Legal Development in Singapore
A legal development in Singapore has led to the freezing of approximately S$75 million (equivalent to $58 million) in Bitcoin and USD Coin due to allegations surrounding a significant internal ledger mistake by a prominent cryptocurrency trading platform. The Singapore International Commercial Court ruled that a well-established customer, who has been utilizing the platform since 2013, had been wrongfully credited with thousands of Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) as a result of this error.
Interim Proprietary Injunction
On March 26, a ruling from the Singapore High Court including Justice Aidan Xu and SICC judges Anthony Meagher and David Goddard granted an interim proprietary injunction that prevents this customer from selling or devaluing approximately 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC, as well as any potential profits or interests from those assets. The identity of the parties involved in the dispute has been anonymized in court documents, referred to only as DVA, DVB, and DVC, while the platform is recognized as one of the largest digital asset trading operations globally. A confidentiality application concerning the identities is still pending.
Background of the Case
Central to the case are disclosures about two specialized wallets previously housing 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH, designed for self-custody and protected by unique security credentials stored exclusively by the customer. However, support for this wallet product ceased in April 2018, even as customers could access them via an unsupported open-source tool temporarily. In March 2020, all assets were reportedly transferred from these wallets, leaving them empty.
Due to what the platform described as a technical failure in recording these withdrawals, they continued to reflect that the customer still held those balances, allowing the company to wrongly assume that these assets were available to the customer for years. More recently, in July 2024, the platform responded to perceptions of inadequate funds by transferring an additional 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into other accounts owned by the customer. This move is claimed to have been based on erroneous ledger information.
Customer’s Position and Legal Proceedings
The customer refutes the assertion that the assets were mistakenly credited, maintaining ownership of these digital currencies. In an attempt to establish their case, the claimants pointed to past incidents of mistaken cryptocurrency transfers, like a notable 2022 error where a major exchange accidentally sent a customer $10.5 million instead of a $100 refund, which highlighted the complexities surrounding recovery disputes in crypto transactions.
After receiving the unnecessary transfers in July 2024, the customer began withdrawing portions of the cryptocurrency. By mid-November 2024, court records show a series of transactions where significant amounts of BTC were moved to individual wallets. The nature of these further withdrawals raised issues about tracking the assets’ current locations, complicating the legal proceedings.
Subsequent to these transactions, which occurred before the platform seized action, the customer still had a remaining balance of 1,700 BTC and the full 2,500 BCH, prompting the platform to freeze these wallets on January 29, 2025, attempting to reclaim control over the mistakenly transferred assets. The legal battle intensified as claims for the return of 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC progressed, with the customer valuing them significantly at the time of the hearing.
Current Status of the Dispute
This dispute moved from Singapore’s General Division to the International Commercial Court in November 2025, where the claimants laid out multiple causes of action, including unjust enrichment and claims of deceit. The claimants argue that the customer exploited the platform’s misunderstanding of wallet balances, while the customer contests this narrative, emphasizing his reliance on the platform for accurate tracking of assets.
As hearings continue, the court has a notable history of resolving high-stake cryptocurrency conflicts in recent months. For instance, the court previously faced cases tied to distressed crypto firms, demonstrating Singapore’s active role in the evolving digital asset regulatory landscape. The interim judgment now raises significant questions about the company’s claim to proprietary interest in the disputed assets while also weighing the potential risk posed to them should the assets be moved before resolution.
While the court has ordered disclosures regarding the location of these assets, it has not permitted the platform an advance ability to seek similar injunctions internationally without separate approvals later on. Both parties are left with the possibility to revisit the court should further legal action arise in response to the ongoing developments in this case.
