DVA & Anor v DVC

Facts

The claimants belong to a group operating one of the world's largest digital asset trading platforms. The defendant, a long-standing customer and cryptocurrency entrepreneur, had held 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH in two specialised self-custody wallets, a product the group stopped supporting in April 2018. On 2 and 8 March 2020 those assets were moved off the platform to wallets linked to the defendant, leaving the specialised wallets empty, but the group's ledger allegedly failed to record this. In July 2024 a relationship manager used a remediation tool to transfer 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into the defendant's ordinary platform wallets.

The defendant then converted and withdrew assets, sending 816,773 USDC and 780 BTC to unhosted wallets between July 2024 and January 2025. After discovering the error, the group froze his wallets on 29 January 2025 and re-credited the balance. The claimants sued in HC/OC 964/2025, later transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court as SIC/OA 8/2026, alleging the defendant knew of their mistake and held the withdrawn assets, worth approximately S$75m, on constructive trust. The defendant denied any mistake or knowledge and counterclaimed for the frozen assets. In HC/SUM 3402/2025 the claimants sought an interim proprietary injunction with ancillary disclosure and permission to use disclosed material elsewhere.

Issues

1. Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the claimants have a proprietary interest in the withdrawn assets
2. Whether the balance of convenience favoured an interim proprietary injunction over fungible digital assets
3. Whether ancillary disclosure orders and broad permission to use disclosed material in other proceedings should be granted

Holding

The court allowed the application in part. On 26 March 2026 it granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC and their proceeds until trial, and ordered him to disclose by affidavit the location of those assets and any assets representing them. It refused the claimants' broad request for permission to use the disclosed material in other proceedings, reserving liberty to apply, and ordered costs in the cause.

Reasoning

Applying the test in Bouvier, the claimants needed only an arguable case of a proprietary interest. There was strong evidence that the specialised wallets were in effect empty in July 2024 while the claimants believed otherwise, which would ground an unjust enrichment claim. There was also circumstantial evidence that the defendant effected the 2020 transfers, was unlikely to have forgotten moving assets of such value, and checked his balances in a way consistent with quietly exploiting the error. The court expressed no view on the merits but held that, if he knew of the mistake, it was well arguable he received the assets as constructive trustee; alternatively he became one from February 2025 when told of the mistake. His suggestion that the assets might have belonged to him or other customers was unsupported and a red herring.

On the balance of convenience, the court distinguished Bouvier, which involved vast unquantified sums paid over many years, oppressive disclosure, and defendants able to meet any judgment. Here the assets were well defined, disclosure would not be oppressive, the platform group had given an undertaking as to damages and could meet it, and the defendant had declined to give up-to-date evidence of his means while using the assets for legal costs and business ventures. Refusing relief risked leaving the claimants as unsecured creditors. The delay before applying reflected reasonable settlement efforts.

Disclosure was necessary to make the injunction effective, though the terms sought were narrowed. Leave to use the material in foreign civil or criminal proceedings was too broad and novel, and the claimants could apply when a real need arose.

From the judgment