OWNERSHIP CERTAINTY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE IN TOKENIZED REAL-WORLD ASSETS: AN INDIAN REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE WITH COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS.
AUTHOR – MUKUL SINGH, STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY NOIDA
BEST CITATION – MUKUL SINGH,OWNERSHIP CERTAINTY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE IN TOKENIZED REAL-WORLD ASSETS: AN INDIAN REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE WITH COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (6) OF 2026, PG. 666-676, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I6468
1. OWNERSHIP MODELS IN TOKENIZED REAL-WORLD ASSETS
1.1 Overview of Ownership Structures
The ownership structure adopted by a tokenized real-world-asset product is not a question, as it is sometimes discussed in the business world, a second-order or stylistic one. It is the initial legal design choice based on which all the rest is based. The nature of whatever the model actually has to create is dependent upon classification, compliance obligations, governance requirements, insolvency resilience as well as investor protection. This chapter discusses the six main ownership models applicable to tokenized real world asset structures, analyzes the legal efficiency of each, and indicates the contexts where each of these models would be most suitable.
An introductory aspect that is mainly worth noting is that these models are not mutually exclusive in terms of design and are not necessarily what is represented by the names in marketing copy. A product which describes itself as direct ownership product and on analysis would only form a beneficial interest in trust. A product that is referred to as equity participation in an SPV can, under the articles of association, and as per the terms of the token instrument, give rise to an entity that is closer to an unsecured debt obligation. It is not the titles given to the rights that the legal analyst should examine, but rather the rights that are created.[1]
[1] Law Comm’n, Digital Assets: Final Report ¶¶ 2.11–2.18, Law Com No. 412 (2023).