I don't believe this has been tested in the courts. But I don't see much difficulty in convincing a court that this fits the definition of theft in some jurisd

I don't believe this has been tested in the courts. But I don't see much difficulty in convincing a court that this fits the definition of theft in some jurisdictions. In the UK: "Theft is defined by section 1 of the 1968 Act as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." A brief explanation of each of those terms is given, and I don't see any particular problems related to this being cryptocurrency. The point that "smart contracts allow what the code says and nothing else matters" does not fit with the dishonesty interpretation that "The owner would agree to their taking it if they knew about it". https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/theft-act-offences