Bybit Fintech v. Bo Kai Xin

IN THE GENERAL DIVISION OF
THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
[2023] SGHC 199
Originating Claim No 320 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 910 and 1526 of 2023)
Between
ByBit Fintech Limited

… Claimant
And
(1) Ho Kai Xin

(2) Persons Unknown
(3) Foris Dax Asia Pte Ltd
(4) FTX Trading Ltd
(5) Consensys Software Inc
(6) Quoine Pte Ltd
… Defendants
JUDGMENT
[Civil Procedure — Summary judgment]

[Trusts — Constructive trusts — Institutional constructive trust and remedial
constructive trust]
[Trusts — Constructive trusts — Trust over cryptocurrency]
[Choses in Action — Legal requirements — Whether cryptocurrency is a
chose in action]
Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1
BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................3
THE PARTIES’ CASES................................................................................10

MS HO’S CASE ..............................................................................................10
BYBIT’S CASE ...............................................................................................11
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED ..................................................................14
ISSUE 1: USDT IS PROPERTY CAPABLE OF BEING HELD

ON TRUST .....................................................................................................14
ISSUE 2: BYBIT IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT .............19

JASON DOES NOT EXIST .................................................................................19
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ..................................................................................20
CONCLUSION...............................................................................................22

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the
court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance
with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law
Reports.
ByBit Fintech Ltd

v
Ho Kai Xin and others
[2023] SGHC 199
General Division of the High Court — Originating Claim No 320 of 2022

(Summonses Nos 910 and 1526 of 2023)
Philip Jeyaretnam J
5 May, 24 July 2023
25 July 2023 Judgment reserved.
Philip Jeyaretnam J:
Introduction
1 This case concerns a crypto asset called Tether which is an example of

what has been described as a stablecoin. By this it is meant that its issuer
represents that it backs each stablecoin issued with an equivalent value in fiat
currency or other reserves. The issuer typically offers terms of service under
which verified holders of the stablecoin have the right to redeem it with the
issuer for fiat currency. This link to a fiat currency, in this case the United
States Dollar, is reflected in the name by which Tether is commonly referred
to, namely USDT, standing for United States Dollar Tether. I will adopt this
acronym in this judgment.
2 In this application, ByBit Fintech Limited (“ByBit”) seeks summary

judgment against the first defendant, one Ms Ho Kai Xin (“Ms Ho”). The

ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin [2023] SGHC 199
claim against her is that in breach of her employment contract, she abused her
position to transfer quantities of USDT to “Addresses” secretly owned and
controlled by her, as well as a quantity of fiat currency to her own bank
account. The main relief sought is a declaration that Ms Ho holds both the
USDT and the fiat currency on trust for ByBit. ByBit accordingly seeks an
order for the return of the same or of its traceable proceeds, or for payment of
a sum equivalent in value.
3 The courts in Singapore and elsewhere have in granting interlocutory

injunctions recognised that there is at least a serious question to be tried or a
good arguable case that crypto assets are property capable of being held on
trust. In so doing, it has not been necessary to determine whether such crypto
assets are things in action or are instead a novel type of intangible property. To
grant judgment and finally declare a trust, this court must go further and
decide that the crypto assets in question, here USDT, are indeed property
capable of being held on trust and, if so, what type of property they are.
4 In this case, I find that USDT, which may be transferred from one
holder to another cryptographically without the assistance of the legal system,
nonetheless are choses in action. In this judgment, I mostly use the phrase
things in action, which means the same as choses in action. While the fact that
USDT also carries with it the right to redeem an equivalent in United States
Dollars from Tether Limited, a company incorporated in the British Virgin
Islands (“BVI”), makes it look more like traditionally recognised things in
action, I do not consider that this feature is necessary for a crypto asset to be
classed as a thing in action. Like any other thing in action, USDT is capable of
being held on trust.

5 I further hold that ByBit has established its case for summary
judgment, and accordingly grant the declarations sought on the basis of
institutional constructive trust.
6 I now explain my reasons for these conclusions.
Background
7 ByBit, a Seychellois company, owns a namesake cryptocurrency

exchange. ByBit remunerates its employees with traditional currency,
cryptocurrency, or a mixture of both. WeChain Fintech Pte Ltd (“WeChain”),
a Singapore incorporated company, provides payroll services for ByBit and
related entities. Ms Ho was employed by WeChain and was responsible for the
payroll processing of ByBit’s employees.1
8 As part of her duties, Ms Ho maintained Microsoft Excel spreadsheets

which tracked the cash and cryptocurrency payments due to ByBit’s
employees each month (respectively, the “Fiat Excel Files” and
“Cryptocurrency Excel Files”). The Cryptocurrency Excel Files list the
“Address” designated by ByBit’s employees for the receipt of cryptocurrency
payments. An “Address” can be understood as an encrypted digital “folder”
which can “receive” and “store” cryptocurrency. Each Address takes the form
of a unique string of alpha numerals. A corresponding “Private Key” is
required to access and authorise transfers between Addresses. These Private
Keys are in turn stored in “Wallets”, which can thus be understood as the
means of interfacing with cryptocurrency. Wallets which are hosted online by
a service provider, usually a cryptocurrency exchange, are known as
1 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at paras 5 and 10.

“Custodial Wallets”. Custodial Wallets usually take the form of an application

with a user interface. Offline Wallets are known as “Self-Custodial Wallets”
and may range from a simple piece of paper inscribed with the Private Key or
complex encryption software restricting access to the Private Key. In short,
access to a Wallet grants access to the stored Private Keys which provide
control over an Address and thus the cryptocurrency stored therein. ByBit’s
employees could and did regularly change their designated Address by
communicating a new Address to Ms Ho, who would then update the
Cryptocurrency Excel Files.2 Ms Ho was singularly responsible for updating
the Cryptocurrency Excel Files and was the only person with access, save that
the Cryptocurrency Excel Files would be submitted to her direct superior,
Ms Casandra Teo, for approval each month.3
9 On 7 September 2022, ByBit discovered that eight unusual

cryptocurrency payments had been made (the “Anomalous Transactions”)
between 31 May 2022 and 31 August 2022, involving large payments of
USDT into four Addresses, which I will refer to for simplicity as Address 1, 2,
3 and 4. In total, 4,209,720 USDT had been transferred (the “Crypto Asset”).4
USDT is so named because its value is tethered to the US dollar and each
USDT grants a holder who is a “verified customer” of its issuer, Tether
Limited, a contractual right to redeem their USDT for US dollars.5 The
Anomalous Transactions were compiled into an Excel spreadsheet (the
“Reconciliation Excel File”), and Ms Ho was tasked with accounting for the
2 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at para 16; 2nd
Affidavit of Jonathan Cheong Hao Wei dated 18 May 2023 at paras 7–14.
3 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at para 17.
4 3rd Affidavit of Yuchen Zhou dated 5 April 2023 at paras 44–46 and 63.
5 2nd Affidavit of Jonathan Cheong Hao Wei dated 18 May 2023 at paras 18–33.

discrepancies. Ms Ho initially attributed the Anomalous Transactions to

inadvertent mistakes or technical errors and offered to calculate the amounts
required to be clawed back from ByBit’s employees.6
10 Between 9 to 22 September 2022, Ms Ho remained unable to provide

any explanation for the Anomalous Transactions. When asked why payments
to different employees were made to the same Address, Address 1, Ms Ho
suggested that she had made an inadvertent mistake. Ms Ho continued to
provide status updates in the Reconciliation Excel File, characterising the
Anomalous Transactions as amounts “overpaid” to ByBit’s employees.7
11 On 27 September 2022, ByBit contacted one of the supposed recipients

of the Anomalous Transactions. 1,300,000 USDT had been paid to Address 1
in his name. However, according to ByBit, that employee denied ever
designating an Address as he had only ever been remunerated with traditional
currency and did not know who owned Address 1.8 ByBit’s internal
investigations revealed that Ms Ho’s work email had sent to itself an email
containing Address 1 on 19 May 2022. Ms Ho’s work email had also received
an email containing all four Addresses on 29 August 2022, this time
originating from Ms Ho’s personal email.9 These emails had to be recovered
by ByBit as they had been deleted.10
6 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at paras 20–22.

7 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at paras 23–24.
8 3rd Affidavit of Yuchen Zhou dated 5 April 2023 at paras 53–54.
9 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at para 31; 3rd
Affidavit of Yuchen Zhou dated 5 April 2023 at 47 and 49.
10 3rd Affidavit of Yuchen Zhou dated 5 April 2023 at para 60.

12 ByBit also discovered that Ms Ho had caused $117,238.46 (the “Fiat

Asset”) to be paid into her personal bank account in May 2022. It is
undisputed that Ms Ho is not entitled to the Fiat Asset and Ms Ho expressly
accepts that she holds the Fiat Asset on trust for ByBit.11 However, Ms Ho has
to date not taken any steps to return the Fiat Asset.
13 ByBit interviewed Ms Ho on 29 September 2022 and 4 October 2022.

In the first meeting, Ms Ho claimed that she was unable to recall the details of
the Anomalous Transactions. In the second meeting, Ms Ho was confronted
with the fruits of ByBit’s investigations. Ms Ho told ByBit that she did not
own the Wallets associated with the four Addresses, which belonged to her
maternal cousin, and that she did not have access to them. Ms Ho said that it
was her cousin who had proposed that she assist in transferring cryptocurrency
to him and that she possessed closed circuit surveillance footage recording
him carrying out the Anomalous Transactions in her house. Ms Ho confessed
that she had become involved in the scheme some three months prior to the
interview and told ByBit that she preferred that a police report be made as she
did not possess the Crypto Asset. After the interview, Ms Ho refused to sign
an acknowledgment on a single page statement recording what transpired.
Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Ms Ho made these representations to
ByBit.12 Thereafter, Ms Ho ceased contact with ByBit and WeChain and failed
to attend follow up interviews.13
11 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at paras 12, 39,
and 55.
12 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at paras 40–41 and
44.

14 ByBit commenced this action on 12 October 2022. ByBit succeeded in

obtaining several items of interim relief, including a worldwide freezing order
against Ms Ho and a proprietary injunction in respect of the cryptocurrency in
the four Addresses (ie, the Crypto Asset) and the Fiat Asset in Ms Ho’s bank
account.14 Ms Ho was personally served with the Originating Claim and the
orders on 18 October 2022.15 On 31 October 2022, Ms Ho disclosed by
affidavit that the Wallets associated with the four Addresses were owned by
one Mr Jason Teo (“Jason”), her maternal cousin. Ms Ho averred that she did
not have access to any of the Wallets, that she had deleted her text
conversation history with Jason prior to the service of the orders, and that she
no longer had the closed-circuit surveillance footage as recordings older than
seven days were automatically deleted.16 Ms Ho filed her defence on 11
November 2022 and took out a third-party notice against Jason.
15 Ms Ho fully accepts that the Crypto Asset belongs to ByBit and that
she is not entitled to the same.17 The core of Ms Ho’s defence is that Jason
stole the Crypto Asset from ByBit without her knowledge. She did not receive
or benefit from them as the Wallets associated with the four Addresses are
owned and controlled by Jason alone. Her case is that from May 2022, she had
asked Jason to assist in checking the Cryptocurrency Excel Files on
“numerous occasions” when Jason visited her home. Jason had thereafter
accessed her work laptop without her knowledge or consent, which Ms Ho
only discovered after reviewing her home’s closed-circuit surveillance footage
when ByBit drew her attention to the Anomalous Transactions. She then
14 HC/ORC 5249/2022.
15 2nd Affidavit of Yuchen Zhou dated 30 November 2022 at para 15.
16 1st Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin dated 31 October 2022 at paras 5–7, and 9–12.

confronted Jason, who admitted that he had intentionally substituted the

designated Address of several ByBit employees with the four Addresses.
Despite repeated requests, Jason has refused to return the Crypto Asset.18 Ms
Ho’s position is that she remained unaware of the cause of the Anomalous
Transactions on 9 September 2022,19 which was well over seven days after the
last Anomalous Transaction (dated 31 August 2022). No explanation is
provided for how Ms Ho was able to view the incriminating footage.
16 Dissatisfied with Ms Ho’s disclosure, ByBit sought and obtained on 7

December 2022 orders for more extensive disclosure against Ms Ho and a
number of third-parties, including her father and husband.20 This was because
ByBit had discovered that Ms Ho had made several substantial purchases from
July 2022 onwards, including a freehold penthouse apartment with her
husband, a brand new car, and several Louis Vuitton products.21 Notably,
despite initially denying ownership of any real property,22 Ms Ho subsequently
explained that she had acquired the freehold penthouse using moneys earned
from cryptocurrency trading on MetaMask and crypto.com.23 This was
contrary to her previous claim that her MetaMask account was entirely
unused. Ms Ho did not provide her MetaMask and crypto.com Address nor
furnish accounts statements for transactions. According to Ms Ho, she lost
18 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at paras 6–7, 38,
47, and 49.
20 HC/ORC 6154/2022.
21 2nd Affidavit of Yuchen Zhou dated 30 November 2022 at para 36; 3rd Affidavit of
Ho Kai Xin dated 19 December 2022 at paras 8 and 11; 4th Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin
dated 30 January 2023 at paras 6–7.
22 3rd Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin dated 19 December 2022 at para 7.
23 4th Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin dated 30 January 2023 at para 6(e).

access to her crypto.com account because it was registered to her personal

email, which has since become disabled for reasons unknown. Similarly, she
could not access her MetaMask account as she had purchased a brand new
handphone in October 2022 and was unable to access the necessary passcode
from her previous device.24 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 carry out a further round of questioning.25
17 Simultaneously, Ms Ho applied for and obtained permission to effect

substituted service on Jason. Curiously, Ms Ho averred in her supporting
affidavit that it was Jason who had deleted their text conversation history after
she informed him that she had been served the Originating Claim.26 Jason has
not made an appearance in these proceedings.
18 On 30 March 2023, ByBit took out this application for summary

judgment. Ms Ho did not file any affidavit disputing the application pursuant
to O 9 r 17(3) of the Rules of Court 2021. On 18 April 2023, prior to the
hearing, Ms Ho took over the conduct of her own defence. Ms Ho did not
attend any of the hearings before me and did not file submissions.
19 For completeness, ByBit also applied to amend their claim and to put
in further submissions, which I directed to be filed by 19 May 2023. ByBit had
originally pleaded that Ms Ho held the Crypto Asset and Fiat Asset on
remedial constructive trust. ByBit therefore sought the amendment in order to
24 3rd Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin dated 19 December 2022 at para 6.

25 3rd Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin dated 19 December 2022 at para 5; 4th Affidavit of Ho
Kai Xin dated 30 January 2023 at paras 8–9.
26 2nd Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin dated 7 December 2022 at para 14.

run an alternative argument premised on institutional constructive trust. I

granted Ms Ho leave to file submissions in respect of the amendment and
granted an extension for her to file submissions in respect of summary
judgment by 26 May 2023. As before, Ms Ho neglected to file any
submissions and did not oppose the amendment application.
20 ByBit submitted that the amendments were merely clarificatory and

did not introduce any new facts. The pleadings already specified that Ms Ho
wrongfully caused the Anomalous Transactions and Ms Ho’s defence would
not be affected by the amendments. Instead, the amendments enabled the real
issue in controversy to be determined and no prejudice would be caused to Ms
Ho that could be compensated by costs.27
21 I agreed that the proposed amendments were clarificatory in nature,

and that adding the alternative legal conclusion of institutional constructive
trust on the basis of the already pleaded facts enabled the real controversy to
be fully and finally determined. Accordingly, on 30 June 2023 I allowed the
amendments, and proceeded with the application for summary judgment on
the basis of ByBit’s Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 2), which was filed
on 5 July 2023.
The parties’ cases
Ms Ho’s case
22 As stated, Ms Ho’s case is essentially that the blame should fall solely
on Jason (see above at [15]). From the affidavits, it appears that Ms Ho claims
that she has no means of identifying Jason and does not know his personal
27 Claimant’s Written Submissions dated 19 May 2023 at paras 12–13.
10

details or residential address.28 Additionally, Ms Ho believes that it was Jason

who accessed her work and personal email, sent, and then deleted, the emails
stating the four Addresses (see above at [11]). Jason did this without her
authorisation and Ms Ho denies deleting the emails.29 Furthermore, Ms Ho
claims that she had lied to ByBit when she implicated herself during the
interview on 4 October 2022 (see above at [13]). According to Ms Ho, ByBit
had sternly warned her of the criminality of her conduct and badgered her by
insisting that she was responsible for the Anomalous Transactions. Ms Ho had
responded as she did out of a desire to protect Jason, with whom she was
close, and also because Ms Ho was in a rush to leave to care for her unwell
two-year-old son. On account of her son’s illness, she refused to sign the
single page acknowledgement after the interview, as she did not have time to
review its contents, and refused to attend the follow up interviews.30
23 As for the Fiat Asset, Ms Ho suggests that she had accidentally entered
her own data in place of another employee’s when preparing the Fiat Excel
Files, resulting in a mistaken payment.31
ByBit’s case
24 ByBit submits that it is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to O 9 r

17(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 as it has proven a prima facie case and
Ms Ho has no defence to the claim. ByBit’s submissions focus on the Crypto
Asset, as Ms Ho accepts that she holds the Fiat Asset on trust for ByBit.
28 2nd Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin dated 7 December 2022 at paras 14–16.

29 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at paras 33 and 34.
30 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at paras 41, 44,
and 46.
11

25 First, ByBit submits that “Jason” is an outright fabrication. Ms Ho has

no evidence supporting Jason’s existence and her version of events is
inherently implausible.32 Contemporaneous with the Anomalous Transactions,
Ms Ho also engaged in a suspicious luxury spending spree.33 Ms Ho had spent
approximately $362,000 on the new car and $30,000 on the Louis Vuitton
products, and abruptly cancelled her existing Built-to-Order HDB Flat to
purchase a penthouse valued at approximately $3.7m.34 Furthermore, ByBit
obtained disclosure of incriminating information from the service provider of
the Wallet associated with Address 1. This revealed that Ms Ho owns the
Wallet and included details such as Ms Ho’s identity card and even a self-
portrait, which were provided by her as part of the account registration
process. Disclosed transaction records also match the Anomalous Transactions
flowing into Address 1, and amounts transferred on certain dates appear to
show that the USDT transferred into Address 2 and Address 3 were shortly
thereafter transferred into Address 1. This proves that Ms Ho owns and
controls the Wallet associated with Address 1 and likely owns and controls the
Wallets associated with the other Addresses.35
26 Second, ByBit submits that the Crypto Asset is comprised of choses in

action and is therefore property capable of being the subject matter of a trust.
This is because USDT grants a verified customer of Tether Limited the
contractual right to redeem USDT for an equivalent value in fiat currency.36
32 Claimant’s Skeletal Written Submissions dated 3 May 2023 at paras 66–69

33 Claimant’s Skeletal Written Submissions dated 3 May 2023 at para 71(c).
34 3rd Affidavit of Yuchen Zhou dated 5 April 2023 at para 70.
35 3rd Affidavit of Yuchen Zhou dated 5 April 2023 at para 79 and pp 81–85; Claimant’s
Skeletal Written Submissions dated 3 May 2023 at paras 47–50.
36 Claimant’s Further Written Submissions dated 19 May 2023 at paras 7–12.
12

ByBit submits that Address 3 is associated with a Self-Custodial Wallet,

meaning that Ms Ho has direct access to the relevant Private Key and
therefore direct control over Address 3 and the USDT therein, which can be
held on trust as a chose in action.37 For Address 1, 2, and 4, these are
associated with Custodial Wallets. In the case of Custodial Wallets, access to
the Private Keys is kept by the service provider rather than the user of the
Custodial Wallet. Instead, the user of the Custodial Wallet is contractually
entitled to instruct the service provider to transfer cryptocurrency between
Addresses. ByBit likens this to a bank account, where the cryptocurrency
balance stated in the Custodial Wallet (equivalent to an account balance) is a
chose in action against the service provider (equivalent to the bank). The
relevant property is therefore also a chose in action, being the right to instruct
the service provider in respect of the credit balance of USDT.38
27 Third, ByBit submits that Ms Ho holds the Crypto Asset and Fiat Asset
as constructive trustee, or alternatively, that Ms Ho was unjustly enriched in
the sum of the Crypto Asset and Fiat Asset. ByBit submits that Ms Ho
acquired the Crypto Asset by fraud, as she manipulated the Cryptocurrency
Excel Files and thereby wrongfully caused ByBit to pay the Crypto Asset into
the four Addresses controlled by Ms Ho, thereby giving rise to an institutional
constructive trust.39 Alternatively, ByBit submits that a remedial constructive
trust should be recognised in the circumstances as there has been fraud or
wrongdoing and Ms Ho’s conscience has been affected.40 Accordingly, ByBit
37 Claimant’s Further Written Submissions dated 19 May 2023 at paras 20–21; 2nd
Affidavit of Jonathan Cheong Hao Wei dated 18 May 2023 at paras 60–61.
38 Claimant’s Further Written Submissions dated 19 May 2023 at paras 13–19 and 24–
26; 2nd Affidavit of Jonathan Cheong Hao Wei dated 18 May 2023 at paras 37 and
39–58.
39 Claimant’s Further Written Submissions dated 19 May 2023 at paras 37–43.
13

submits that I should grant a tracing order as Ms Ho has transacted the Crypto
Asset and Fiat Asset in breach of the freezing order.41 For the backstop claim
in unjust enrichment, ByBit relies on the unjust factor of mistake of fact,
namely that ByBit was misled into believing that cryptocurrency payments
were due and payable to its employees at the four Addresses. ByBit therefore
submits it is entitled to restitution of the value of the Crypto Asset.42
Issues to be determined
28 The issues in this matter are twofold:
(a) whether USDT is property capable of being held on trust; and
(b) whether ByBit is entitled to summary judgment.
Issue 1: USDT is property capable of being held on trust
29 Crypto assets, notwithstanding their novelty, have not only been

transferred for value but also when held by companies appear on their balance
sheets, as the accounting profession develops standards for how to value and
report them. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) has recently
issued a consultation paper on proposed amendments to the payment services
regulations that will 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 3
July 2023. These proposed amendments reflect the reality that it is possible in
40 Claimant’s Skeletal Written Submissions dated 3 May 2023 at paras 22–28 and 45–
53.
41 Claimant’s Further Written Submissions dated 19 May 2023 at para 51.
42 Claimant’s Skeletal Written Submissions dated 3 May 2023 at paras 34 and 58–63.
14

practice to identify and segregate such digital assets, and hence support the
view that it should be legally possible to hold them on trust.
30 Moreover, general recognition has been given to cryptocurrency as

property in the Rules of Court. In Order 22 of the Rules of Court 2021, which
deals with the enforcement of judgments and orders, O 22 r 1(1) defines
“movable property” to include “cash, debt, deposits of money, bonds, shares
or other securities, membership in clubs or societies, and cryptocurrency or
other digital currency” [emphasis added]. Cryptocurrency has thus been
expressly recognised as a form of property capable of being the subject matter
of an enforcement order. Although the drafters of the Rules of Court 2021 did
not specify a precise method for carrying out such an enforcement order (see
the Civil Justice Commission Report (29 December 2017) (Chairperson:
Justice Tay Yong Kwang)), I observe in passing that the procedures for
serving a notice of seizure on the persons or entities having possession or
control of movable property (O 22 r 6(4)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021) or on
the persons or entities which register the ownership of intangible movable
property (O 22 r 6(4)(g) of the Rules of Court 2021) are logically extendable
to cryptocurrency or other digital currency.
31 Crypto assets are not classed as physical assets because we cannot

possess them in the way we can possess objects like cars or jewellery. They do
not have a fixed physical identity. Yet, crypto assets do manifest themselves in
the physical world, albeit in a way that humans are unable to perceive. The
combination of Private Key with Public Key unlocks the previous
cryptographic lock and in turn locks the unspent transaction output of the
crypto asset to the holder’s public Address on the blockchain. Professor
Kelvin Low suggests that the right that the holder of the Private Key has by
virtue of holding the Private Key is “properly conceptualised as a narrow right
15

to have the unspent transaction output (UTXO) of a cryptoasset locked to a

holder’s public address on a blockchain”: see Kelvin FK Low, “Trusts of
Cryptoassets” (2021) 34(4) Trust Law International 191. This physical
manifestation at the level of digital bits and bytes is not permanent, and
changes with every transaction. Nonetheless, we identify what is going on as a
particular digital token, somewhat like how we give a name to a river even
though the water contained within its banks is constantly changing.
32 While some people are sceptical of the value of crypto assets, it is

worth keeping in mind that value is not inherent in an object. While we speak
of expensive materials, with gold being more valuable than wood, this is a
judgment made by an aggregate of human minds. It is also a judgment that
varies with circumstances. A wooden chair that can float is more valuable on a
ship that is sinking than a golden throne would be.
33 This description of crypto assets shows that they can be defined and
identified by modern humans, such that they can be traded and valued as
holdings. They certainly meet Lord Wilberforce’s oft-quoted dictum in
National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] 1 AC 1175 at 1248:
Before a right or an interest can be admitted into the category

of property, or of a right affecting property, it must be
definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of
assumption by third parties, and have some degree of
permanence or stability.
34 The next question is whether USDT can be classed in the category of

things in action. The argument that crypto assets should not be classified as
things in action rests on the origin of this category as rights enforceable by
action (in the sense of litigation in court) against persons, such as the right to
be paid money or debts, or contractual rights. There is no individual
counterparty to the crypto holder’s right. But over time the category of things
16

in action has expanded to include documents of title to incorporeal rights of

property, and ultimately incorporeal rights themselves such as copyrights: see
W.S. Holdsworth, “The History of the Treatment of ‘Choses’ in Action by the
Common Law” (1920) 33(8) Harvard Law Review 997. As Holdsworth noted
at 998 in the introduction to his authoritative essay:
It is clear that the diversity of the things included under the

category of choses in action must lead to a diversity in the
legal incidents of various classes of choses in action. In fact
their legal incidents do differ very widely; for, being different in
themselves, they have necessarily been treated differently both
by the courts and by the legislature. It is impossible to treat
fully of the law of choses in action in general; and the various
classes of choses in action are usually treated, not under this
one general category, but under the separate branches of law
to which they more properly belong. If we want to know the
law, for instance, as to bills and notes, or shares, or copyright,
or patents, we should not think of looking for it in a treatise
on choses in action, but rather in books on mercantile law,
company law, or in special treatises devoted to these
particular things.
35 Holdsworth’s historical survey demonstrates the diversity of

incorporeal property that has been classed as things in action. This diversity
suggests that the category of things in action is broad, flexible, and not closed.
It is these features that both explain and justify Fry LJ’s oft-cited dictum in
Colonial Bank v Whinney (1885) 30 Ch D 261 at 285, that: “All personal
things are either in possession or action. The law knows no tertium quid
between the two.”
36 My conclusion is therefore that the holder of a crypto asset has in

principle an incorporeal right of property recognisable by the common law as
a thing in action and so enforceable in court. While it might be said that this
conclusion has an element of circularity in that it could also be said that the
right to enforce in court is what makes it a thing in action, this type of
reasoning is not strikingly different from how the law approaches other social
17

constructs, such as money. It is only because people generally accept the

exchange value of shells or beads or differently printed paper notes that they
become currency. Money is accepted by virtue of a collective act of mutual
faith. This is reflected in Lord Mansfield’s famous observation in Miller v
Race (1758) 1 Burr 452 at 457, that what is treated as money “by the general
consent of mankind” is given “the credit and currency of money to all intents
and purposes”.
37 ByBit also relies on the current terms of service for USDT which
provide for a contractual right of redemption.43 Clause 3 includes the following
provision concerning this right of redemption:
Tether issues and redeems Tether Tokens. Tether Tokens may

be used, kept, or exchanged online wherever parties are
willing to accept Tether Tokens. Tether Tokens are 100%
backed by Tether's Reserves. Tether Tokens are denominated
in a range of Fiat. For example, if you purchase EURT, your
Tether Tokens are 1-to-1 pegged to Euros. If you cause to be
issued EURT 100.00, Tether holds Reserves valued at €100.00
to back those Tether Tokens. The composition of the Reserves
used to back Tether Tokens is within the sole control and at
the sole and absolute discretion of Tether. Tether Tokens are
backed by Tether's Reserves, including Fiat, but Tether
Tokens are not Fiat themselves. Tether will not issue Tether
Tokens for consideration consisting of the Digital Tokens (for
example, bitcoin); only money will be accepted upon issuance.
In order to cause Tether Tokens to be issued or redeemed
directly by Tether, you must be a verified customer of Tether.
No exceptions will be made to this provision. The right to have
Tether Tokens redeemed or issued is a contractual right
personal to you. Tether reserves the right to delay the
redemption or withdrawal of Tether Tokens if such delay is
necessitated by the illiquidity or 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
redemptions of securities and other assets held in the
Reserves. Tether makes no representations or warranties
43 2nd Affidavit of Jonathan Cheong Hao Wei dated 18 May 2023 at 93–114.
18

about whether Tether Tokens that may be traded on the Site

may be traded on the Site at any point in the future, if at all.
38 The terms of service are governed by BVI law. ByBit tendered a legal
opinion from a BVI-qualified counsel, Mr Sam Goodman, opining that under
BVI law a holder of USDT who is a “verified customer” of Tether Limited has
a contractual right to redeem USDT which may be enforced by way of suit
against Tether Limited.44 ByBit relies on this in support of its contention that
USDT is a thing in action.
39 In my analysis, this feature of USDT may constitute an additional thing

in action that the holder of a USDT may have, but its presence is not necessary
to my conclusion that the right represented by the USDT is itself a thing in
action.
Issue 2: ByBit is entitled to summary judgment
40 ByBit submits that it has established a prima facie case, having already
surmounted the hurdle of proving a good arguable case for the purposes of
securing the worldwide freezing order.45 Conversely, Ms Ho cannot establish a
fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence.
Jason does not exist
41 I accept on a balance of probabilities the inference that ByBit seeks to

draw from the totality of the evidence that Jason does not exist (or at any rate
did not play the role asserted for him by Ms Ho). The evidence is indeed
compelling that Ms Ho fraudulently transferred the Crypto Asset and the Fiat
44 2nd Affidavit of Jonathan Cheong Hao Wei dated 18 May 2023 at 87–90.
45 Claimant’s Skeletal Written Submissions dated 3 May 2023 at paras 5 and 13.
19

Asset to herself. As outlined in [25] above, there is the direct evidence that Ms
Ho owns the Wallet associated with Address 1 as well as the circumstantial
evidence of her unexplained spending spree. Taking advantage of her
employment with WeChain which was engaged to handle ByBit’s payroll and
abusing the trust reposed in her, Ms Ho manipulated the Cryptocurrency Excel
Files to steal the Crypto Asset and the Fiat Asset.
Constructive trust
42 An institutional constructive trust arises over stolen assets at time of

the theft, and the remedy of tracing in equity is available in respect of stolen
assets. As Lord Browne-Wilkinson noted in Westdeutsche Landesbank
Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] 1 AC 669 at 716:
I agree that the stolen moneys are traceable in equity. But the
proprietary interest which equity is enforcing in such
circumstances arises under a constructive, not a resulting,
trust. Although it is difficult to find clear authority for the
proposition, when property is obtained by fraud equity
imposes a constructive trust on the fraudulent recipient: the
property is recoverable and traceable in equity. Thus, an
infant who has obtained property by fraud is bound in equity
to restore it: Stocks v. Wilson [1913] 2 K.B. 235, 244; R. Leslie
Ltd. v. Sheill [1914] 3 K.B. 607. Moneys stolen from a bank
account can be traced in equity: Bankers Trust Co. v. Shapira
[1980] 1 W.L.R. 1274, 1282C-E. See also McCormick v.
Grogan (1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 82, 97.
43 I should also add that the constructive trust may operate even if Ms Ho
mixed the USDT with other USDT in the balances of the respective online
Custodial Wallets, or the Fiat Asset with other money in her bank account:
Foskett v McKeown [2001] 1 AC 102.
44 Given my findings on the facts, I declare a constructive trust over the

Crypto Asset and the Fiat Asset. ByBit is the legal and beneficial owner of the
Crypto Assets. In view of my grant of relief on the basis of institutional
20

constructive trust, I need not deal with the alternative bases of remedial
constructive trust and unjust enrichment.
45 ByBit following its investigations has sought a mix of proprietary and

personal orders, which I now grant, as follows:
(a) A declaration of constructive trust over the Crypto Asset and

Fiat Asset;
(b) An order that Ms Ho does forthwith pay to ByBit the sum of

USD 647,880 (being the value of the Crypto Assets in Wallets 3 and
4); and
(c) An order that Ms Ho does forthwith pay to ByBit the sum of

SGD 117,238.46 (the Fiat Asset);
(d) An order that Ms Ho does forthwith transfer all sums remaining

in Wallet 1 to ByBit, up to the sum of USD 3,561,840 (being the value
of the Crypto Assets transferred to Wallets 1 and 2);
(e) In respect of the remainder of the Crypto Assets transferred to

Wallets 1 and 2 (being USD 3,561,840 worth of USDT) after
deducting the amount transferred in (d) above (the “Remainder Sum”):
(i) An order that Ms Ho give an account of the Remainder

Sum, or such money or funds representing the value of the
Remainder Sum as have been possessed or received by her or
by any person on their behalf or to their order;
(ii) A tracing order in respect of the Remainder Sum, or any

part thereof, for ByBit to trace and recover the assets or the
21

proceeds thereof into which the aforesaid properties have been

converted, if any;
(iii) An order for payment by Ms Ho to ByBit of all sums

found to be due to ByBit on the taking of the account.
46 I also award interest at the standard rate of 5.33% per annum on the
sums payable under [45(b)] and [45(c)] above from the dates the assets in
question were transferred by Ms Ho until date of judgment.
Conclusion
47 Having granted ByBit summary judgment against Ms Ho, I also award

costs in favour of ByBit in the amount of $45,000.00 (which takes into
account the legal novelty of the issues argued as well as the work done in
seeking interim relief for which costs were in the cause) and disbursements of
$11,500.00.
Philip Jeyaretnam
Judge of the High Court
Quek Wen Jiang Gerard, Kyle Gabriel Peters, Ling Ying Ming
Daniel, Mato Kotwani and Chua Ze Xuan (PDLegal LLC) for the
claimant;
The first to sixth defendants absent and unrepresented.
22

Bybit Fintech v. Bo Kai Xin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bybit Fintech v. Bo Kai Xin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bybit Fintech v. Bo Kai Xin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE GENERAL DIVISION OF

THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

[2023] SGHC 199

ByBit Fintech Limited

(1) Ho Kai Xin

[Civil Procedure — Summary judgment]

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

THE PARTIES’ CASES................................................................................10

ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED ..................................................................14

ISSUE 1: USDT IS PROPERTY CAPABLE OF BEING HELD

ISSUE 2: BYBIT IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT .............19

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

ByBit Fintech Ltd

[2023] SGHC 199

General Division of the High Court — Originating Claim No 320 of 2022

25 July 2023 Judgment reserved.

1 This case concerns a crypto asset called Tether which is an example of

2 In this application, ByBit Fintech Limited (“ByBit”) seeks summary

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

3 The courts in Singapore and elsewhere have in granting interlocutory

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

6 I now explain my reasons for these conclusions.

7 ByBit, a Seychellois company, owns a namesake cryptocurrency

8 As part of her duties, Ms Ho maintained Microsoft Excel spreadsheets

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

“Custodial Wallets”. Custodial Wallets usually take the form of an application

9 On 7 September 2022, ByBit discovered that eight unusual

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

discrepancies. Ms Ho initially attributed the Anomalous Transactions to

10 Between 9 to 22 September 2022, Ms Ho remained unable to provide

11 On 27 September 2022, ByBit contacted one of the supposed recipients

6 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) dated 24 March 2023 at paras 20–22.

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

12 ByBit also discovered that Ms Ho had caused $117,238.46 (the “Fiat

13 ByBit interviewed Ms Ho on 29 September 2022 and 4 October 2022.

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

14 ByBit commenced this action on 12 October 2022. ByBit succeeded in

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

confronted Jason, who admitted that he had intentionally substituted the

16 Dissatisfied with Ms Ho’s disclosure, ByBit sought and obtained on 7

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

access to her crypto.com account because it was registered to her personal

17 Simultaneously, Ms Ho applied for and obtained permission to effect

18 On 30 March 2023, ByBit took out this application for summary

24 3rd Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin dated 19 December 2022 at para 6.

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

run an alternative argument premised on institutional constructive trust. I

20 ByBit submitted that the amendments were merely clarificatory and

21 I agreed that the proposed amendments were clarificatory in nature,

The parties’ cases

27 Claimant’s Written Submissions dated 19 May 2023 at paras 12–13.

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

details or residential address.28 Additionally, Ms Ho believes that it was Jason

24 ByBit submits that it is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to O 9 r

28 2nd Affidavit of Ho Kai Xin dated 7 December 2022 at paras 14–16.

Version No 2: 25 Jul 2023 (12:49 hrs)

25 First, ByBit submits that “Jason” is an outright fabrication. Ms Ho has

26 Second, ByBit submits that the Crypto Asset is comprised of choses in

32 Claimant’s Skeletal Written Submissions dated 3 May 2023 at paras 66–69