A Singapore court has frozen about S$75 million ($58 million) in Bitcoin and USD Coin after a major crypto trading platform alleged that an internal ledger error caused it to mistakenly credit thousands of $BTC and Bitcoin Cash to a long-standing customer.
The Singapore International Commercial Court said the interim proprietary injunction prevents the customer from disposing of, dealing with or reducing the value of about 780 $BTC and 816,773 $USDC, along with assets, profits or interest derived from them. The order was granted on March 26 after a hearing before Singapore High Court Justice Aidan Xu and SICC International Judges Anthony Meagher and David Goddard.
The dispute involves an anonymised group of companies that operates what the court described as one of the world’s largest digital asset trading platforms and a customer who had used the platform since around 2013. Court documents identified the parties only as DVA, DVB and DVC while an application for confidentiality orders remains pending.
Along with freezing the crypto, the court ordered the defendant to disclose where the disputed assets and their proceeds were being held. The judges declined, however, to give the platform group advance permission to use that disclosure to seek similar injunctions in other jurisdictions, leaving it free to apply for permission later if required.
Singapore court dispute traces back to unsupported wallets
At the centre of the case are two specialised wallets that once contained 2,500 $BTC and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash. According to the judgment, the wallets were designed as a self-custody product that required security credentials, including a user key held solely by the customer.
Support for the wallet product ended in April 2018, although customers could continue accessing the wallets for a period through an unsupported open-source tool. In March 2020, the entire 2,500 $BTC and 2,500 $BCH balance was transferred away from the specialised wallets, leaving them effectively empty.
The platform group alleged that a technical problem prevented those withdrawals from being recorded correctly on its internal ledgers. Because the ledger continued to show the assets as remaining in the specialised wallets, the companies operated for several years on the assumption that the customer was still entitled to the balances.
A relationship manager later tried to help the customer recover what the platform believed were assets trapped in the discontinued wallet product. Acting on its ledger records, the platform transferred another 2,500 $BTC and 2,500 $BCH into other accounts belonging to the customer in July 2024.
The claimants say those digital assets came from their own holdings inside the platform group’s omnibus wallets and were transferred solely because of the mistaken balance shown on the internal system. The customer disputes that account and has maintained that the assets transferred to him were rightfully his.
Mistaken crypto transfers have previously resulted in lengthy recovery disputes. In 2022, crypto.news reported on a Crypto.com transfer error in which the exchange mistakenly sent an Australian customer about $10.5 million instead of a $100 refund and discovered the error months later during an audit.
Customer moved 780 $BTC and converted another 20 $BTC to $USDC
After receiving the July 2024 transfers, the defendant began moving part of the crypto away from the platform.
Court records show that on July 13, 2024, the customer converted 20 $BTC into about 816,773 $USDC and transferred the stablecoins to an unhosted wallet. Five withdrawals between July 17 and Nov. 10 moved another 380 $BTC to a separate unhosted address.
A further 200 $BTC was transferred on Nov. 24, followed by another 200 $BTC on Jan. 7, 2025, bringing the amount sent to a third external wallet to 400 $BTC. Some 150 $BTC from that wallet was later transferred elsewhere in February 2026, according to evidence submitted by the claimants.
The companies also told the court that subsequent transactions involving the 380 $BTC and 816,773 $USDC made their current locations difficult to determine. The defendant did not dispute making the transactions but maintained that he had been dealing with crypto that belonged to him.
By the time the platform acted, 1,700 $BTC and the full 2,500 $BCH transferred in July 2024 remained in the customer’s accounts. The companies froze those wallets on Jan. 29, 2025, and re-credited the remaining assets to themselves in an attempt to reverse part of the earlier transfer.
The platform group subsequently sought the return of the 780 $BTC and 816,773 $USDC that had already left its system, but the customer refused. The companies valued the assets at roughly S$75 million at the time of the injunction hearing.
Platform alleges unjust enrichment and constructive trust
Proceedings were initially filed in the General Division of Singapore’s High Court in November 2025 before being transferred by consent to the SICC.
The claimants’ 62-page statement of claim contains four causes of action, including unjust enrichment, a proprietary claim, deceit or negligent misrepresentation, and an alleged breach of the contractual provisions governing the platform’s services. They are also seeking a declaration that the defendant holds the disputed assets on constructive trust for one of the claimant companies and must return them.
According to the claimants, the July 2024 transfers resulted from their incorrect understanding of the old wallet balances, while the customer allegedly knew about the mistake and took advantage of it.
The defendant has rejected that version of events. He told the court that he did not remember making the March 2020 transfers, although he accepted that blockchain records show the transfers occurred, and argued that the platform’s own admission of faulty internal ledger records weakened its claim that the assets transferred in 2024 belonged to the companies.
He also argued that the transferred crypto could have represented his own assets held elsewhere on the platform or assets belonging to other customers. Having maintained extensive crypto holdings and activity, the defendant said he relied on the platform to keep track of what he held and believed that the July 2024 assets belonged to him.
The customer has counterclaimed for the assets that remain frozen on the platform or compensation of equivalent value, while denying that he knew the companies had made any mistake.
Singapore courts have dealt with several high-value crypto disputes involving exchange operators over the past year. Earlier in August, Binance and RedotPay gave conflicting accounts over the status of a separate Singapore proceeding tied to claims worth nearly $473 million.
Singapore’s courts have also played a role in handling distressed crypto businesses, including proceedings involving WazirX’s Singapore-based parent Zettai, whose restructuring proposal returned to court after receiving 95.7% creditor support in August 2025.
Judges find serious ownership question to be tried
For the interim stage of the case, the three-judge panel found enough evidence to establish a serious question over whether the platform companies retained a proprietary interest in some or all of the disputed assets.
The court said it was arguable that the specialised wallet balances were effectively zero before the July 2024 credits and that the platform transferred 2,500 $BTC and 2,500 $BCH because its internal records incorrectly showed the earlier holdings as still present.
Judges also found an arguable case that the customer knew about the platform’s mistake either when the transfers were made or, at the latest, after the platform discovered the issue and contacted him in 2025. Under that scenario, the court said an argument could be made that identifiable assets and traceable proceeds were held on constructive trust for the claimants.
On whether an injunction was necessary, the court considered the risk that the companies could win at trial but still be unable to recover the crypto if the assets were moved or dissipated.
The judges noted evidence that the defendant had used part of the disputed assets as security for a loan to cover legal costs and had not provided updated evidence about his financial position or current asset holdings. The court found sufficient doubt over his ability to satisfy a substantial judgment if the companies eventually succeeded.
At the same time, the platform group gave the court an undertaking to compensate the customer for losses caused by the injunction if it later turns out that the order should not have been granted.
The disclosure order requires the defendant to identify the whereabouts of assets covered by the injunction, including relevant crypto controlled through third parties acting under his direct or indirect instructions. The SICC left both sides free to return to court, including if the claimants later seek permission to use the disclosed information in civil proceedings outside Singapore.
