
Singapore Court Freezes $75M in Crypto After Mistaken Transfer Dispute
Singapore's SICC has frozen about S$75 million in crypto assets following a dispute over mistaken transfers between a major exchange and a customer.
The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) has issued an interim injunction freezing approximately S$75 million worth of Bitcoin and USD Coin (USDC) in a dispute between the operator of a major cryptocurrency trading platform and a long-standing customer.
The order, delivered in March 2026 by Justice Aidan Xu and International Judges Anthony Meagher and David Goddard, prevents the defendant from dealing with 816,773 USDC and 780 Bitcoin (BTC) that were moved out of two specialized wallets on the platform, along with any proceeds from those assets.
The court also directed the defendant to disclose the location of the transferred assets, but declined to permit the claimants to use that information when seeking similar injunctive relief in other jurisdictions.
According to court documents, the defendant had held 2,500 BTC and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash (BCH) in specialized wallets. The claimants alleged that due to technical issues, their internal ledger failed to record transfers out of these wallets in March 2020, leaving the balances appearing empty, even though support for the wallets had ceased in 2018.
Acting on this mistaken belief, the claimants transferred 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into the defendant's other wallets in July 2024. The defendant subsequently converted 20 BTC into approximately 816,773 USDC and transferred that amount along with 780 BTC into wallets not hosted by the claimants between July and November 2024.
The claimants discovered the ledger error in January 2025 and froze the defendant's wallets, recovering the remaining 1,700 BTC and 2,500 BCH.
The judges found sufficient evidence to show the specialized wallets' balances were effectively zero, and that the claimants had credited the assets due to their mistaken belief about the balances. It was also deemed arguable that the defendant knew of the claimants' mistake when they contacted them in July 2024.