This short Act (I have the habit of capitalizing (using uppercase for) Act provides that crypto currency is personal property.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025
2025 CHAPTER 29

An Act to make provision about the types of things that are not prevented from being objects of personal property rights.

[2nd December 2025]

Be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1Objects of personal property rights

A thing (including a thing that is digital or electronic in nature) is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it is neither—

(a)a thing in possession, nor

(b)a thing in action.

I got this from Joshua Rosenberg’s substack feed A Lawyer Writes, I’m not a paid subscriber. I missed the time when chose in possession and chose in action became thing in possession and thing in action.

In Singapore and Australia, crypto-assets are seen as things in action. Here is a view by Professor Duncan Sheehan criticizing the bill:

Choses in possession are tangible assets which can be touched like tables. Choses in action are intangible assets that cannot be touched like debts, company shares and copyright. Everything that exists can either be touched, or not. There is no third in-between category. The bill is counter-productive in that by encouraging courts to see assets like bitcoin as a strange third thing rather than as a chose in action, it leads them into serious legal errors, and this is already happening even before the Bill is passed into law. It should be withdrawn.

I’m not convinced by this, for what it’s worth.