The Court of Appeal’s judgment in R v Lakeman [2026] EWCA Crim 4 marks a significant point in the UK’s treatment of digital assets, particularly for in‑game currencies used within online games. The court held that gold pieces in Old School RuneScape (“OSRS”) are “property” for the purposes of the Theft Act 1968. This decision has direct and practical consequences for the games industry.

This article explains what happened in the case, why it matters, and the steps game developers should now consider.

1. The underlying dispute

1.1 OSRS and the role of “gold pieces”

As many readers will know, Old School RuneScape is a long‑running massively multiplayer online game. Players accumulate gold pieces through gameplay or via redeeming Bonds purchased from the publisher. These gold pieces exist as “instantiated digital data”, i.e. what appears in a player's account on screen as a volume of gold pieces is merely a product of a set of coded data attributing that amount of gold to that particular player within the publisher’s servers and obviously acts as a measure of in‑game wealth.

Although the publisher’s terms prohibit real‑world trading of gold pieces, the court accepted that such trading does occur in practice, with consistent monetary valuations.

1.2 The allegations

A former employee of the publisher was alleged to have:

• gained unauthorised access to 68 player accounts,
• removed approximately 705 billion gold pieces, and
• sold them for Bitcoin and fiat currency, with a real‑world value of about £543,123.

He was charged with the offences of theft, computer misuse and money laundering.

2. The earlier ruling by the Crown Court - gold pieces are not property

At a preparatory hearing, HHJ Grey found that OSRS gold pieces were not property for the purposes of section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 and dismissed the theft count.

The judge there reasoned that:

• gold pieces lacked “rivalrousness” (explained below), and
• were comparable to pure information, which cannot be “stolen” under the Theft Act.

The prosecution appealed.

“Rivalrousness” arises where only one person can use or enjoy something at a time. For example, if you are using a mobile phone, your friend can’t be using the same mobile phone at the same time.

3. What the Court of Appeal had to decide

The issue before the Court of Appeal was precise: whether OSRS gold pieces fall within section 4(1) of the Theft Act 1968, which includes “things in action and other intangible property”.

Ownership questions as between the publisher and the game’s players were explicitly treated as secondary; the threshold question was simply whether gold pieces can be property at all.

4. The Court of Appeal’s decision

4.1 In certain circumstances, gold pieces are property for Theft Act purposes

The Court of Appeal overturned the Crown Court’s ruling and held that the gold pieces are capable of being stolen. They concluded that “gold pieces within the Old School Runescape game are property which can be the subject of the offence of theft”.

The judgment included these key points:

• Gold pieces in OSRS have an allocatable, stable identity within player accounts.
• Control over them is exclusive - if transferred away from the player, the original holder is deprived.
• They are routinely traded for value (including in the real world, even if that activity is contrary to contract).
• They form part of a coherent system of digital assets within the game world, including representing money’s worth following the purchase of a Bond within OSRS.

4.2 Rivalrousness and Ainsworth

The court outlined the definition of property as given in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175, that being: “Before a right or an interest can be admitted into the category of property, or of a right affecting property, it must be definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of assumption by third parties, and have some degree of permanence or stability." It considered that and the concept of rivalrousness as helpful context, but stated in the concluding remarks that “They may be helpful indicia in the criminal context but they are not determinative”.

The court emphasised that the Theft Act definition is deliberately broad and focuses on public order and dishonest appropriation, not civil property rights.

4.3 Not “pure information”

The court rejected the argument that gold pieces are merely information like exam contents as was the subject of Oxford v Moss (1979). The court considered that gold pieces here:

• exist independently of any one player,
• can be exclusively controlled,
• are treated as valuable, and
• are capable of being assumed by third parties.

4.4 Wider digital asset context

The Court had regard to the Law Commission’s Report on Digital Assets of June 2023 which recognised there was a wide variety of digital assets which might potentially be regarded as property, including digital files, digital records, email accounts, domain names, in-game digital assets, digital carbon credits, crypto tokens and Non Fungible Tokens, with differing forms of digital technology and characteristics.

It also considered the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, which confirms that digital things can be the subject of personal property rights even if not things “in possession” (tangible property capable of being physically possessed) or “in action” (a legal right that can be claimed or enforced through legal action).

While not decisive on their own, these considerations reinforced the conclusion.

5. Practical implications for game developers

5.1 Much stronger footing for treating insider abuse as theft

If staff manipulate back‑end tools to transfer in‑game currency or items, that conduct can now more clearly constitute theft of property, not merely internal misconduct.
Developers should consider:

• stricter access controls,
• audit trails for administrative actions,
• segregated permissions,
• forensic‑ready logging.

5.2 Hacking and account‑takeovers

This case of R v Lakeman logically extends to external misuse. If hackers gain access to accounts and remove currency/items, those assets may clearly be stolen property.

This helps justify:

• escalation to law enforcement,
• preservation of logs,
• co-ordinated response between legal and security teams.

5.3 Contracts cannot “switch off” criminal property

It is often seen in End User Licence Agreements that in-game currency are not property and real‑world trading is forbidden, but the court ruled that contractual characterisation does not necessarily control whether an asset is property under the Theft Act.

This applies across the sector. Developers should review terms so as to ensure that intentions are clear, but must recognise that:

• criminal law may override contractual labels,
• real‑world economics and design features matter heavily, as they did in this case.

6. What this case does not decide

• Not all digital assets are automatically “property”.
• The test is fact‑specific, focusing on functionality, exclusivity and economic reality and this is why End User Licence Agreements remain important and may benefit from a review.
• The judgment does not determine civil proprietary rights between players and studios.

Still, this case of R v Lakeman is a highly persuasive authority for most rivalrous, tradable, persistent in‑game assets.

In summary…

The significance and effect of this case may take some time to manifest itself. For developers looking to reduce the risks highlighted by R v Lakeman, the most effective starting point is to ensure their End User Licence Agreements clearly reinforce their studio’s control over in‑game assets and the conditions under which players may use them, although as found in the R v Lakeman case, the strict wording of the contract under which their use is permitted is not necessarily the defining position. EULAs should explain that virtual items and currencies form part of a revocable licence, not personal possessions, and, as before, should spell out prohibited behaviours such as account‑sharing, exploitation of bugs, and any real‑world trading. It is equally important to reserve explicit rights to monitor transactions, investigate irregularities, freeze or reverse in‑game transfers where fraud or breaches are suspected, and stating that you will be co-operating with law enforcement where necessary.

At the same time, developers should ensure the EULA accurately reflects how their in‑game economy actually operates and is backed by strong internal governance, particularly around staff access, logging, and audit trails. Clear and consistent drafting, combined with robust internal controls, strengthens the studio’s position and helps manage user expectations without attempting to contract out of the principles established in R v Lakeman.

If your studio operates an in‑game economy, now is the time to review your EULA, security controls and internal governance to ensure they reflect the realities highlighted in R v Lakeman. If you’d like tailored advice on strengthening your contractual framework or assessing the criminal law risks around your virtual assets, our team at Eaton Smith can help.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this piece is legal advice and the issues covered are non-exhaustive. It is intended to provide information of general interest about current legal issues. Further, any reference to financial or related information is for completeness of the article only. As all circumstances are different, you should take specific legal and accountancy advice before acting in reliance on any of the information provided.