The person in charge of Bybit’s salary payment stole a large amount of USDT, and the Singapore court explained the properties of encrypted currency in detail

Original compilation: Wu said blockchain

Crypto exchange Bybit sued Ms. Ho, who was in charge of salary payments within the company, for abusing her position by transferring large amounts of USDT to addresses she secretly owned and controlled. The Ordinary Division of the Singapore High Court upheld the judgment on July 25, stating that cryptocurrencies are generally recognized as property, and holders of encrypted assets in principle have intangible property rights recognized by common law as items in litigation, so they can be enforced in court. The court ordered Ms. Ho to immediately pay Bybit all transferred funds and interest.

The following is the full translation of the judgment (link to the original text)

introduce

The case involves a cryptographic asset called Tether, which is an example of a type of coin known as a stablecoin. This means that its issuer claims that each stablecoin it issues is backed by the value of fiat currency or other reserves. Issuers typically provide terms of service under which verified holders of the stablecoin are entitled to redeem fiat currency from the issuer. This link to fiat currency (in this case the U.S. dollar) is reflected in Tether's common name, USDT, which stands for Dollar Tether. In this judgment, I will use this abbreviation.
In this application, ByBit Fintech Limited (“ByBit”) seeks judgment against the first defendant, named Ho Kai Xin (“Ms. Ho”). The allegations against her are that she violated her employment contract, abused her position, and transferred some USDT to an "address" that she secretly owned and controlled, as well as some fiat currency to her own bank account. The primary relief sought is to state that Ms. Ho is hosting USDT and fiat currencies for ByBit. Therefore, ByBit requires the refund of the same or retroactive proceeds, or payment of an amount of equivalent value.
Courts in Singapore and elsewhere have acknowledged, in granting interim injunctions, that there is at least one serious issue unresolved, or a good arguable case, that cryptoassets are property that can be held as trusts. In doing so, it has not yet been necessary to determine whether these cryptoassets are things in action or a new type of intangible property. In order to grant judgment and ultimately declare a trust, this court must further decide whether the crypto assets in this case, namely USDT, are indeed property that can be held as a trust, and if so, what type of property they are.
In this case, I found out that USDT, even without the help of the legal system, can be transferred from one holder to another through crypto, but it is still a thing in action. In this judgment I mostly use the phrase thing in action, which means the same thing as thing in action. While USDT also comes with the right to exchange it for equivalent U.S. dollars from Tether Limited, a company in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”), which makes it more of a traditionally sanctioned thing in action, I don’t think this feature is a cryptoasset that is A necessary condition for things to be classified as in-action. Like any other thing in action, USD++++++++++++++++++++++ can be held as a trust.
I further believe that ByBi has demonstrated the case for which it seeks judgment, and I therefore grant the statement sought on the basis of an institutional constructive trust.
I now explain my reasons for reaching these conclusions.

background

Seychelles company ByBit has a cryptocurrency exchange named after it. ByBit pays its employees in traditional currency, cryptocurrency, or a mix of the two. Singaporean company WeChain Fintech Pte Ltd (“WeChain”) provides payroll services to ByBit and related entities. Ms. Ho is an employee of WeChain and handles the salary calculation of ByBit employees.
As part of her duties, Ms. Ho maintains a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that records monthly cash and cryptocurrency payments due to ByBit employees ("Fiat Currency Excel File" and "Cryptocurrency Excel File" respectively). document"). The cryptocurrency Excel file lists the “addresses” that ByBit employees use to receive cryptocurrency payments. An "address" can be understood as an encrypted digital "folder" that can "receive" and "store" cryptocurrency. Each address is a unique alphanumeric string. The corresponding "private key" is required to access and authorize transfers between addresses. These private keys are in turn stored in "wallets" and thus can be understood as a way of interacting with cryptocurrencies. Wallets hosted online by a service provider (usually a cryptocurrency exchange) are known as "custodial wallets." Custody wallets usually exist as user interface applications. Offline wallets are called "self-hosted wallets" and may be a simple piece of paper with a private key written on it, or complex encryption software that restricts access to the private key. In short, accessing a wallet means obtaining the stored private keys, thereby controlling the addresses and the cryptocurrencies stored therein. ByBit employees could, and often did, change their assigned address by communicating the new address to Ms. Ho, who would then update the cryptocurrency Excel file. Only Ms. Ho can update the encrypted Excel files, and only she can access them, except that the encrypted Excel files need to be submitted to her immediate supervisor, Casandra Teo, for approval every month.
On September 7, 2022, ByBit discovered that eight unusual cryptocurrency payments (“unusual transactions”) occurred between May 31 and August 31, 2022, involving payments to four addresses (I will These are simply called addresses 1, 2, 3 and 4) to transfer large amounts of USDT. A total of 4,209,720 USDT (“crypto assets”) were transferred. USDT gets its name because its value is pegged to the U.S. dollar, and each USDT gives its holders ("verified customers" of the issuer Tether Limited) the contractual right to exchange U.S. dollars for their USDT. These unusual transactions were compiled into an Excel spreadsheet (the "reconciliation Excel file") and Ms. Ho was assigned to interpret the discrepancies. Ms. Ho initially blamed the unusual transactions on unintentional mistakes or technical errors, and offered to calculate the amount that would need to be recovered from ByBit's employees.
From September 9 to 22, 2022, Ms. Ho still failed to provide any explanation for the unusual transactions. When asked why payments to different employees were sent to the same address, Address 1, Ms Ho suggested that she might have made an accidental mistake. Ms. Ho went on to provide a status update in the reconciliation Excel file, describing the unusual transaction as an amount "overpaid" to ByBit's employees.
On September 27, 2022, ByBit contacted a presumed recipient of the unusual transaction. 1.3 million USDT has been paid to address 1 in his name. However, according to ByBit, that employee denied ever assigning an address because he had only ever been paid in traditional currencies and did not know who owned the address1. ByBit's internal investigation found that Ms. Ho's work mailbox sent an email containing address 1 to herself on May 19, 2022. Ms. Ho's work email also received an email on August 29, 2022 containing all four addresses, this time from Ms. Ho's personal email. These messages were recovered by ByBit because they were deleted.
ByBit also found that Ms. Ho caused $117,238.46 (“Fiat Assets”) to be paid into her personal bank account in May 2022. It is indisputable that Ms. Ho has no right to legal currency assets, and Ms. Ho expressly accepts that she holds legal currency assets for ByBit in trust. However, so far, Ms. Ho has taken no steps to return the fiat assets.
On September 29 and October 4, 2022, ByBit conducted interview sessions with Ms. Ho. During the first meeting, Ms Ho claimed she was unable to remember details of the unusual transactions. In the second meeting, Ms. Ho was confronted with ByBit's findings. Ms. Ho told ByBit that she does not own the wallets associated with the four addresses, that the wallets belong to her cousin and that she has no access to them. Ms Ho said her cousin suggested she help him move the cryptocurrency, and she has CCTV footage of him making unusual transactions at her home. Ms. Ho admitted that she was involved in the scheme before the interview meeting three months ago, and told ByBit that she wanted to call the police because she does not own crypto assets. After the meeting, Ms Ho refused to sign the one-page statement documenting what happened. However, it is indisputable that Ms. Ho made these statements to ByBit. After that, Ms. Ho lost contact with ByBit and WeChain and did not participate in the follow-up meeting.
ByBit commenced this proceeding on October 12, 2022. ByBit was successful in obtaining several interim reliefs, including a global freezing order against Ms. Ho, and an ownership injunction against the cryptocurrencies (i.e., crypto assets) in the four addresses and the fiat assets in Ms. Ho’s bank account. Ms. Ho personally accepted the originating claim and order on October 18, 2022. On October 31, 2022, Ms. Ho disclosed in an affidavit that the wallets associated with the four addresses belonged to her cousin, Jason Teo (“Jason”). Ms. Ho claimed she was unable to access any wallets, that she deleted the text conversations with Jason before accepting order service, and that she did not turn off circuit surveillance footage, as footage older than seven days is automatically deleted. Ms. Ho filed her defense on November 11, 2022 and filed a third party notice against Jason.
Ms. Ho fully accepts that crypto assets belong to ByBit and she has no right to own it. Ms. Ho's main defense is that Jason stole ByBit's crypto assets without her knowledge. She did not benefit from it, as the wallets associated with the four addresses were owned and controlled by Jason alone. Her case is that, starting in May 2022, she asked Jason to help check encrypted Excel files when he visited her home "many times". Jason then accessed her work laptop without her knowledge or consent, which Ms Ho only discovered by reviewing CCTV footage from her home after ByBit alerted her to the unusual transactions. She then confronted Jason, who admitted to deliberately replacing the addresses specified by several ByBit employees with four addresses. Despite her repeated requests, Jason refused to return the crypto assets. Ms. Ho's position is that she still does not know the reason for the unusual transaction on September 9, 2022, which is more than seven days after the last unusual transaction dated August 31, 2022. She did not explain how she was able to see the footage of the allegations.
Dissatisfied with Ms. Ho's disclosure, ByBit sought and obtained an order for broader disclosure on December 7, 2022 against Ms. Ho and certain third parties, including her father and husband. This is because ByBit found that Ms. Ho had made some large purchases from July 2022, including a freehold penthouse purchased with her husband, a brand new car, and several Louis Vuitton products. . Notably, despite initially denying any real property ownership, Ms Ho later explained that she purchased the freehold penthouse using money earned from cryptocurrency transactions on MetaMask and crypto.com. This is contrary to her previous claim that her MetaMask account was completely unused. Ms. Ho did not provide her MetaMask and crypto.com addresses, nor did she provide account transaction statements. According to Ms. Ho, she lost access to her crypto.com account because it was registered to her personal email, which had been disabled for unknown reasons. Likewise, she was unable to access her MetaMask account because she bought a brand new phone in October 2022 and was unable to obtain the necessary passcode from her previous device. I also noticed that contrary to the disclosure order, Ms. Ho initially failed to disclose all of her assets, such as her bank accounts, which required further inquiries from ByBit.
Meanwhile, Ms. Ho applied for and received permission to perform substitute services on Jason. Oddly, Ms. Ho states in her affidavit of support that it was Jason who deleted their text conversation history after she told him she had been served a complaint. Jason did not appear in this lawsuit.
On March 30, 2023, ByBit filed this application for summary judgment. Ms Ho did not lodge any affidavit to rebut the application under Rule 9, Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Court 2021. On April 18, 2023, Ms Ho took over her own defense ahead of a hearing. Ms. He did not attend any of my previous hearings and did not file an opinion.
For completeness, ByBit has also filed to amend their claim and submit further submissions, which I have designated by May 19, 2023. ByBit initially advocated that Ms. Ho hold both crypto and fiat assets in a remedial building trust. As such, ByBit seeks to amend in order to present an alternative argument based on institution-building trusts. I allow Ms. Ho to comment on the amendments and extend her deadline to submit comments on summary judgment by May 26, 2023. As before, Ms. Ho submitted no comments or objected to the amendment application.
ByBit submits that the amendments are clarifications only and do not introduce any new facts. Ms. Ho's defense will not be affected by the amendment, which already clearly states that Ms. Ho wrongly caused the unusual transaction. Instead, the amendments enable the real issues in dispute to be identified and Ms Ho will not suffer any harm that cannot be recovered through cost.
I agree that the proposed amendments are clarifying, adding an alternative legal conclusion to the institution-building trust based on the facts already presented, allowing the real dispute to be fully and conclusively determined. Accordingly, I allowed the amendment on June 30, 2023, and commenced a motion for summary judgment based on ByBit's Complaint (2nd Amendment), which was filed on July 5, 2023.

Party case

Ms. Ho's case

As mentioned earlier, Ms. Ho's main point is that the responsibility should rest entirely with Jason (see above [15]). From the affidavit, Ms Ho appears to claim she has no way of identifying Jason and does not know his personal details or where he lives. In addition, Ms. Ho believes that Jason accessed her work and personal e-mails, sent and then deleted the e-mails claiming four addresses (see [11] above). Jason did this without her authorization and Ms Ho denies deleting the emails. In addition, Ms. He claimed that she implied that she had lied to ByBit in an interview on 4 October 2022 (see [13] above). According to Ms. Ho, ByBit sternly warned her that her actions were criminal and has always maintained that she was responsible for the unusual transactions. Ms. Ho responded because she wanted to protect Jason, whom she had a close relationship with, and because she needed to rush to care for her sick two-year-old son. Due to her son's illness, she refused to sign the one-page confirmation form after the interview because she did not have time to review its contents and refused to attend the follow-up interview session.
As for statutory assets, Ms. Ho stated that she had accidentally entered her own data into another employee's when preparing the statutory Excel file, resulting in an incorrect payment.

ByBit case

ByBit submits that it is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 9, Rule 17(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021, because it has demonstrated a prima facie case and Ms Ho has no defense to the claim. ByBit's presentation focuses on crypto assets, as Ms. Ho accepts that she holds ByBit's fiat assets in trust.
First, ByBit proposes that "Jason" is a complete fiction. Ms Ho has no evidence to support Jason's existence and her account of events is implausible in nature. Simultaneously with the unusual transactions, Ms. Ho also went on a suspiciously extravagant spending spree. Ms. Ho spent about $362,000 on a new car, $30,000 on Louis Vuitton products and abruptly canceled her existing pre-sold HDB apartment to buy a penthouse worth about $3.7 million. Additionally, ByBit obtained criminal information from the service provider of the wallet associated with address 1. This proves that Ms. Ho owns the wallet and includes Ms. Ho's ID and a selfie, which she provided during the account registration process. Published transaction records also match unusual transactions flowing into address 1, and the amounts transferred on certain dates seem to indicate that USDT transferred to address 2 and address 3 was quickly transferred to address 1. This proves that Ms. Ho owns and controls the wallet associated with Address 1, and possibly owns and controls wallets associated with other addresses.
Secondly, ByBit proposes that encrypted assets are composed of options, so they are properties that can become the subject of trust. This is because USDT gives certified customers of Tether Limited the right to exchange USDT for fiat currency equivalents. ByBit proposed that address 3 is associated with a self-custodial wallet, which means that Ms. Ho can directly access the relevant private key, thus directly controlling address 3 and the USDT in it, which can be held as a trust as an option. For addresses 1, 2 and 4, they are associated with custodial wallets. In the case of a custodial wallet, access to private keys is custodied by the service provider, not the user who custodizes the wallet. Instead, users of custodial wallets have the contractual right to instruct service providers to transfer cryptocurrencies between addresses. ByBit likens this to a bank account, where a declared cryptocurrency balance (equivalent to an account balance) in a custodial wallet is an option to a service provider (equivalent to a bank). Therefore, the relevant property is also an option, that is, the right to instruct the service provider about the USDT credit balance.
Third, ByBit submits that Ms. Ho held both crypto and fiat assets in a constructive trust, or that Ms. Ho was unfairly enriched in the sum of both crypto and fiat assets. ByBit submitted that Ms. Ho fraudulently obtained the crypto assets by manipulating the Cryptocurrency Excel file, which falsely caused ByBit to pay the crypto assets to four addresses controlled by Ms. Ho, thereby creating an institution-building trust. Alternatively, ByBit proposes, a remedial constructive trust should be recognized in this case because there has been fraud or wrongdoing and Ms. Ho's conscience has been affected. Therefore, ByBit proposed that I should grant a retroactive order because Ms. Ho traded crypto assets and fiat assets in violation of the freezing order. For the unfairly enriched fallback claim, ByBit relied on the factually false injustice that ByBit was misled into believing that cryptocurrency payments should have been made to its employees at four addresses. Therefore, ByBit submits, it is entitled to compensation for the value of the encrypted assets.

Issues to be determined

There are two issues to be determined in this case:

(a) Whether USDT can be held in trust as property;

(b) whether ByBit is entitled to summary judgment.

Question 1: USDT is a property that can be held as a trust

Despite their novelty, cryptoassets have not only been transferred in value, but have also appeared on the balance sheets of companies when held by them, as the accounting industry develops standards for how to value and report these assets. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) recently published a consultation paper on proposed amendments to the Payment Services Regulations, which would implement segregation and custody requirements for digital payment tokens: MAS, “Requirements for Digital Payment Token Services Public Consultation Response to Proposed Regulatory Measures for 2023” published on 3 July 2023. These proposed amendments reflect the reality that it is possible in practice to identify and segregate such digital assets, thus supporting the view that they should be lawfully held as trusts.
Furthermore, court rules give general recognition to cryptocurrencies as property. In Rule 22 of the Rules of Court 2021, which relates to the enforcement of judgments and orders, O 22 r 1(1) defines "movable property" to include "cash, debts, deposits, bonds, shares or other securities, clubs or membership of societies, and cryptocurrencies or other digital currencies” [emphasis added]. As such, cryptocurrency is clearly considered a form of property that can be the subject of an executive order. Although those who made the 2021 Court Rules did not specify a specific method for enforcing such enforcement orders (see Civil Justice Committee Report (Dec. 29, 2017) (Chair: Judge Cheng Yongguang)), in passing, the The procedure for serving a notice of seizure (O 22 r 6( 4)( b ) or registering title to intangible movable property (O 22 r 6( 4)( g ) Expand to cryptocurrencies or other digital currencies.
Crypto assets are not classified as physical assets because we cannot hold them like a car or jewelry. They have no fixed physical identity. However, crypto assets do manifest in the physical world, albeit imperceptibly to humans. The combination of the private key and the public key unlocks the previous cryptographic lock and locks the unspent transaction output of the encrypted asset to the public address of the holder on the blockchain. Professor Kelvin Low argues that the rights that a private key holder has by holding a private key "is correctly conceptualized as an unspent transaction output (UTXO) to a cryptoasset locked on the blockchain to the holder's public address. narrow rights”: See Kelvin FK Low, “Trusts of Cryptoassets” (2021) 34(4) Trust Law International 191. This physical representation at the digital bit and byte level is not permanent and changes with every transaction. Nevertheless, we recognize that what is happening is a specific digital token, kind of like we name a river even though the water in the river bed is constantly changing.
While some are skeptical about the value of cryptoassets, it is worth remembering that value is not inherent in things. Although we say that certain materials are expensive, such as gold is more valuable than wood, this is a judgment made by the collective human mind. This is also a judgment that changes with the environment. A floating wooden chair is more valuable than a golden throne on a sunken ship.
This description of cryptoassets suggests that modern humans can define and identify them, enabling them to be traded and valued as holdings. They certainly fit the oft-quoted maxim of Lord Wilberforce in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth (1965, 1 AC 1175 at 1248):

Before a right or interest can be included in the category of property, or the category of rights affecting property, it must be definable, identifiable by third parties, of a nature assumable by third parties, and have a certain duration or stability.

The next question is whether USDT can be classified as an action thing. The argument that cryptoassets should not be classified as things of action is based on the fact that the origin of this category is a right enforceable against a person through litigation (in court), such as the right to be paid money or a debt, or a contractual right. There are no separate counterparty rights over crypto holders. But over time the category of things of action has broadened to include documents of title to intangible property rights, and eventually intangible rights such as copyright: see WS Holdsworth, History of the Treatment of "Choses" under the Common Law (1920 ) 33(8) Harvard Law Review 997. As Holdsworth notes on page 998 in the Introduction to his authoritative article:

Obviously, the diversity of things classified under the category of action things will inevitably lead to the diversity of legal events in each category of action things. Indeed, their legal matters are very different; and because they are different in themselves, they must be treated differently by courts and legislatures. It is not possible to deal comprehensively with the law of active things; the individual classes of active things are usually dealt with not under this general category, but under their more appropriate branches of law. For example, if we want to know the law about bills and bills, shares, copyrights, or patents, we don't look for it in treatises on action things, but in books on business law, corporate law, or books devoted to these particular things. Find it in the monograph.

Holdsworth's historical surveys show a variety of intangible properties classified as moving things. This variety shows that the category of action things is broad, flexible, and not closed. It is these properties which explain and justify the oft-quoted dictum of Justice Frye in Colonial Bank v Whinney (1885, 30 Ch D 261, p. 285): "All personal things are either held or acted Yes. The law knows no third person between the two."
I therefore conclude that, in principle, holders of crypto-assets have an intangible property right recognizable at common law as a thing of the action and thus enforceable in court. While one could argue that there is an element of circularity to this conclusion, since it could also be argued that the right to enforce in court is what makes it an action thing, this line of reasoning is not significantly different from the way the law treats other social structures different, such as currency. Shells or beads or differently printed paper money became money only because people generally accepted their exchange value. Acceptance of currency is due to collective trustful behavior. This is reflected in Lord Mansfield's famous observation in Miller v Race (1758, 1 Burr 452, p. 457) that what is "generally accepted by all mankind" as money, "is to all intents and purposes "On" is endowed with "credibility and circulation of currency".
ByBit also relies on USDT's current terms of service, which stipulate a contractual right to redemption. Article 3 contains the following provisions regarding redemption rights:

Tether issues and redeems Tether Tokens. Tether tokens can be used, kept or exchanged online, as long as someone is willing to accept Tether tokens. Tether tokens are backed 100% by Tether's reserves. Tether tokens are denominated in a range of fiat currencies. For example, if you purchased EURT, your Tether tokens would be pegged 1:1 to the Euro. If you issued 100.00 EURT, Tether would hold EUR 100.00 worth of reserves backing those Tether tokens. The composition of the Reserve Fund used to back Tether Tokens is entirely under Tether's control and at Tether's sole discretion. Tether tokens are backed by Tether's reserves (including fiat currency), but Tether tokens themselves are not legal tender. Tether will not issue Tether Tokens for consideration consisting of digital tokens (eg, Bitcoin); currency will only be accepted at the time of issuance. In order for Tether to issue or redeem Tether Tokens directly, you must be a verified customer of Tether. There will be no exceptions to this rule. The right to exchange or issue Tether Tokens is your personal contractual right. Tether reserves the right to delay the conversion or withdrawal of Tether Tokens if any delay in the conversion or withdrawal of Tether Tokens is necessary due to illiquidity, unavailability or loss of any reserves held by Tether to back the Tether Tokens, and Tether reserves the right to redeem Tether Tokens by in-kind exchange of securities and other assets held in reserves. Tether makes no representations or warranties as to whether it will be possible to trade Tether tokens on the website at any time in the future, or even whether it will be possible to trade Tether tokens on the website.

The Terms of Service are governed by the laws of BVI. ByBit submitted a legal opinion from BVI qualified lawyer Sam Goodman, which believes that according to BVI law, the USDT held by Tether Limited's "certified customers" can execute the contract to redeem USDT by filing a lawsuit against Tether Limited right. ByBit relies on this to support its argument that USDT is an action thing.
In my analysis, this feature of USDT may constitute another kind of action thing that a USDT holder may have, but its existence is not necessary for me to conclude that the rights represented by USDT are themselves action things .

Question 2: ByBit is entitled to judgment

ByBit submitted that it has established a preliminary case and has moved past the need to demonstrate a good arguable case in order to obtain a global freezing order. Conversely, Ms. Ho could not demonstrate that there was a fair or reasonable likelihood of a true or bona fide defense.

Jason does not exist

What I accept as more likely than not is the inference that ByBit is trying to draw from all the evidence, that Jason does not exist (or at least does not play his role as Ms. Ho claims). There is indeed convincing evidence that Ms. Ho fraudulently transferred crypto and fiat assets into her name. As noted above in [25], there is direct evidence that Ms. Ho possessed the wallet associated with address 1, as well as indirect evidence of her unexplained profligate behavior. Leveraging her employment relationship at WeChain, which was hired to handle ByBit’s payroll accounts, and abusing her trust, Ms. Ho manipulated cryptocurrency Excel files to steal both crypto and fiat assets.

Presumptive Trust

An institutional constructive trust arises in the event of theft of assets, for which equitable recourse remedies are available. As Lord Browne-Wilkinson noted in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [ 1996 ] 1 AC 669 at 716:

I agree that stolen funds can be traced by equity. But in this case, the exclusive benefit enforced by the equity arises under a constructive rather than a consequential trust. Although it is difficult to find clear authority for this proposition, when property is acquired through fraudulent equity, there is a putative trust in the recipient of the fraud that the property is recoverable and can be traced in the equity. Thus infants who have acquired property by fraud are obliged to return it: Stocks v. Wilson [1913] 2 KB 235, 244; R. Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill [1914] 3 KB 607. Funds stolen from bank accounts can be traced in equity: Bankers Trust Co. v. Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274, 128 2C-E. See also McCormick v Grogan (1869) LR 4 HL 82, 97.

I should also add that even if Ms. Ho mixes USDT with USDT in balances in other online custodial wallets, or mixes fiat assets with other money in her bank account, a constructive trust could be in effect: Foskett v McKeown [ 2001 ] 1 AC 102.
In light of my findings of fact, I declare a constructive trust for crypto and fiat assets. ByBit is the legal and beneficial owner of crypto assets. Given my grant of relief based on institutional constructive trusts, I do not need to deal with remedial constructive trusts and alternative bases of unjust enrichment.
ByBit seeks a series of property and personal orders based on its investigation, which I now grant, as follows:

(a) Declare constructive trusts for crypto-assets and fiat assets;

(b) ordered Ms. Ho to immediately pay ByBit US$647,880 (the value of the encrypted assets in wallets 3 and 4);

(d) ordered Ms. Ho to immediately transfer all remaining funds in Wallet 1 to ByBit, up to a total of $3,561,840 (the value of the encrypted assets transferred to Wallets 1 and 2);

(e) For the remaining encrypted assets transferred to wallets 1 and 2 after deducting the transfer amount in (d) above (i.e. USDT valued at USD 3,561,840) (hereinafter referred to as the "Remaining Amount"):

(i) order Ms. Ho to pay the Remaining Amount, or any money or funds representing the value of the Remaining Amount which it has owned or received, or any account received on their behalf or on their order;

(ii) a recourse order for the remaining amount or any part thereof for ByBit to recover and recover the converted assets or their proceeds (if any);

(iii) An order by Ms. Ho to pay ByBit all sums deemed due to ByBit after liquidation of the account.

I will also accrue interest at the standard rate of 5.33% p.a. from the date Ms. Ho transferred the assets in question to the date of judgment, which are paid in [45(b)] and [45(c)].

in conclusion

I also awarded ByBit $45,000.00 in fees following summary judgment against Ms. Ho (fee included in consideration of the legal novelty of the issues at issue and the work done while seeking interim relief ) and an outlay of $11,500.00.

Philip Jeyaretnam

high court judge

Plaintiffs were represented by Quek Wen Jiang Gerard, Kyle Gabriel Peters, Ling Ying Ming Daniel, Mato Kotwani and Chua Ze Xuan (PDLegal LLC);

Defendants 1 through 6 were absent and not represented.

View Original