He invested $500 in an ICO, they accidentally sent him over $300,000 back - the insane court case that followed...

This wild story all started with an error, when a man named Brian Wall from the Canadian province of British Columbia participated in an ICO called Copytrack, investing $583 worth of Ethereum into the ICO.

When the ICO was complete, he was supposed to receive 530 Copytrack tokens (CPY).

Instead, he was sent 530 ETH - valued at $370,482!

Brian was probably thinking this was the best investment he ever made, he knew the Ethereum was sent by mistake, but he was determined to keep it.

That's when the story took some strange twists and turns.  First, he transferred the ETH to his wallet on an exchange while refusing to return them to Copytrack.  Then, Copytrack began to send him legal threats.  Fearing he could end up in trouble, he agreed to return them.  Copytrack thought this was the end, as they awaited their ETH to be returned.

But then, Brian said he was hacked. The ETH tokens were sent out from his wallet, to 5 new wallets.

If this story isn't getting crazy enough for you - then, he died.

No, really, he died.  Which has now left the case in limbo, but at the center of it was a chance to legally define what kind of possession cryptocurrency is. Copytrack's claim asserted that cryptocurrency tokens are 'goods', for the following reasons:

a) They are capable of being possessed, stored, transferred, lost and stolen; 

b) They were, at the time the conversion and wrongful detention began, held in the Wall Wallet; 

c) They are specifically identifiable and have been traced to five wallets in which they are currently being held; and 

d) They can be used as a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account, like funds or currency.

With the trial now called off, Grygoriy Pustovit, a Research Fellow at Goethe University Frankfurt and contributor to the Oxford University Law Blog says this case could have set important legal precedent, if it were allowed to finish.

"The parties disputed whether cryptocurrency is a digital form of currency, a digital good, or something else. Unfortunately, the court missed the opportunity to clarify the issue, stating that while the determination of the cryptocurrency’s character was essential for the case, the issue could not be handled through summary judgment."

Brian Wall's estate will however need to pay for the legal fees of Copytrack up until his death.

As far as getting the Ethereum back, the summary judgement says Copytrack can proceed to "trace and recover the Ether Tokens in whatsoever hands those Ether Tokens may currently be held."

Author: Ross Davis
E-Mail: Ross@GlobalCryptoPress.com Twitter:@RossFM
San Francisco News Desk