R v Andrew Lakeman

For the purposes of the Theft Act 1968, property is a context-specific criminal-law concept. The inclusive definition has a wide ambit and may extend to an intangible thing ordinarily capable of being stolen, unless principle or policy requires an exception. Civil-law property rights, contractual terms and rivalrousness are not determinative. Pure knowledge remains excluded, but a functional digital asset may be distinct from the code representing it. In-game gold pieces with identifiable use, transferability and monetary value were therefore capable of being property and of being stolen.

The prosecution appealed from a preparatory-hearing ruling by the Crown Court at Cambridge. The judge held that gold pieces in Old School Runescape were not property for the purposes of section 4 of the Theft Act 1968, principally because they were insufficiently rivalrous and resembled pure information. The appeal concerned whether the gold pieces constituted property at all, whether they were the property of the players or Jagex, and whether contractual restrictions or private-law rights determined the statutory question.

Disposition. The appeal was allowed. The preliminary issue was answered by holding that gold pieces in Old School Runescape are property capable of being the subject of theft.

1. Statutory context. Section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 contains an inclusive definition with a wide ambit. The relevant question is whether the thing can ordinarily be described as capable of being stolen, subject to established legal or policy exceptions. The answer is determined by the criminal statutory context, not automatically by private property law.
2. Private-law rights and section 5. Contractual terms between Jagex and players, and the absence of enforceable civil-law rights, were not decisive. Under section 5, property may belong to more than one person. Possession and control are factual concepts and need not depend on a lawful civil-law entitlement.
3. Nature of the asset. The relevant subject matter was the functional gold piece, not the coded data that instantiated it. The court distinguished a digital asset from pure information, which is merely knowledge and cannot be stolen because its communication does not deprive the possessor of it. The reasoning concerning the distinction between an asset and its code was supported by Tulip Trading Ltd v Bitcoin Association BSV & others [2023] EWCA Civ 83 and the approach to transferable intangible property in Attorney General of Hong Kong v Nai-Keung [1987] 1 WLR 1339.
4. Application. Gold pieces were identifiable functional assets. They could be transferred, had ascertainable monetary value, and could be the subject of dishonest dealing that deprived a possessor of their use and value. Contractual prohibitions on external trading did not alter that conclusion. The gold pieces did not fall within the pure-information or other established exceptions. Their satisfaction of the Ainsworth criteria and the Law Commission's proposed digital-asset criteria supported the conclusion but was not necessary to it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the prosecution appeal and held that gold pieces in Old School Runescape are property capable of being stolen: [2026] EWCA Crim 4.
• Crown Court at Cambridge: At a preparatory hearing, ruled that the gold pieces were not property for the purposes of theft and gave leave to appeal.