A Singapore court has frozen 780 Bitcoin and 816,773 USDC held by a customer of one of the world’s largest digital asset platforms after the platform mistakenly credited him 2,500 Bitcoin it wrongly believed he already held.
The platform’s internal ledger recorded a balance in two of the customer’s wallets from March 2020, when they were emptied, until January 2025, when the error was found. The Singapore International Commercial Court found an arguable case that the customer knew of the mistake while stating expressly that it expressed no view on the merits.
The court granted the injunction on March 26 and published its reasons on April 24, ordering the customer to disclose within 14 days where the assets are held. It refused the platform permission to use that disclosure to seek similar orders in other jurisdictions, describing the request as broad and in some respects novel.
Parties Anonymized Pending Confidentiality Ruling
The case is reported as DVA and another v DVC. The claimants and related companies are referred to only as the Platform Group, operating what the judgment describes as one of the world’s largest digital asset trading platforms. The customer is identified by a placeholder.
The claimants have indicated they will apply for confidentiality orders and asked for the court file to be administratively sealed, which the court granted. The grounds were anonymized to allow publication while that application is pending.
The assets were valued at approximately S$75 million at the time of the hearing. David Goddard IJ delivered the grounds of decision, sitting with Justice Aidan Xu and Anthony Meagher IJ. An interim proprietary injunction is a temporary order preserving specific assets until a case is decided; it does not determine ownership.
Singapore’s courts have handled a succession of major cryptocurrency disputes, including the WazirX restructuring proceedings and the case against Hodlnaut’s former chief executive, charged in May 2026 over statements about the platform’s Terra exposure.
Platform’s Ledger Missed a 2020 Exit
The defendant is a longstanding customer who has held significant assets on the platform since around 2013. The judgment describes him as a sophisticated cryptocurrency user and innovator who founded his own blockchain in 2016 and a cryptocurrency exchange.
He held 2,500 BTC and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash (BCH) in two specialized wallets, a self-custody product accessible only with a user key generated and stored by the customer alone. The platform group discontinued support for the product in April 2018, though users could still reach the wallets for an extended period using an unsupported open-source tool.
On March 2, 2020, the Bitcoin moved to a wallet on a cryptocurrency exchange the defendant himself founded. On March 8, the Bitcoin Cash moved off-platform, with 2,250 BCH going to a blockchain he founded in 2016. By the close of March 8, 2020, both wallets held a zero balance.
The claimants plead that for technical reasons their ledger failed to record those exits, and the platform group continued to operate on the assumption the assets were still there. Between 2018 and 2024, it made repeated overtures to the defendant about moving assets out of the discontinued product.
Automated Tool Moved 2,500 BTC From Pooled Wallets
In June 2024, a relationship manager contacted the defendant to help him access the assets. In July, an automated remediation tool transferred 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into his other platform wallets.
Those assets came from the platform group’s omnibus wallets—pooled wallets in which internal transfers are recorded on the group’s own ledgers rather than on the blockchain, which records the holdings as belonging to the platform group.
Court Cites Conduct “Below the Radar”
The court pointed to circumstantial evidence: that he likely effected or authorized the March 2020 transfers, that the assets went to wallets within his control, that it was inherently unlikely he had forgotten transfers of that value, and that his conduct between August 2023 and April 2024 in checking his account balances and taking online steps to access the incorrectly recorded holdings without contacting platform executives was consistent with awareness of the mistake and a conscious attempt to take advantage of it while staying below the radar.
The claim could not be dismissed as speculative or hopeless, the court said. It added that even if he was unaware in July 2024, there was a strong argument he became aware in February 2025 when the platform group contacted him.
Singapore’s courts have treated cryptocurrency as property capable of being held on trust since 2023, when the High Court ordered a former Bybit employee to return about 4.2 million USDT transferred to her own accounts, in a ruling The Crypto Times covered at the time.
Defendant Says the Ledger Cannot Prove Anything
The defendant disputes almost every element of the claim. He says he does not recollect making the March 2020 transfers, while accepting the blockchain shows they occurred, and that he had extensive dealings in digital assets he did not track, relying on the platform group to keep account.
He argues the July 2024 transfers were not shown to come from platform group assets and could have been his own holdings or those of other customers, and that the platform group’s ledgers are on its own case unreliable and therefore establish neither a mistake nor ownership. He says he has acted honestly and in good faith throughout and is the rightful owner.
The court gave no weight to the argument that the assets may have belonged to another customer, calling it a red herring, and noted the defendant produced no evidence that another of his accounts had been debited.
Assets Moved Out Over Six Months
On July 13, 2024, the defendant converted 20 BTC into USDC and transferred 816,773 USDC to an unhosted wallet. Between July 17 and November 10, 2024, he made five withdrawals totaling 380 BTC to a second. On November 24, 2024 and January 7, 2025, he moved 200 BTC each time to a third.
Of the 400 BTC in the third wallet, 150 BTC were transferred onward in February 2026—three months after proceedings were filed and a month before the hearing. The claimants say the 380 BTC and the USDC have been dealt with in ways making their whereabouts difficult to ascertain. The defendant does not dispute the dealings and says they are legitimate.
The claimants froze his platform wallets on January 29, 2025, and re-credited themselves the remaining 1,700 BTC and 2,500 BCH. He counterclaims for those assets or compensation.
Legal Costs Funded From the Disputed Assets
The defendant gave evidence that he is a person of reputation and substance and would meet any judgment but declined to provide up-to-date evidence of his financial position.
One explanation he gave for the February 2026 transfers was that he needed the assets as security for funds advanced to meet his legal costs in the proceedings. He also referred to investing some in his cryptocurrency business ventures. The court said that evidence supported the proposition that he lacks other liquid assets or assets against which he could readily borrow and that there was genuine doubt about his ability to satisfy a substantial judgment.
Court Refused Permission to Use Disclosure Abroad
The court found a disclosure order necessary to make the injunction effective, since compliance could not otherwise be supervised or enforced, though it held the terms the claimants sought were overly broad in several respects.
On the request to lift the usual restriction on using disclosed material outside the proceedings, the court noted the permission sought extended to criminal proceedings in other jurisdictions. It would not be just to grant such unfettered permission, and the claimants would suffer no real prejudice from applying for leave as the need arises. The order reserves liberty to apply for civil proceedings abroad.
Claim Runs to 62 Pages Across Four Causes of Action
The statement of claim pleads unjust enrichment, a proprietary claim, deceit and negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the contractual terms governing the platform’s services.
The court applied the test in Bouvier v Accent Delight International: a serious question to be tried and a balance of convenience favoring the injunction. It distinguished Bouvier, where relief was refused over a diffuse and unquantified pool of funds, on the basis that these assets are well-defined and readily identifiable.
The claimants gave the usual undertaking as to damages through a senior employee. The claimants were represented by Ong Tun Wei Danny SC of Setia Law LLC; the defendant by Tan Cheng Han SC of WongPartnership LLP.
Also Read: AWS Adds USDC Payments for AI Agents With Coinbase & Stripe
