Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice upholds payment in crypto assets and rules that a subsequent decline in the asset’s value, in itself, does not invalidate the transaction
Crypto assets are already being used in private contracts, and the disputes they generate go beyond questions concerning their legal nature and regulation. One such question is: who bears the risk of price fluctuations when the parties, fully aware of the risks involved, agree that part of the consideration will be paid in a crypto asset?
In August 2026, the Third Panel of Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in REsp 2.235.558, addressed this issue. The plaintiff assigned her rights to an apartment and sold a car to a couple, agreeing to receive part of the purchase price in I9COIN Token. She subsequently sought to have the crypto-asset payment clauses declared null and requested payment in Brazilian reais, arguing that the token had no economic value and was part of a pyramid scheme.
The STJ upheld the clauses. The Santa Catarina Court of Appeals had found that fraud had not been proven, and reviewing that finding would have required a reassessment of the evidence, which is barred by STJ Precedents Nos. 5 and 7. The Panel also held that a mere fluctuation in the value of the cryptocurrency does not invalidate an agreement providing for its transfer: the seller knew she was accepting cryptocurrency and therefore assumed the risks inherent in the transaction, including the risk of depreciation. The apartment transaction was ultimately rescinded, but for a different reason: the buyers had paid only 53% of the purchase price.
Volatility Risk as an Element of the Transaction
For those drafting contracts, the key point of the decision is the distinction between economic risk assumed by the parties and a defect or fraud capable of affecting the validity of the transaction.
Where legally capable and informed parties agree that a particular crypto asset will be used to discharge an obligation, a subsequent change in its price does not, by itself, establish mistake, fraud or non-performance.
The risk runs both ways, as noted by the reporting Justice: if the asset appreciates, the recipient benefits; if it loses value, the party transferring it benefits. Price fluctuations are part of what the parties accepted when entering into the transaction.
There is a second premise in the opinion with a direct impact on contract drafting. According to the STJ, cryptocurrency is not legal tender, because it does not have compulsory circulation: no one is legally required to accept it, unlike the Brazilian real. Therefore, when a contract provides for payment in cryptocurrency, the obligation is to transfer a digital asset, rather than to pay a sum of money within the meaning of Article 315 of the Brazilian Civil Code.
In practice, the creditor cannot demand the equivalent amount in Brazilian reais simply because the asset has lost value. This was precisely what the seller sought in the appeal, and the STJ rejected the request. The obligation is converted into damages, payable in Brazilian reais, only in exceptional circumstances, such as where fraud makes delivery of the asset impossible. In a precedent cited in the opinion (AREsp 2.657.571/SP), damages were calculated based on the economic value of the quantity of cryptocurrencies at the time when recovery of the assets became impossible. This is why the contract should specify whether the obligation consists of transferring a fixed quantity of tokens or a specific amount in Brazilian reais to be paid in tokens, as well as which exchange rate or valuation source will apply if delivery becomes impossible.
This does not mean that all transactions involving crypto assets are beyond judicial scrutiny. The outcome depends on the circumstances of each case: the seller was aware of the nature of the asset, and fraud was not proven. The STJ did not determine whether the token was in fact part of a pyramid scheme; it merely upheld the lower courts’ finding that this had not been proven.
The Importance of Contractual Risk Allocation
For companies and individuals using virtual assets in contracts, the practical lesson is clear: determining in advance who bears volatility risk may be as important as choosing the asset itself.
Rather than simply stating that an obligation will be paid in “cryptocurrency,” the contract may address, depending on the transaction:
- the virtual asset and its precise identification;
- the quantity of the asset required to discharge the obligation;
- the reference time for determining its value;
- any reference for conversion into Brazilian reais or another currency;
- the platform or source to be used for valuation;
- how fluctuations between execution, maturity and actual transfer will be treated;
- responsibility for network fees and transfer costs;
- the consequences of delay or inability to transfer the asset;
- procedures for replacing the asset if it ceases to be tradable or undergoes a material change in its characteristics;
- allocation of risks relating to custody and the use of digital wallets; and
- the parties’ acknowledgment that they understand the nature and risks of the asset.
The more clearly the contract addresses these matters, the less room there is for disputes later over what each party actually assumed.
Risk Allocation Also Depends on Who Controls Each Stage of the Transaction
Risk is not limited to volatility. In crypto-asset transactions, it is also important to determine who was responsible for each stage of the transaction.
The STJ addressed this issue in REsp 2.250.674/MG, decided by the Third Panel on April 7, 2026. This was a different case, originating before the Minas Gerais Court of Appeals, and the fraud involved was of a different nature: it did not concern payment between the parties or the value of the asset. The investor purchased USDT through the defendant platform and instructed it to transfer the assets to a digital wallet that the investor believed to be his or her own, maintained on another platform. The wallet was fake and controlled by fraudsters. The defendant platform executed the transfer to the address provided by the investor, and the assets ended up in the fraudsters’ possession. The investor then brought an action against the defendant platform seeking compensation.
The STJ rejected the claim. The purchase, sale, exchange and custody of crypto assets may involve a single service provider or different platforms, each responsible for the services it actually provides. Before holding one of them liable, it is necessary to identify the service it provided and determine whether it complied with the applicable rules, which are now set out in BCB Resolution No. 520/2025.
The defendant platform received the deposit, processed the purchase of the USDT and executed the transfer, and no defect was found in any of those services. The fraud occurred in the destination wallet, which was held in custody by another institution that the investor had not included in the lawsuit. According to the judgment, the claim could have been brought against that institution. The STJ reached this conclusion even while applying the Brazilian Consumer Protection Code, which applies to virtual-asset service providers pursuant to Article 13 of Law No. 14,478/2022. On this point, the STJ reversed the Minas Gerais Court of Appeals, which had found that there was no consumer relationship.
The decision adds a second layer to contractual risk allocation: in addition to determining who bears the risk of fluctuations in the asset’s value, it is necessary to map who is responsible for the acquisition, transfer, custody, execution and security of each stage. In this case, the STJ carried out that assessment based on the regulatory duties applicable to each service provider, rather than on contractual provisions. In business-to-business transactions, contracts and operational documents can expressly allocate these responsibilities. In consumer relationships, however, the parties have less contractual freedom, because the Brazilian Consumer Protection Code prohibits clauses that exclude or limit the supplier’s liability (Articles 25 and 51(I)).
Contracts Should Anticipate Risk
Taken together, the two precedents point in the same direction: including a virtual asset in a contract is a risk-allocation issue, not merely a choice of payment method.
For companies, financial institutions and other participants in these transactions, clearly defining each party’s obligations may determine who bears responsibility for price fluctuations, transfer failures, custody, platform unavailability or problems arising from the underlying technological infrastructure.
For those drafting or reviewing contracts, the guidance is straightforward: the more volatile and complex the asset is, the more important it is to define in writing, at the time of contracting, how the risks will be allocated between the parties.
References and Legal Basis
BRAZIL. Law No. 14,478, of December 21, 2022. Establishes guidelines applicable to the provision of virtual asset services and amends the applicable legislation. In particular, Articles 3 and 13.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. REsp 2,235,558. Third Panel. Reporting Justice Nancy Andrighi. Decided on August 18, 2026. Published in the Electronic Justice Gazette (DJEN) on August 25, 2026.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. REsp 2,250,674/MG. Third Panel. Reporting Justice Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva. Decided on April 7, 2026. Published in the Electronic Justice Gazette (DJEN) on April 10, 2026.
BRAZIL. Superior Court of Justice. Intermediation platform not liable for cryptocurrency transfer to a fake wallet held with another exchange. STJ News, May 21, 2026.
MIGALHAS. STJ: Cryptocurrency payment is valid and a decline in value does not indicate fraud. August 18, 2026.