The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that cryptocurrency intermediary platforms are not liable for losses resulting from fraud when there is no failure in the provision of their services.
In the case under review, the investor executed a transaction through an intermediary cryptocurrency platform and subsequently transferred the cryptoassets to a fraudulent wallet associated with another exchange. According to the STJ, the fraud occurred in an external environment, outside the intermediary platform’s sphere of operation, after the service provided by the platform had already been completed.
The Court held that liability must be assessed based on the specific role performed by each participant in the transaction chain. Therefore, if the platform demonstrates that it properly executed the user’s instructions and that there were no failures in its systems or operational processes, it cannot automatically be held liable for fraudulent conduct occurring within a third-party environment.
The decision is particularly significant for the virtual assets market because it helps define the scope of civil liability for intermediary platforms, custodians, cryptocurrency exchanges, digital infrastructure providers, and other participants involved in transactions involving virtual assets.
From a business perspective, however, this precedent does not eliminate the need for robust internal controls. On the contrary, it reinforces the importance of proper documentation, transaction traceability, and sound operational governance. Companies operating in this sector should be prepared to demonstrate the integrity of their operations, the security of their systems, the proper execution of users’ instructions, and the limits of their responsibilities.
The ruling also highlights the complexity of disputes involving cryptoassets. A single transaction may involve multiple service providers, digital environments, wallets, custodial platforms, and external actors. This fragmentation can make it difficult to determine liability and often requires a detailed technical assessment of when, where, and how the fraud actually occurred.
In this context, companies are encouraged to strengthen their operational records, maintain comprehensive audit trails, document users’ instructions, implement strong authentication mechanisms, introduce alerts for transfers to external wallets, and regularly review their terms of use and risk management policies.
It is also advisable for platforms to communicate clearly with users regarding the limits of their services, particularly in relation to transactions carried out outside their controlled environment. Providing information about common scams, fraudulent wallets, phishing links, and the irreversible nature of blockchain transfers can help reduce information asymmetry and strengthen the company’s position in potential disputes.
The decision reinforces that, in the virtual assets market, legal certainty depends on a combination of technological safeguards, transparency, sound governance, fraud prevention, and a clear contractual allocation of responsibilities among all parties involved.
