Former executive of OpenSea, Nathaniel Chastain, convicted in May for fraud and money laundering related to his manipulation of NFT collections on the platform, is now appealing his conviction.

Chastain argues that the information he utilized for personal gain was not rightfully considered OpenSea’s “property”.

Chastain’s legal team, in a brief filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, contends that the insider information he exploited—specifically, his choices of NFT collections featured on OpenSea’s homepage—did not constitute valuable property belonging to the company.

The crux of their argument lies in the assertion that the wire fraud conviction necessitates proving the information in question as OpenSea’s property.

During his tenure at OpenSea, Chastain acquired NFTs that he strategically promoted on the platform, leading to increased demand and subsequent profits upon selling these collections.

Despite netting over $50,000 through these schemes, Chastain’s attorneys do not dispute the unethical nature of his actions but emphasize that the information he used was not a cost-bearing asset for OpenSea.

The attorneys argue that a 2023 Supreme Court decision clarified that federal wire fraud laws specifically target schemes designed to obtain things long-recognized as “property”.

They maintain that the information manipulated by Chastain did not fall under this definition, thereby challenging the foundation of the conviction.

Chastain’s legal defense also disputes the characterization of the case as the “first-ever digital asset insider trading scheme,” claiming that the judge in the original case deemed it an “odd case” where the supposed victim, OpenSea, did not feel victimized.

The defense further raises doubts about whether charges would have been filed if the case did not involve the emerging and alluring field of NFTs.

Chastain, who previously received a three-month prison sentence, three months’ house arrest, three years of probation, and a $50,000 fine, now awaits a decision from the federal appeals court regarding the legitimacy of his conviction and the interpretation of NFT information as property.