BTHMB HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. v KIM BYUNG GUN

[2024] SGHC 197 High Court (General Division) 2 August 2024 HC/S 629/2019 ( HC/SUM 4105/2022 ) 13 min read

6 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	2 August 2024
Judge	Andre Maniam
Charges / claim	Equity, Civil Procedure
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLC, TSMP Law Corporation, Chan Tai-Hui, Jason, Fu Wei Jun Nicholas, Jonathan Tan Ming En, Kenneth Chua, Leong Yi-Ming, Megan Chua, Thio Shen Yi, Wong Ling Yun

Source: [2024] SGHC 197, High Court (General Division), decided 2 August 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Equity — Remedies — Account Civil Procedure — Costs — Indemnity costs Civil Procedure — Costs — Certificate of costs for three solicitors

Practice Areas

Equity Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Andre Maniam Delivered

Counsel (10)

Allen & Gledhill LLC Firm TSMP Law Corporation Firm Chan Tai-Hui, Jason Counsel Plaintiff Fu Wei Jun Nicholas Counsel Defendant Jonathan Tan Ming En Counsel Plaintiff Kenneth Chua Counsel Defendant Leong Yi-Ming Counsel Plaintiff Megan Chua Counsel Plaintiff Thio Shen Yi Counsel Defendant Wong Ling Yun Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd Plaintiff Kim Byung Gun Defendant

Case Significance

BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd v Kim Byung Gun [2024] SGHC 197 was a decision of the General Division of the High Court delivered by Andre Maniam J on 2 August 2024, in Suit No 629 of 2019 (Summons No 4105 of 2022), following hearings in November 2023 and May 2024. It addressed remedies by way of account and questions of indemnity costs and a certificate of costs for three solicitors. The plaintiff, BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd, was represented by Allen & Gledhill LLC, including Jason Chan Tai-Hui; the defendant, Kim Byung Gun, was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, including Thio Shen Yi.

The judgment explained that in an earlier decision, BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd v Kim Byung Gun [2023] 4 SLR 449, the defendant ("Dr Kim") had been ordered to provide an account to BTHMB of what became of US$22,596,913.76 in proceeds from the sale of BXA Coin cryptocurrency that he had been entrusted with. This decision addressed whether Dr Kim had since provided a proper account. The earlier judgment had recorded that Dr Kim relied on an expert tracing opinion that US$18,490,836.92 of the sale proceeds had been paid to BTHMB as part of the Defence Transactions, leaving a shortfall of US$4,106,076.84 still to be accounted for.

[2024] SGHC 197 explained

BTHMB HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. v KIM BYUNG GUN ([2024] SGHC 197) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 2 August 2024. It is categorised under Equity and Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 197 about?

BTHMB HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. v KIM BYUNG GUN ([2024] SGHC 197) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Equity — Remedies — Account”, “Civil Procedure — Costs — Indemnity costs”, and “Civil Procedure — Costs — Certificate of costs for three solicitors”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Summary

Following an earlier order that Dr Kim Byung Gun provide BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd with an account of what became of US$22,596,913.76 in proceeds from the sale of BXA Coin cryptocurrency he had been entrusted with, the General Division of the High Court considered whether he had provided a proper account, with BTHMB seeking a declaration of breach and indemnity costs with a certificate for three solicitors. The court declared that Dr Kim had not provided a proper, complete and accurate account of what became of the sale proceeds. It held BTHMB entitled to costs on an indemnity basis, granted a certificate of costs for three solicitors, and ordered Dr Kim to pay costs of S$245,000 and disbursements of S$56,395.37.

What was BTHMB Holdings v Kim Byung Gun [2024] SGHC 197 about?

BTHMB Holdings Pte Ltd v Kim Byung Gun [2024] SGHC 197, decided by Andre Maniam J on 2 August 2024, addressed whether the defendant Dr Kim had provided a proper account of US$22,596,913.76 in BXA Coin cryptocurrency sale proceeds, alongside questions of indemnity costs and costs for three solicitors.

What was the shortfall in the account in [2024] SGHC 197?

Following the earlier judgment ([2023] 4 SLR 449), Dr Kim relied on an expert opinion that US$18,490,836.92 of the BXA Coin sale proceeds was paid to BTHMB, leaving a shortfall of US$4,106,076.84 from the entrusted US$22,596,913.76 still to be accounted for.