SINGAPORE, Aug. 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) has ordered a freeze on approximately S$75 million worth of Bitcoin and USD Coin following a dispute between the operator of one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency trading platforms, which consists of claimants and a number of related companies, and a long-standing customer.
In a judgment issued by Judge of the Singapore High Court Justice Aidan Xu and SICC International Judges Justice Anthony Meagher and Justice David Goddard in March 2026, the claimants were granted an interim injunction prohibiting the defendant from dealing with 816,773 USD Coin (USDC) and 780 Bitcoin (BTC) that the defendant had transferred away from two specialised wallets on the platform and the proceeds of those assets.
The judges also ordered the defendant to disclose the whereabouts of the transferred assets, but declined to allow the claimants to use the disclosed information when seeking similar injunctive relief in other jurisdictions.
The defendant had held 2,500 BTC and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash (BCH) in specialised wallets. The claimants alleged that for technical reasons, their internal ledger failed to record their transfers out of the defendant’s wallets in March 2020, leaving them empty, even though support for the wallets ceased in 2018. Acting on this mistaken belief, the claimants transferred 2,500 BTC and 2,500 Bitcoin BCH into the defendant’s other wallets in July 2024 — digital assets that the claimants say are theirs.
The defendant then converted 20 BTC into approximately 816,773 USD Coin (USDC), and transferred that and 780 BTC into other wallets not hosted by the claimants between July and November 2024.
The claimants discovered in January 2025 that the balances in their internal ledgers for the defendant’s specialised wallets were incorrect, and that the earlier transfers were made by mistake. The claimants then froze the defendant’s wallets and recovered the remaining 1,700 BTC and 2,500 BCH.
The Judges found that there was sufficient evidence to show that the balances in the defendant’s specialised wallets were in effect zero, and that the claimants had credited 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into the defendant’s wallets because of their mistaken belief about the remaining balances. It was also arguable that the defendant knew of the claimants’ mistake in July 2024 when the claimants discovered their mistake and contacted the defendant.
For the full judgment, visit [2026] SGHC(I) 4.
