Former MMO Developer Accused of Hacking 68 Players for $700,000 in In-Game Gold, Court Rules Gold is Considered “Property” and Can Be Stolen

A recent ruling from the UK Court of Appeal has determined that gold in MMOs can be classified as “property” and is therefore subject to criminal theft, continuing a case against a game developer accused of hacking players to steal vast amounts of gold and selling it for real money.

The case revolves around Old School Runescape, as noted in a January 14, 2026, judgment from Lord Justice Popplewell. A former moderator for the game’s developer allegedly accessed 68 player accounts by hacking or using credentials from the account recovery team. He then stripped these accounts of hundreds of billions of gold pieces, selling them offline for Bitcoin and traditional currency.

According to the developer, the stolen gold is valued at £543,123, approximately $729,359, based on the rates at which real money can be exchanged for in-game Bonds, which can be used for OSRS membership or traded for gold. This connection to a tangible value was crucial in the case, especially since it parallels the illegal real-world trading market for OSRS gold, where players frequently buy and sell gold pieces despite the game’s prohibition on such activities.

The court highlighted that an offline purchase would cost around £2.70 for the same amount of gold that could be generated by a £6 bond from the developer, noting that earning that amount of gold through gameplay could take about 15 hours.

A significant point of contention was whether the gold could even be considered property that could be stolen. The defense argued that the gold pieces did not meet the legal definition of property under the Theft Act. The Act defines theft as the dishonest appropriation of someone else’s property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. The definition of property includes money and other tangible and intangible assets.

The legal challenge centered on whether digital gold in an MMO qualifies as property. A previous ruling favored the defense, stating that gold pieces were not rivalrous and were more like pure information, which cannot be stolen. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed, asserting that the previous reasoning did not hold up under scrutiny.

The court pointed out that the argument that “one gold piece is like any other, and their supply is infinite” does not negate the fact that one player’s control over a resource can prevent others from using it. They likened gold pieces to paperclips, which, while similar and infinitely produced, still constitute property.

The court also dismissed the defense’s claim that existing players’ wealth does not prevent new players from acquiring wealth, emphasizing that this argument overlooks the in-game wealth already held by players.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Theft Act should be interpreted broadly, affirming that gold pieces can indeed be subject to dishonest dealings that deprive players of their benefits. The judgment reiterated that OSRS gold is actively bought and sold, both within the game’s rules and in real-world transactions.

The ruling establishes a significant legal precedent regarding the treatment of in-game currency and potentially other digital currencies in our increasingly digital landscape. How this decision will influence future cases or be enforced remains to be seen, but it marks an intriguing development in the intersection of law and digital markets.