『RuneScape』のゴールド盗難を犯罪と認定した英裁判所の判決、ゲーム業界に大きな影響を与える可能性

A UK court has ruled that the unauthorized acquisition of in-game currency can legally be considered criminal theft.

Andrew Lakeman, a former Jagex developer, was charged with allegedly stealing 705 billion Gold from nearly 70 RuneScape players, with a real-world value exceeding half a million pounds—approximately $750,000. He reportedly sold the stolen currency online for Bitcoin.

Although Lakeman did not have direct access to player accounts in his role as a content developer, he allegedly gained entry by "hacking and/or using credentials from members of the account recovery team." In total, 68 players are said to have lost gold to him, beginning around 2018.

The legal argument centered on whether in-game currency could be classified as property under the UK’s Theft Act. Initially, the court agreed with the defense that RuneScape Gold could not be considered property because it was deemed "pure information" or "knowledge," and thus not subject to theft. The judge also noted that the game’s gold supply was infinite and non-rivalrous—meaning one player's possession did not prevent another from obtaining it.

However, the Court of Appeal has now overturned this decision, delivering a judgment that clarifies the legal status of in-game assets.

"We differ from the Judge in his reasoning for reaching the contrary conclusion on rivalrousness. The two reasons which the Judge gave in his ruling do not, with respect, bear analysis," wrote Judge Popplewell. "The first was that 'one gold piece is like any other, and their supply is infinite.' This does not, however, distinguish them from many other forms of rivalrous property. One paper clip from a given manufacturer is like any other; and the manufacture and supply of them infinite, in the sense that is not capped at any finite number. Yet each paper clip constitutes property. The same is equally true of gold pieces."

"RuneScape's gold is properly described as something which can be stolen as a matter of normal use of language," the judgment stated. "They do not fall within any of the established exceptions. They are not 'pure knowledge:' functionally, they exist as identifiable assets distinct from the code which gives rise to them and outside the minds of people. There is no good policy reason for excepting them from the category of property which can be stolen."

The ruling concluded: "On the contrary, they are assets which have an ascertainable monetary value and which may be traded for that value both in the game and outside the game. Within the rules of the game they represent money’s worth as the product of purchase of a bond. Outside the game they are regularly traded for money’s worth. They are capable of being subject to dishonest dealing which deprives their possessor of their use and value. It would be surprising and unsatisfactory if such dishonest dealing did not amount to the offence of theft."

This decision could have far-reaching consequences for the gaming industry. Up until now, the sale or resale of in-game currency has operated in a legal grey area, where no theft occurred under national law if digital assets didn’t meet the legal definition of intangible property. The ambiguity around when ownership of such currency transfers from developer to player has only added to the complexity.

With the question of whether removing gold from player accounts constitutes theft now resolved, the case against Lakeman can move forward.