Court Says $550K Crypto Theft Isn't a Crime—Victim Fights Back

A prominent Zimbabwean eye specialist is demanding legal action after two suspects accused of stealing over $550,000 in cryptocurrency walked free from court. Dr. Solomon Guramatunhu has called on the National Prosecuting Authority to challenge the acquittal of Lloyd and Melissa Chiyangwa.

The case centers on digital assets allegedly transferred from Dr. Guramatunhu's crypto wallets. Regional magistrate Marehwanazvo Gofa dismissed the fraud charges on technical grounds. The court ruled that cryptocurrency does not qualify as legal tender in Zimbabwe, making a fraud conviction impossible under current law.

Dr. Guramatunhu's legal team strongly disputes this interpretation. His lawyer, Admire Rubaya, argues the magistrate confused property rights with currency status. The defense maintains that digital assets constitute property under Zimbabwean law, regardless of their recognition as legal tender.

Court Ruling Sparks Legal Debate

The magistrate's decision hinged on the legal status of cryptocurrency in Zimbabwe. Without recognition as official currency, the court determined that digital assets could not form the basis of fraud charges. This interpretation shocked Dr. Guramatunhu and his legal representatives.

Rubaya submitted detailed arguments challenging the verdict. He contends that cryptocurrency tokens represent incorporeal rights—intangible property vested in an individual. These rights relate to movable property under Zimbabwean law. The lawyer emphasizes that such property can be unlawfully taken, even without legal tender status.

The defense points to cryptocurrency's convertibility as evidence of its value. Digital assets can be exchanged for foreign currencies, including US dollars. Rubaya argues this demonstrates their monetary worth beyond Zimbabwe's legal tender definitions.

He references Section 112 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act. The statute mentions accounts without limiting the definition to traditional bank accounts. Rubaya maintains that cryptocurrency accounts fall within this legal framework. Entries in these accounts represent property capable of theft.

Legal Team Demands Broader Interpretation

Dr. Guramatunhu's lawyers are pushing for expanded legal definitions. They argue that controlling a cryptocurrency account equals controlling the assets within it. This control represents an incorporeal right that can be stolen.

The legal team alleges the Chiyangwas deliberately transferred digital assets without authorization. They claim the suspects moved cryptocurrency from Dr. Guramatunhu's wallets to their own accounts. According to Rubaya, this action constitutes the intentional and unlawful appropriation of property.

”The Chiyangwas connived to unlawfully and intentionally assume title in relation to Dr. Guramatunhu's incorporeal right to exercise title to the cryptocurrency tokens,” Rubaya stated in his appeal letter.