India Recognizes XRP as Property — A Turning Point for Crypto Investors

WazirX hack fallout: User challenges $9,400 XRP account freeze

The case started when Rhutikumari, an XRP (XRP), filed a petition against WazirX after the exchange froze his account containing 3,532.30 XRP worth about $9,400. The dispute stems from WazirX’s response to a July 2024 hack that led to the theft of approximately $235 million in assets.

To manage the losses, WazirX proposed a controversial “loss socialization” plan, which would distribute the financial impact proportionally across all user accounts. Rhutikumari challenged the planarguing that it violated their property rights.

In its defense, WazirX argued that the dispute was governed by a restructuring plan approved by Singapore’s High Court, which outlines a three-step process for pro rata compensation to all users. The exchange argued that it does not directly affect the user wallets and held that the Madras High Court had no jurisdiction because the arbitration was based in Singapore. He also added that trading and withdrawals have been temporarily paused for all users during the restructuring process.

This situation prompted the Madras High Court rule not only on Rhutikumari’s account, but also on whether cryptocurrencies like XRP qualify as personal property under Indian law.

do you know XRP can settle cross-border transactions in just three to five seconds, making it one of the fastest digital assets for payments.

The Court sets a legal precedent in India

In a significant interim decision, the Madras High Court declared that cryptocurrencies are “property capable of being owned and held in trust”, formally recognizing it under Indian law.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that digital assets like XRP constitute a form of property – intangible, but capable of being owned, enjoyed and held in trust – rather than mere speculative instruments. In reaching this conclusion, he referred to Section 2(47A) of the Income Tax Act and drew from Indian jurisprudence and international precedents, including the New Zealand case Ruscoe v. Cryptopia Ltd.

Although WazirX argued that a Singapore court-approved restructuring scheme governed the dispute, the Madras High Court disagreed. The court retained jurisdiction as the petitioner, Rhutikumari, had transferred funds from an Indian bank account. He also noted that she accessed the WazirX platform from India, creating a domestic cause of action.

As interim relief, the court prohibited Zanmai Labs, the Indian company that operates WazirX, from reallocating Rhutikumari’s 3,532.30 XRP and ordered the exchange to provide a bank guarantee of approximately $11,500 until the matter is resolved. The decision established ownership of cryptocurrency as a legally protected property right in India.

do you know Many people confuse Ripple and XRP, but they are not the same. Ripple is the company that builds blockchain-based payment solutions, while XRP is the decentralized digital asset that powers transactions in the XRP Ledger, the blockchain network.

Why this decision is important for crypto holders in India

The decision of the Madras High Court marks a turning point for India’s crypto market, providing much-needed legal clarity. For the first time, a high court has formally recognized a digital asset like XRP as “property” under Indian law, granting investors clear ownership rights.

The Madras High Court’s interim order protects holders by preventing Zanmai Labs from reallocating or liquidating an investor’s XRP to compensate for losses from a hack or restructuring. It sets a precedent in which courts can treat cryptocurrencies as customer property instead of unsecured claims on an exchange.

The decision is widely expected to boost investor confidence in XRP in India, given the new legal clarity it provides.

The judgment may prompt lawmakers to introduce clearer and stronger rules on the ownership and rights of holders of virtual digital assets. While this may take time, the decision could serve as an important first step.

India joins US, UK and Singapore in treating crypto as protected property

The decision of the Madras Supreme Court recognizes that cryptocurrencies constitute property under Indian law, offering legal protection to holders in India. With this decision, India aligns itself with other jurisdictions – including Singapore and the United States – that have also treated crypto assets as property in some legal contexts.

In the United States, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies virtual currency as property for federal tax purposes. Courts can freeze wallets, issue injunctions and capture crypto under the law of property and civil forfeiture rules. This property classification can help victims of hacking or fraud provides a legal basis for recovery strategies, although actual recovery depends on traceability, jurisdiction and exchange cooperation.

English courts recognize crypto assets as property, allowing for injunctive relief, tracking and disclosure orders. A landmark decision was AA v. Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm), where the court held that crypto-assets such as Bitcoin (BTC) can be treated as property because they are definable, identifiable, transferable and satisfy the criteria for property rights.

Although English law traditionally divides property into “things in possession” and “things in action”, the court accepted that new assets, such as crypto assets, can fall into a third category of personal property.

In Singapore, the High Court in ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin & Ors [2023] SGHC 199 stated that crypto assets are “property capable of being held on trust” and therefore declared a constructive trust on misappropriated digital assets. The court’s decision allowed property rights and equitable remedies (such as freezing orders and tracing) in respect of those assets, reinforcing that crypto ownership can attract protection equivalent to traditional ownership.

How ownership status for crypto could impact XRP in India

The Madras Supreme Court’s recognition of XRP as property could significantly impact India’s crypto market and boost investor confidence.

For XRP, stronger legal protection can increase local demand in India and strengthen investor confidence. As of November 3, 2025, XRP was trading at around $2.3, with technical resistance at around $2.80. If the rule increases demand in India, XRP could break above that resistance level.

For exchanges, the decision may require a reorganization of their terms of service. They may need to be revisited custody arrangements and restructuring plans, as the law now treats user tokens as protected property rather than shared assets.

For investors, understanding their legal rights is crucial. They now have stronger ownership recognition on the crypto assets they hold with exchanges. India is now closer to jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore. This alignment could accelerate India’s regulatory progress, fostering greater transparency, accountability and trust in the digital asset ecosystem.

do you know Unlike Bitcoin, XRP uses a consensus protocol that consumes very little energy. Some estimates put it at about 0.0079 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per transaction, compared to estimates of hundreds of kWh for Bitcoin.

Limitations of India’s crypto ownership rule

The decision of the Madras High Court is a significant step forward, but it comes with certain limitations. As a crypto trader, it is important to understand these limitations clearly.

• Sphere: The decision of the Supreme Court of Madras is an interim order specific to the 3,532 XRP of a holder, so it cannot automatically apply to all wallets, tokens or exchanges.

• Token type: The court clarified that XRP and similar assets are not “currency” but intangible property, leaving uncertainty about how other types of virtual digital assets can be classified.

• Execution and recovery: While ownership status offers potential protection, actual enforcement and recovery will depend on the custody and transparency practices of each exchange.

• Evolution of the regulations: India still lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework. This decision is judicial, not legislative, and future legislation could overturn the court’s decision.

• Inter-jurisdictional issues: Cross-border crypto transactions may introduce additional complexity, as protections granted in one jurisdiction may not extend to another.