Compiled by: Wu Shuo Blockchain

The cryptocurrency exchange Bybit has sued Ms. Ho, who is responsible for paying salaries within the company, for abuse of power, transferring a large amount of USDT to addresses she secretly owns and controls. The Singapore High Court upheld the ruling on July 25, stating that cryptocurrencies are generally recognized as property, and holders of crypto assets have, in principle, intangible property rights recognized by common law, which can be enforced in court as items in litigation. The court ordered Ms. Ho to immediately pay Bybit all transferred amounts and interest.

Introduction

1. This case involves a cryptocurrency called Tether, which is an example of a stablecoin. This means that its issuer claims that for every stablecoin issued, it is backed by an equivalent value in fiat currency or other reserves. The issuer typically provides terms of service under which verified holders of the stablecoin have the right to redeem fiat currency from the issuer. This link to fiat currency (in this case, the US dollar) is reflected in Tether's common name, USDT, which stands for Tethered to the US Dollar. In this judgment, I will use this abbreviation.

2. In this application, ByBit Fintech Limited ("ByBit") seeks a judgment against the first defendant, Ms. Ho Kai Xin ("Ms. Ho"). She is accused of breaching her employment contract, abusing her position by transferring some USDT to an "address" she secretly owns and controls, as well as transferring some fiat currency to her own bank account. The primary relief sought is a declaration that Ms. Ho holds the USDT and fiat currency in trust for ByBit. Therefore, ByBit seeks the return of the same or traceable profits, or payment of an equivalent amount.

3. Courts in Singapore and elsewhere have recognized that, when granting interim injunctions, there is at least one serious issue to be resolved, or a good arguable case that crypto assets can be held as property in trust. In doing so, it is not yet necessary to determine whether these crypto assets are things in action or a new type of intangible property. To grant judgment and ultimately declare a trust, this court must further decide whether the crypto assets in this case, namely USDT, can indeed be held as property in trust, and if so, what type of property they are.

4. In this case, I find that USDT can be transferred from one holder to another through cryptography, even without the assistance of a legal system, but it remains a thing in action. In this judgment, I mostly use the phrase "thing in action," which has the same meaning as "thing in action." While USDT also carries the right to redeem equivalent US dollars from Tether Limited in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI"), which makes it more like a traditionally recognized thing in action, I do not believe that this characteristic is a necessary condition for a crypto asset to be classified as a thing in action. Like any other thing in action, USDT can be held in trust.

5. I further find that ByBit has demonstrated its case for the judgment it seeks, and therefore I grant the sought declaration based on the basis of a constructive trust.

6. I will now explain the reasons for my conclusions.

Background

7. The Seychelles company ByBit operates a cryptocurrency exchange named after itself. ByBit pays its employees in traditional currency, cryptocurrency, or a mix of both. The Singapore company WeChain Fintech Pte Ltd ("WeChain") provides payroll services for ByBit and its related entities. Ms. Ho is an employee of WeChain, responsible for processing payroll calculations for ByBit employees.

8. As part of her duties, Ms. Ho maintained a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that recorded cash and cryptocurrency payments due to ByBit employees each month (referred to as the "fiat Excel file" and the "crypto Excel file," respectively). The crypto Excel file listed the "addresses" used by ByBit employees 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. A corresponding "private key" is needed to access and authorize transfers between addresses. These private keys are stored in "wallets," which can be understood as a means of interacting with cryptocurrency. Wallets hosted online by service providers (usually cryptocurrency exchanges) are referred to as "custodial wallets." Custodial wallets typically exist in the form of user interface applications. Offline wallets are referred to as "self-custodial wallets," which may be a simple piece of paper with the private key written on it or complex encrypted software that restricts access to the private key. In short, accessing a wallet means obtaining the stored private key, thereby controlling the address and the cryptocurrency stored within it. ByBit employees can and do frequently change their designated addresses by communicating new addresses to Ms. Ho, who then updates the crypto Excel file. Only Ms. Ho can update the crypto Excel file, and she is the only one who can access these files, except for the monthly requirement to submit the crypto Excel file for approval to her direct supervisor, Casandra Teo.

9. On September 7, 2022, ByBit discovered eight unusual cryptocurrency payments ("anomalous transactions") that occurred between May 31 and August 31, 2022, involving large transfers of USDT to four addresses (which I will simply refer to as addresses 1, 2, 3, and 4). A total of 4,209,720 USDT ("crypto assets") was transferred. USDT is named so because its value is pegged to the US dollar, and each USDT grants its holder (i.e., the issuer Tether Limited's "verified customers") contractual rights to redeem their USDT for US dollars. These anomalous transactions were compiled into an Excel spreadsheet ("reconciliation Excel file"), and Ms. Ho was tasked with explaining these discrepancies. Initially, Ms. Ho attributed the anomalous transactions to inadvertent errors or technical glitches and proposed calculations for the amounts that needed to be recovered from ByBit's employees.

10. From September 9 to 22, 2022, Ms. Ho still failed to provide any explanation for the anomalous transactions. When asked why amounts paid to different employees were sent to the same address, namely address 1, Ms. Ho suggested it might have been an accidental mistake on her part. Ms. Ho continued to provide status updates in the reconciliation Excel file, describing the anomalous transactions as "overpayments" to ByBit employees.

11. On September 27, 2022, ByBit contacted a presumed recipient of the anomalous transactions. 1.3 million USDT had been paid to the address 1 in his name. However, according to ByBit, that employee denied ever designating an address, as he had only been paid in traditional currency and did not know who owned address 1. ByBit's internal investigation found that Ms. Ho's work email had sent an email containing address 1 to herself on May 19, 2022. Ms. Ho's work email also received an email containing all four addresses on August 29, 2022, this time from Ms. Ho's personal email. These emails were recovered by ByBit as they had been deleted.

12. ByBit also discovered that Ms. Ho caused $117,238.46 ("fiat assets") to be paid into her personal bank account in May 2022. It is undisputed that Ms. Ho had no right to the fiat assets, and she explicitly accepted that she held the fiat assets in trust for ByBit. However, to date, Ms. Ho has not taken any steps to return the fiat assets.

13. On September 29 and October 4, 2022, ByBit conducted interview meetings with Ms. Ho. In the first meeting, Ms. Ho claimed she could not remember the details of the anomalous transactions. In the second meeting, Ms. Ho faced ByBit's findings. Ms. Ho told ByBit that she did not own the wallets associated with the four addresses, which belonged to her cousin, and that she could not access them. Ms. Ho stated that it was her cousin who suggested she help him transfer cryptocurrency, and she had closed-circuit television footage recording him conducting the anomalous transactions at her home. Ms. Ho admitted that she had been involved in this scheme three months prior to the interview meeting and told ByBit that she wanted to report to the police because she did not own the crypto assets. After the meeting, Ms. Ho refused to sign a one-page statement recording what had occurred. However, it is undisputed that Ms. Ho made these statements to ByBit. Subsequently, Ms. Ho lost contact with ByBit and WeChain and did not attend follow-up meetings.

14. ByBit initiated this lawsuit on October 12, 2022. ByBit successfully obtained several interim remedies, including a global freezing order against Ms. Ho and an injunction regarding the ownership of the cryptocurrency (i.e., crypto assets) in the four addresses and the fiat assets in Ms. Ho's bank account. Ms. Ho personally accepted the original claims and orders 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 could not access any wallets, that she deleted text conversations with Jason before being served with the order, and that she did not close the closed-circuit television footage because recordings older than seven days would be automatically deleted. Ms. Ho submitted her defense on November 11, 2022, and issued a third-party notice against Jason.

15. Ms. Ho fully accepts that the crypto assets belong to ByBit and that she has no right to them. 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 solely owned and controlled by Jason. Her case is that starting from May 2022, she had asked Jason for assistance in checking the crypto Excel file during "many occasions" when he visited her home. Subsequently, Jason accessed her work laptop without her knowledge or consent, which Ms. Ho discovered by reviewing the closed-circuit television footage after ByBit alerted her to the anomalous transactions. She then questioned Jason, who admitted to deliberately replacing several addresses designated by ByBit employees with the four addresses. Despite her repeated requests, Jason refused to return the crypto assets. Ms. Ho's position is that she was still unaware of the reasons for the anomalous transactions on September 9, 2022, which was more than seven days after the last anomalous transaction (dated August 31, 2022). She did not explain how she could see the footage in question.

16. Dissatisfied with Ms. Ho's disclosures, ByBit sought and obtained an order for broader disclosures from Ms. Ho and several third parties, including her father and husband, on December 7, 2022. This was because ByBit discovered that Ms. Ho had made some large purchases starting in July 2022, including a freehold penthouse apartment purchased with her husband, a brand-new car, and several Louis Vuitton products. Notably, despite initially denying owning any real property, Ms. Ho later explained that she purchased the freehold penthouse apartment using money earned from cryptocurrency transactions on MetaMask and crypto.com. This contradicted her earlier claim that her MetaMask account had been completely unused. Ms. Ho did not provide her MetaMask and crypto.com addresses or account transaction statements. According to Ms. Ho, she lost access to her crypto.com account because it was registered to her personal email, which has been disabled for unknown reasons. Similarly, she could not access her MetaMask account because she purchased a brand-new phone in October 2022 and could not retrieve the necessary passwords from her previous device. I also note that, contrary to the disclosure order, Ms. Ho initially failed to disclose all her assets, such as her bank accounts, which required ByBit to conduct further inquiries.

17. Meanwhile, Ms. Ho applied for and obtained permission for alternative service on Jason. Strangely, Ms. Ho stated in her supporting affidavit that it was Jason who deleted their text conversation history after she informed him that she had been served with the lawsuit. Jason did not appear in this lawsuit.

18. On March 30, 2023, ByBit filed this application for summary judgment. Ms. Ho did not submit any affidavit in opposition to the application under Rule 17(3) of the 2021 Court Rules. On April 18, 2023, prior to the hearing, Ms. Ho took over her own defense. Ms. Ho did not attend any of my previous hearings or submit any written submissions.

19. For completeness, ByBit also applied to amend their claims and submitted further written submissions, which I directed to be submitted by May 19, 2023. ByBit initially claimed that Ms. Ho held the crypto assets and fiat assets in a constructive trust. Therefore, ByBit sought to amend to present an alternative argument based on a constructive trust. I allowed Ms. Ho to comment on the amendments and extended her deadline to submit comments on the summary judgment until May 26, 2023. As before, Ms. Ho did not submit any comments or oppose the amendment application.

20. ByBit submitted that the amendments were merely clarificatory and did not introduce any new facts. The statement of claim had already clearly indicated that Ms. Ho was responsible for the anomalous transactions, and Ms. Ho's defense would not be affected by the amendments. Rather, the amendments allowed for the real issues in dispute to be determined, and Ms. Ho would not suffer any harm that could not be compensated by costs.

21. I agree that the proposed amendments are clarificatory, adding alternative legal conclusions of constructive trust based on already stated facts, allowing for the real issues in dispute to be fully and finally determined. Therefore, I allowed the amendments on June 30, 2023, and commenced the application for summary judgment based on ByBit's statement of claim (2nd amendment), which was submitted on July 5, 2023.

Parties' Cases

Ms. Ho's Case

22. As mentioned earlier, Ms. Ho's main point is that the liability should rest entirely with Jason (see paragraph [15] above). From the affidavit, Ms. Ho seems to claim that she has no way of identifying Jason or knowing his personal information or address. Furthermore, Ms. Ho believes that it was Jason who accessed her work and personal emails, sent and then deleted the emails stating the four addresses (see paragraph [11] above). Jason did this without her authorization, and Ms. Ho denies deleting those emails. Additionally, Ms. Ho claims that during her interview on October 4, 2022, she implied that she lied to ByBit (see paragraph [13] above). According to Ms. Ho, ByBit severely warned her that her actions were criminal and insisted that she was responsible for the anomalous transactions. Ms. Ho responded this way because she wanted to protect Jason, with whom she had a close relationship, 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 after the interview because she did not have time to review its contents and declined to attend follow-up interview meetings.

23. Regarding the fiat assets, Ms. Ho stated that while preparing the fiat Excel file, she inadvertently input her data into another employee's data, resulting in erroneous payments.

ByBit's Case

24. ByBit submits that it is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 17(1)(a) of the 2021 Court Rules because it has established a prima facie case and Ms. Ho has not defended the claims. ByBit's statements focus on the crypto assets, as Ms. Ho accepts that she holds ByBit's fiat assets in trust.

25. First, ByBit asserts that "Jason" is entirely fictitious. Ms. Ho has no evidence to support Jason's existence, and her description of events is essentially incredible. Concurrently with the anomalous transactions, Ms. Ho also engaged in a suspicious spree of luxury spending. Ms. Ho spent approximately $362,000 on a new car, $30,000 on Louis Vuitton products, and suddenly canceled her existing pre-sale HDB apartment to purchase a penthouse worth about $3.7 million. Furthermore, ByBit obtained incriminating information from the service provider associated with address 1. This proves that Ms. Ho owned the wallet and includes her identification and selfies, which she provided during the account registration process. Public transaction records also match the anomalous transactions flowing into address 1, with certain amounts transferred on specific dates suggesting that USDT flowing into addresses 2 and 3 was quickly transferred to address 1. This proves that Ms. Ho owned and controlled the wallet associated with address 1 and may have owned and controlled the wallets associated with the other addresses.

26. Second, ByBit argues that crypto assets consist of options and therefore can be property subject to trust. This is because USDT grants Tether Limited's verified customers the right to redeem USDT for an equivalent amount in fiat currency. ByBit contends that address 3 is associated with a self-custodial wallet, meaning Ms. Ho can directly access the relevant private key and thus directly control address 3 and the USDT within it, which can be held in trust as an option. For addresses 1, 2, and 4, they are associated with custodial wallets. In the case of custodial wallets, access to the private keys is held by the service provider, not the user of the custodial wallet. Instead, the user of the custodial wallet has contractual rights to instruct the service provider to transfer cryptocurrency between addresses. ByBit likens this to a bank account, where the declared balance of cryptocurrency in a custodial wallet (equivalent to an account balance) is an option against the service provider (equivalent to a bank). Therefore, the relevant property is also an option, namely the right to instruct the service provider regarding the USDT credit balance.

27. Third, ByBit argues that Ms. Ho holds the crypto assets and fiat assets in a constructive trust, or alternatively, that Ms. Ho has been unjustly enriched by the total of the crypto and fiat assets. ByBit asserts that Ms. Ho obtained the crypto assets through fraudulent means, as she manipulated the crypto Excel file, resulting in ByBit erroneously paying crypto assets to the four addresses controlled by Ms. Ho, thus creating a constructive trust. Alternatively, ByBit argues that a remedial constructive trust should be recognized in this case due to the existence of fraud or wrongdoing, which has affected Ms. Ho's conscience. Therefore, ByBit submits that I should grant a tracing order because Ms. Ho has traded the crypto assets and fiat assets in violation of the freezing order. For the unjust enrichment backup claim, ByBit relies on the unjust factor of factual error, namely that ByBit was misled into believing that the cryptocurrency payments should be made to its employees at the four addresses. Therefore, ByBit submits that it is entitled to compensation for the value of the crypto assets.

Issues to be Determined

28. There are two issues to be determined in this case:

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

(b) Whether ByBit is entitled to summary judgment.

Issue 1: USDT Can be Held as Property in Trust

29. Despite the novelty of crypto assets, they have not only been transferred in value but also appear on the balance sheets of companies holding them, as the accounting industry is developing standards for how to value and report these assets. The Monetary Authority of Singapore ("MAS") recently published a consultation paper proposing amendments to the Payment Services Regulations, which would implement segregation and custody requirements for digital payment tokens: MAS, "Response to Public Consultation on Proposed Regulatory Measures for Digital Payment Token Services" published on July 3, 2023. These proposed amendments reflect the reality of potentially identifying and segregating such digital assets in practice, thereby supporting the view that they should be legally held in trust.

30. Furthermore, court rules have generally recognized cryptocurrencies as property. In Rule 22 of the 2021 Court Rules, which relates to the enforcement of judgments and orders, O 22 r 1(1) defines "chattels" to include "cash, debts, deposits, bonds, shares or other securities, membership in clubs or societies, and cryptocurrency or other digital currencies" [emphasis added]. Therefore, cryptocurrencies are explicitly recognized as a form of property that can be the subject of enforcement orders. Although those who drafted the 2021 Court Rules did not specify the particular methods for enforcing such orders (see Civil Justice Commission Report (December 29, 2017) (Chair: Justice Yong Pung How)), it is logically extendable to cryptocurrencies or other digital currencies the procedures for serving seizure notices on individuals or entities that own or control chattels (O 22 r 6(4)(b)) or registering ownership of intangible chattels (2021 Court Rules O 22 r 6(4)(g)).

31. Crypto assets are not classified as tangible assets because we cannot hold them like we hold cars or jewelry. They do not have a fixed physical identity. However, crypto assets do manifest in the physical world, even though humans cannot perceive them. The combination of private keys and public keys unlocks previously encrypted locks and locks the unspent transaction outputs of crypto assets to the holder's public address on the blockchain. Professor Kelvin Low argues that the rights held by the private key holder are "correctly conceptualized as narrow rights to the unspent transaction outputs (UTXO) of crypto assets locked to the holder's public address on the blockchain": see Kelvin FK Low, "Trusts of Cryptoassets" (2021) 34(4) Trust Law International 191. This physical manifestation at the digital bit and byte level is not permanent; every transaction changes it. Nevertheless, we identify what is happening as specific digital tokens, somewhat like naming rivers, even though the water in the riverbed is constantly changing.

32. While some may be skeptical about the value of crypto assets, it is worth remembering that value is not inherent in the items themselves. While we say that certain materials are expensive, such as gold being more valuable than wood, this is a judgment made by collective human thought. This is also a judgment that changes with the environment. On a shipwreck, a floating wooden chair may be more valuable than a golden throne.

33. This description of crypto assets indicates that modern humans can define and identify them, enabling them to be traded and assessed as holdings. They undoubtedly fit the often-quoted maxim of Lord Wilberforce in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth (1965, 1 AC 1175, 1248):

Before a right or interest can be brought within the category of property, or a right affecting property, it must be definable, identifiable by third parties, capable of being owned by third parties, and have a certain degree of permanence or stability.

34. The next question is whether USDT can be classified as a thing in action. The argument that crypto assets should not be classified as things in action is based on the origins of that category, which is the rights enforceable against a person through litigation (in court), such as the right to receive payment of money or debts, or contractual rights. There is no separate counterparty to the rights of the crypto holder. However, over time, the category of things in action has expanded to include ownership documents of intangible property, as well as ultimate intangible rights, such as copyrights: see W.S. Holdsworth, "The Historical Treatment of 'Choses' under Common Law" (1920) 33(8) Harvard Law Review 997. As noted in the introduction of Holdsworth's authoritative article on page 998:

The diversity of things that fall under the category of choses must inevitably lead to a diversity of legal events for the various categories of choses. In fact, their legal events do differ significantly; because they are different in themselves, they must also differ in their treatment by courts and legislatures. It is impossible to comprehensively deal with the law of choses; the various categories of choses are typically not dealt with under this one overall category, but rather under their more appropriate branches of law. For example, if we want to understand the law regarding bills and notes, shares, copyrights, or patents, we would not look for it in the discussion of choses but in the books of commercial law, company law, or specialized treatises on those particular matters.

35. Holdsworth's historical inquiry demonstrates the diversity of intangible property classified as choses. This diversity indicates that the category of choses is broad, flexible, and not closed. It is these characteristics that explain and justify the often-quoted maxim of Judge Fry in Colonial Bank v Whinney (1885, 30 Ch D 261, 285):

All personal chattels are either in possession or in action. The law knows no third category between the two.

36. Therefore, my conclusion is that, in principle, holders of crypto assets possess intangible property rights that can be recognized as choses in action under common law and can therefore be enforced in court. While one might argue that this conclusion has elements of circular reasoning, as it could also be said that the rights enforceable in court are what make it a chose in action, this line of reasoning does not differ significantly from the legal treatment of other social constructs, such as money. Only because people collectively accept the exchange value of shells or beads or different printed banknotes do they become money. The acceptance of money is due to collective acts of mutual trust. This is reflected in Lord Mansfield's famous observation in Miller v Race (1758, 1 Burr 452, 457):

What is universally accepted by all mankind as money is given "the credit and currency of money for all intents and purposes."

37. ByBit also relies on the current terms of service for USDT, which stipulate the contractual rights of redemption. Clause 3 includes the following provisions regarding redemption rights:

Tether issues and redeems Tether tokens. Tether tokens can be used, held, or exchanged online as long as someone is willing to accept Tether tokens. Tether tokens are 100% backed by Tether's reserves. Tether tokens are priced in a range of fiat currencies. For example, if you purchase EURT, your Tether tokens will be pegged to the euro at a 1:1 ratio. If you issue EURT worth 100.00 euros, Tether will hold reserves worth 100.00 euros to back those Tether tokens. The composition of the reserves used to back Tether tokens is entirely controlled by Tether and is determined solely by Tether. Tether tokens are backed by Tether's reserves (including fiat currency), but Tether tokens themselves are not fiat currency. Tether will not issue Tether tokens for consideration consisting of digital tokens (e.g., Bitcoin); only currency will be accepted at the time of issuance. To directly issue or redeem Tether tokens, you must be a verified customer of Tether. This provision has no exceptions. The right to redeem or issue Tether tokens is a personal contractual right. If, due to any liquidity shortage, unavailability, or loss of any reserves held by Tether to support Tether tokens, it becomes necessary to delay the redemption or withdrawal of Tether tokens, Tether reserves the right to delay the redemption or withdrawal of Tether tokens and retains the right to redeem Tether tokens through physical redemption of securities and other assets held in reserves. Tether makes no representations or warranties regarding whether Tether tokens can be traded on its website at any future time, or even whether Tether tokens can be traded on its website.

38. The terms of service are governed by BVI law. ByBit submitted a legal opinion from qualified BVI lawyer Sam Goodman, which states that under BVI law, the USDT held by Tether Limited's "verified customers" can be enforced through a lawsuit against Tether Limited to redeem USDT. ByBit relies on this to support its argument that USDT is a chose in action.

39. In my analysis, this characteristic of USDT may constitute another chose in action that the holder of USDT may possess, but its existence is not necessary for my conclusion that the rights represented by USDT itself are a chose in action.

Issue 2: ByBit is Entitled to Judgment

40. ByBit submits that it has established a prima facie case and has crossed the hurdle of proving a good arguable case for the global freezing order. In contrast, Ms. Ho cannot demonstrate a genuine or sincere defense with a fair or reasonable possibility.

Jason Does Not Exist

41. The more likely inference I accept is that ByBit is attempting to draw from all the evidence that Jason does not exist (or at least does not play the role as described by Ms. Ho). There is indeed compelling evidence showing that Ms. Ho fraudulently transferred the crypto assets and fiat assets to herself. As mentioned in [25] above, there is direct evidence that Ms. Ho owned the wallet associated with address 1, as well as indirect evidence of her unexplained lavish spending. Utilizing her employment relationship at WeChain, which was hired to handle ByBit's payroll accounts, and abusing the trust placed in her, Ms. Ho manipulated the crypto Excel file, stealing the crypto assets and fiat assets.

Presumed Trust

42. A constructive trust arises in the case of stolen assets, and equitable remedies can be used for the stolen assets. As Lord Browne-Wilkinson pointed out in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 1 AC 669 at 716:

I agree that stolen funds can be traced in equity. But in this case, the proprietary interest enforced by equity arises under a presumed trust rather than a resulting trust. Although it is difficult to find clear authority for this proposition, a presumed trust arises against a fraudulent recipient when property is obtained through fraudulent equity: the property is recoverable and can be traced in equity. Therefore, a baby who has obtained property through fraud has an obligation to return the property: Stocks v. Wilson [1913] 2 KB 235, 244; R. Leslie Ltd. v. Sheill [1914] 3 KB 607. Funds stolen from a bank account can be traced in equity: Bankers Trust Co. v. Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274, 1282C-E. See also McCormick v Grogan (1869) LR 4 HL 82, 97.

43. I should also add that even if Ms. Ho mixed USDT with the balances of USDT in other online custodial wallets, or mixed fiat assets with other money in her bank account, a constructive trust may still take effect: Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102.

44. In light of my findings of fact, I declare a constructive trust over the crypto assets and fiat assets. ByBit is the legal and beneficial owner of the crypto assets. Given that I have granted relief based on a constructive trust, I do not need to address the alternative basis of remedial constructive trust and unjust enrichment.

45. ByBit seeks a series of property and personal orders based on its investigation, which I now grant as follows:

(a) Declare a constructive trust over the crypto assets and fiat assets;

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

(c) Order Ms. Ho to immediately pay ByBit SGD 117,238.46 (the fiat assets);

(d) Order Ms. Ho to immediately transfer all remaining funds in wallet 1 to ByBit until the total reaches $3,561,840 (the value of the crypto assets transferred to wallets 1 and 2);

(e) For the remaining crypto assets (valued at $3,561,840 USDT) transferred to wallets 1 and 2 after deducting the amounts transferred in (d):

(i) Order Ms. Ho to account for the remaining amount, or any money or funds representing the value of the remaining amount that she has already owned or received, or any accounts received by them or on their instructions;

(ii) A tracing order regarding the remaining amount or any part thereof, so that ByBit can trace and recover the converted assets or their proceeds (if any);

(iii) After liquidating the accounts, order Ms. Ho to pay ByBit all amounts determined to be due to ByBit.

46. I will also calculate interest at the standard annual rate of 5.33% from the date Ms. Ho transferred the problematic assets until the date of judgment, which will be paid in [45(b)] and [45(c)].

Conclusion

47. Following the summary judgment in favor of ByBit against Ms. Ho, I also award ByBit $45,000.00 in costs (considering the legal novelty of the issues in dispute and the work done in seeking interim relief, which is included in the costs) and expenses of $11,500.00.

Philip Jeyaretnam

High Court Judge

Quek Wen Jiang Gerard, Kyle Gabriel Peters, Ling Ying Ming Daniel, Mato Kotwani, and Chua Ze Xuan (PDLegal LLC) for the plaintiffs;

First to sixth defendants absent and unrepresented.