Imagine losing over half a million dollars in a heist, only to be told it’s not even a crime. This is the shocking reality for Dr. Solomon Guramatunhu, a Zimbabwean eye doctor, who is now fighting back after a court ruled that the theft of $550,000 in cryptocurrency from his wallets isn’t punishable under current law. But here's where it gets controversial: the court’s decision hinges on the fact that cryptocurrency isn’t recognized as legal tender in Zimbabwe, leaving Dr. Guramatunhu’s legal team to argue that this technicality shouldn’t absolve the accused of what is clearly a violation of property rights.
On December 20, 2025, Dr. Guramatunhu found himself at the center of a legal battle that could set a precedent for how digital assets are treated under Zimbabwean law. After Lloyd and Melissa Chiyangwa were acquitted of fraud charges related to the theft, Dr. Guramatunhu called on the National Prosecuting Authority to appeal the ruling. The case has sparked a heated debate about the intersection of technology, law, and justice in an increasingly digital world.
And this is the part most people miss: Regional magistrate Marehwanazvo Gofa dismissed the fraud charges on the grounds that cryptocurrency lacks legal tender status in Zimbabwe. However, Dr. Guramatunhu’s lawyer, Admire Rubaya, argues that this interpretation overlooks the fundamental nature of digital assets as property. Rubaya contends that cryptocurrency tokens represent incorporeal rights—intangible property that can be unlawfully taken, regardless of whether they are recognized as currency.
To support this claim, Rubaya highlights the convertibility of cryptocurrencies into foreign currencies like the US dollar, underscoring their inherent value. He also points to Section 112 of the Criminal Law Codification and Reform Act, which broadly defines accounts without restricting them to traditional banking systems. According to Rubaya, cryptocurrency accounts fall squarely within this legal framework, and the tokens within them are property capable of being stolen.
The defense’s argument raises a thought-provoking question: Should the legal system adapt to the evolving nature of digital assets, or is it fair to rely on outdated definitions of currency and property? Dr. Guramatunhu’s legal team insists that controlling a cryptocurrency account is tantamount to controlling the assets within it, and unauthorized transfers—like those allegedly made by the Chiyangwas—constitute theft of incorporeal rights.
In his appeal letter, Rubaya stated, ‘The Chiyangwas connived to unlawfully and intentionally assume title in relation to Dr. Guramatunhu’s incorporeal right to exercise title to the cryptocurrency tokens.’ This case not only challenges the boundaries of Zimbabwean law but also invites a broader conversation about how nations should address the complexities of digital ownership in the 21st century.
What do you think? Is the court’s ruling a necessary adherence to existing law, or does it highlight a critical gap in how we define and protect digital assets? Share your thoughts in the comments below and join the debate on this groundbreaking case. For more insights into the ever-evolving world of cryptocurrency and its legal implications, subscribe to our newsletter and stay ahead of the curve with well-curated, data-driven analysis from experts like Newton Gitonga, who specializes in breaking down complex trends in blockchain and digital finance.
