ASIC v Web3 Ventures PL [2025]FCAFC 58

CORPORATIONS – where primary judge held that a product that allowed customers to “loan” specified cryptocurrency in return for interest paid at a fixed rate was a “financial product” because it involved the respondent/cross-appellant: (i) operating a managed investment scheme as defined in s 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act); and (ii) offering a financial investment facility as defined in s 763B of the Act – where primary judge made declarations that the respondent/cross-appellant contravened ss 911A(5B) and s 601ED(8) of the Act (the primary judgment) – where primary judge ordered pursuant to s 1317S(2) of the Act that the respondent/cross-appellant be relieved from liability to pay a pecuniary penalty for the contraventions (the penalty judgment) – where ASIC appealed from the whole of the penalty judgment – where respondent/cross-appellant cross-appealed contending that the primary judge erred in the primary judgment in finding that the provision of the product constituted a “financial product” for the purposes of the Act, as it was neither a managed investment scheme nor a facility by which a person made a financial investment – where ASIC relied on a notice of contention, to the effect that if the primary judge was wrong to find that the provision of the product constituted a financial product on the basis that it involved the respondent/cross-appellant operating a managed investment scheme or offering a financial investment facility, then it was a “derivative” within the meaning of s 761D of the Act – whether the arrangements were to be treated as if they together constituted a single arrangement pursuant to s 761B of the Act – appeal dismissed – cross-appeal allowed

---

Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2025/2025fcafc0058

For more information, see the original judgement.