial withdrawals, disparities between disclosed records and lifestyle may be indicative of attempts to mask ownership.

If digital assets are held in places harder to trace (such as DeFI platforms, Layer-2 networks or wrapped tokens), tracing them may require blockchain analysis. Sometimes experts are needed to interpret on-chain behaviour, verify the history of an asset, and identify whether a wallet belongs to particular person. They do this by combining blockchain analysis with off-chain information like device logs, IP data, or verification records from exchanges.

In a recent case involving crypto, expert evidence was used to value and trace accounts and transactions moved between multiple wallets. Elsewhere, the court has relied on purchase price as indicative of value.

Nonetheless, there are many starting avenues to identify, trace and value digital assets. 

If you are seeking advice on your rights in a property settlement, how to best navigate financial disclosure, or believe the other party may be concealing digital assets, contact the team at Resolve Conflict to discuss your circumstances. We offer a free 15-minute consultation to help you understand your options and next steps.