Singapore court freezes $58 million in crypto after platform’s ledger missed a 2020 withdrawal

Singapore’s top commercial court has frozen roughly S$75 million ($58 million) in Bitcoin and USDC after a major crypto trading platform accused a longtime customer of keeping coins it says were sent to him by mistake.

The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) granted the injunction on March 26, 2026, covering 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC that the customer moved away from the platform between July 2024 and January 2025. The court also ordered the defendant to disclose where the assets, or their proceeds, are currently held.

The judgment, DVA and another v DVC, was delivered by a three-judge panel comprising High Court Justice Aidan Xu and International Judges Anthony Meagher and David Goddard, who delivered the grounds of decision. The judgment was published on April 24.

Importantly, the court has not made a final determination that the platform owns the disputed assets. Instead, the judges found that there is a serious question to be tried and that preserving the assets was necessary while the underlying claims proceed.

That distinction could prove significant for the wider cryptocurrency industry, where irreversible blockchain transactions can collide with traditional legal concepts such as mistake, unjust enrichment, constructive trusts and proprietary rights.

A ledger error allegedly triggered the transfers

The origins of the crypto transfer court case stretch back several years.

According to the judgment, the unnamed platform had offered specialised self-custody wallets before discontinuing support for the product in April 2018. The defendant was a longstanding customer who had held 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH in those wallets.

Blockchain records showed that the assets were moved out in March 2020. On March 2, 2,500 BTC went to a wallet maintained on a cryptocurrency exchange founded by the defendant. Six days later, 2,500 BCH were also transferred away, with 2,250 BCH subsequently sent to another platform founded by him and 250 BCH transferred to Binance. By March 8, the specialised wallets were effectively empty.

The platform, however, allegedly failed to record those withdrawals in its internal ledger. As a result, it continued operating on the assumption that the customer still held the original 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH in the discontinued wallets.

That error persisted for years.

In June 2024, a relationship manager contacted the customer to help him access what the platform believed were still substantial crypto balances. In July, an automated remediation tool transferred another 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into the customer’s other wallets on the platform. The company later alleged that the transfers were made because of its mistaken belief that the old wallets still contained the assets.

The customer subsequently dealt with the assets. He converted 20 BTC into about 816,773 USDC and transferred the stablecoins to an external wallet. He also moved a combined 780 BTC into several unhosted wallets.

Judges say the ownership question must go to trial

The central issue in the crypto transfer court case is whether the July 2024 transfers were made by mistake and, if so, whether the platform can legally recover the assets or their traceable proceeds.

The defendant disputes the platform’s account. He says he is entitled to the assets and argues that the platform’s own unreliable ledger does not establish that the transfers came from the platform’s property. He also denies knowing about any alleged mistake and maintains that he acted honestly and in good faith based on information supplied by the platform.

The judges did not resolve those arguments at the interim stage.

Instead, International Judge David Goddard wrote that the claimants had presented an “arguable case” that the July 2024 transfers resulted directly from a mistake about the balances in the discontinued wallets. The court also found an arguable case that the defendant knew of the mistake either when the transfers occurred or, at the latest, after the platform contacted him in February 2025.

The court further concluded that the platform could potentially establish a proprietary interest in the assets through constructive-trust principles if its allegations are ultimately proved.

The judges also pointed to the risk that the assets could be dissipated before a final judgment. The defendant had used some of the disputed assets as security for funds used to meet legal expenses and for cryptocurrency business activities, while he had not provided current evidence of sufficient alternative liquid assets to satisfy a substantial judgment.

That made preserving the disputed property more important than allowing unrestricted access to it while the litigation continues.

Why the case matters for crypto ownership

The significance of the crypto transfer court case extends beyond the approximately S$75 million at stake.

Cryptocurrency transactions are often described as irreversible once confirmed on a blockchain. But this dispute demonstrates that while a blockchain transaction may be technically difficult to reverse, courts can still impose legal obligations on people who receive assets through an alleged mistake.

The SICC’s order prohibits the defendant from disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of the specified 780 BTC, 816,773 USDC and identifiable proceeds derived from those assets. He must also provide information about their location, custody and associated wallets or counterparties.

However, the judges stopped short of granting the platform unrestricted authority to use the disclosed information to pursue similar freezing orders overseas. The court said the claimants could return to seek permission when necessary rather than receiving broad permission in advance.

The ruling therefore leaves the biggest question unanswered: who ultimately owns the disputed cryptocurrency?

That will be determined at trial, not by the interim injunction.

Still, the crypto transfer court case offers an important signal to exchanges, custodians and investors. Internal accounting systems can create legal consequences when they diverge from blockchain records, while customers who receive apparently legitimate balances may face substantial legal exposure if those transfers are later alleged to have resulted from an operational mistake.

For the cryptocurrency industry, the dispute underscores a growing reality: blockchain transactions may be permanent on-chain, but ownership disputes surrounding those transactions remain firmly within the reach