Iakovlev does not attempt to redefine cryptocurrency. It simply asks the more practical question: where is the asset actually controlled, and where does the relevant legal relationship exist?
Courts are beginning to reject one of crypto’s foundational assumptions: that digital assets exist nowhere, and therefore everywhere.
That idea may hold in theory. In litigation, it does not.
A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Iakovlev v. Epayments Systems Ltd., 2026 ONSC 1296 — draws a clear line. Crypto assets, at least when held through centralized platforms, are not legally borderless. They are anchored to infrastructure, to servers, and to the entities that control them. That distinction determines where claims can be brought, and increasingly, where they cannot.
What Happened
The plaintiff alleged losses tied to the collapse of a digital asset platform and sought to establish jurisdiction in Ontario by pointing to the origin of his funds and the financial harm he experienced there. His argument was straightforward: if the economic impact was felt in Ontario, Ontario courts should hear the case.
The court rejected that premise. It reframed the issue in more precise terms — not where the investor resides, and not where the funds originated, but where the asset was actually held and where the alleged harm occurred. The digital assets were held on servers in the European Union, with no connection to any Ontario-based entity. On that basis, the court concluded that the harm did not occur in Ontario and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Why It Matters Beyond the Facts
This reasoning does more than resolve a single dispute. It cuts directly against the narrative that crypto assets are inherently locationless.
In practice, most users do not hold private keys or transact directly on-chain. They rely on centralized platforms — exchanges, custodians, payment systems — that maintain internal ledgers and control access to assets. What the user holds is not the asset itself in a pure blockchain sense, but a custodial right recorded within a centralized database.
By focusing on where those systems operate — where the servers are located and which entity controls them — the court anchored crypto assets to something courts have always required: a tangible connection. The legal situs of the asset is not defined by the user’s location or their subjective experience of loss. It is defined by control, custody, and infrastructure.
Crypto may be borderless in theory. Custody is always local.
The court was equally clear about what it refused to allow. The plaintiff’s position, if accepted, would have subjected global platforms to litigation anywhere their users reside, simply because those users experienced financial loss. The court identified this for what it is — a form of universal jurisdiction — and rejected it outright.
Implications for Practitioners
For platforms, Iakovlev provides a clear early-stage defense against forum shopping. If assets are held on infrastructure outside a claimant’s jurisdiction, managed by entities with no meaningful presence there, courts may be far more willing to decline jurisdiction before the merits are ever reached.
For claimants, the decision narrows the field. It shifts focus away from where loss is felt and toward where platforms are incorporated, where their systems are hosted, and where operational control is exercised. In practical terms, it forces litigation into jurisdictions with a genuine connection to the dispute.
Attorneys advising either side in cross-border crypto disputes should be asking these questions at the outset: Where are the platform’s servers physically located? Which entity controls the internal ledger? Does that entity have any presence in the claimant’s jurisdiction? The answers now do substantial work on jurisdiction.
A Competing Framework for Common Law Courts
Iakovlev is not an isolated development. Courts across common law jurisdictions have been grappling with the question of crypto asset situs, often with inconsistent results. Some UK decisions have suggested that digital assets may be located where their owner is domiciled. Iakovlev offers a competing framework — one grounded not in the claimant’s residence, but in the technical and corporate architecture of custody.
That distinction will resonate with courts concerned about overreach in cross-border disputes, and with platforms operating globally that have had little predictability in this space.
More broadly, the decision reflects a familiar pattern in how law responds to new technology. Early narratives emphasize novelty, arguing existing frameworks cannot accommodate emerging systems. Courts tend eventually to do the opposite — adapting established principles and applying them to new contexts, often with more precision than the industry expects.
Iakovlev follows that path. It does not attempt to redefine cryptocurrency. It simply asks the more practical question: where is the asset actually controlled, and where does the relevant legal relationship exist?
The blockchain may operate across borders. The systems that hold and manage digital assets do not. Those systems exist somewhere. And when disputes arise, that somewhere is what determines the law that applies — and the courts that will hear the case.
Join the conversation!