Singapore court freezes S$75m in Bitcoin, USDC over transfer dispute

Singapore's SICC froze about S$75 million in Bitcoin and USDC after a crypto platform alleged an internal ledger error credited 2,500 BTC to a customer by mistake.

A Singapore court froze 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 interim proprietary injunction, granted March 26 by a three-judge panel of the Singapore International Commercial Court, bars the customer from disposing of about 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC, along with any assets, profits or interest derived from them, the court said in a judgment published Aug. 18.

The panel comprised High Court Justice Aidan Xu and SICC International Judges Anthony Meagher and David Goddard. The dispute involves an anonymized group of companies, identified only as DVA, DVB and DVC, that operates one of the world's largest digital asset trading platforms, and a customer who has used the service since around 2013.

The court found a serious question over whether the platform retained a proprietary interest in the assets and ordered the customer to disclose their whereabouts. The case, transferred to the SICC from the High Court's General Division in November 2025, now heads toward trial, with the platform seeking a constructive trust declaration and the customer counterclaiming for the frozen assets.

Ledger error traced to discontinued wallet product

At the center of the case are two specialized wallets that once held 2,500 BTC and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash. The wallets were a self-custody product requiring security credentials, including a user key held solely by the customer. Support ended in April 2018, though customers could still access the wallets through an unsupported open-source tool.

In March 2020, the entire balance was transferred away, leaving the wallets effectively empty. The platform alleged a technical problem prevented those withdrawals from being recorded on its internal ledgers, which continued to show the assets as present. Acting on those records, a relationship manager transferred another 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into the customer's other accounts in July 2024, believing the assets were trapped in the discontinued product.

The claimants say those assets came from their own omnibus wallets and were transferred solely because of the mistaken balance. The customer disputes that account, arguing the platform's admission of faulty ledgers weakens its claim and that the transferred crypto could have represented his own holdings or those of other customers.

Customer moved 780 BTC before platform acted

Court records show the customer converted 20 BTC into about 816,773 USDC on July 13, 2024, transferring the stablecoins to an unhosted wallet. Five withdrawals between July 17 and Nov. 10 moved another 380 BTC to a separate address, followed by 200 BTC on Nov. 24 and another 200 BTC on Jan. 7, 2025.

By the time the platform discovered the error in January 2025, 1,700 BTC and the full 2,500 BCH remained in the customer's accounts. The companies froze those wallets on Jan. 29, 2025, and re-credited the remaining assets to themselves. The platform then sought the return of the 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC that had left its system, but the customer refused.

The claimants' 62-page statement of claim sets out four causes of action, including unjust enrichment, a proprietary claim, deceit or negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The customer has counterclaimed for the assets that remain frozen or compensation of equivalent value.

The ruling adds to a growing body of Singapore case law on crypto ownership disputes, following separate proceedings involving Binance and RedotPay over claims worth nearly $473 million and WazirX's Singapore-based parent Zettai. The SICC declined to let the platform use the disclosure order to seek similar injunctions in other jurisdictions, leaving it free to apply for permission later if the assets surface abroad.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.