The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) has approved an order to freeze approximately S$75 million, or $58 million, in Bitcoin and USD Coin (USDC) following a protracted legal dispute involving a major digital asset trading platform and a long-standing customer.
Complex transfer error leads to court action
The case, listed as *DVA and another v DVC* [2026] SGHC(I) 4, centers on the unintended transfer of sizable crypto assets after the digital asset platform referenced an outdated ledger when processing transactions. This error resulted in a customer receiving coins to which they were not entitled.
International Judge David Goddard, together with High Court Justice Aidan Xu and International Judge Anthony Meagher, handed down the rulings in the case. The claimants, identified as DVA and DVB, are linked to one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, while the defendant, DVC, is a customer with a notable background in blockchain development and exchange operation.
Observers have compared the incident to previous mishaps in the crypto space, such as the case of Bithumb, where customers managed to withdraw tokens that were incorrectly credited to their accounts after an employee mistake.
ETH
SOL
BSC
ROBINHOOD
USDT
AAPLMini dictionary: SICC, or the Singapore International Commercial Court, is a division of the Supreme Court of Singapore that specializes in complex cross-border commercial disputes.
Details of the mistaken transfers
The unnamed cryptocurrency platform discontinued its specialized self-custody wallet product in April 2018, yet users were not immediately restricted from accessing their wallets. Customers could still manage their digital assets through a third-party open-source tool for some time.
Due to this extended period of wallet use, the platform’s internal systems inaccurately reflected that the customer still held 2,500 Bitcoin and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash. In reality, these balances were withdrawn by the customer in March 2020.
According to court documents, the 2,500 Bitcoin were moved on March 2, 2020, to an account associated with a separate exchange founded by the customer. Six days later, 2,500 Bitcoin Cash were transferred, with a portion of those assets subsequently sent to Binance. These chain of transfers ruled out Binance as a litigant in the present case.
| Token | Amount Transferred | Date | Recipient |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bitcoin (BTC) | 2,500 | March 2, 2020 | Exchange founded by customer |
| Bitcoin Cash (BCH) | 2,500 | March 8, 2020 | Various (250 sent to Binance) |
The exchange’s internal ledger failed to record these withdrawals, leading it to send multiple reminders to the customer for up to four years after the assets had already been moved.
In June 2024, a relationship manager offered support, resulting in an automated remediation tool being deployed in July. This led to the accidental transfer of 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH from the platform’s own holdings to the customer, effectively duplicating the original withdrawals.
The exchange managed to recover 1,700 BTC and the full 2,500 BCH from the customer on January 29, 2025, after the issue was detected. However, a significant balance remains unreturned, which is now the subject of ongoing legal proceedings.
Scope of the court’s injunction
The SICC’s interim proprietary injunction restrains the defendant from disposing of, transferring, or diminishing the value of approximately 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC, as well as any proceeds or assets derived from these amounts. The court has also compelled the customer to disclose the current location and status of the disputed crypto assets, reflecting challenges in tracing them due to subsequent transactions.
However, the court stopped short of granting permission for the platform to enforce similar asset freezes in other jurisdictions using the information disclosed—leaving this option open for future requests.
The court has ordered the customer to maintain the value and prevent the movement of the disputed Bitcoin and USDC, recognizing the complexities involved in tracking these assets after several transfers.
The customer is contesting the platform’s version of events and continues to assert a right to the remaining tokens, pushing back against calls for reimbursement.
Despite the recovery of a substantial portion of the mistakenly transferred cryptocurrency, the unresolved balance continues to fuel an intense legal battle between the parties.
