The cryptocurrency market has grown exponentially, with a global market value of about $2 trillion, and yet its regulation and legal status continue to be subject to much debate and uncertainty. Are cryptocurrency assets considered to be property in the eyes of the law? Where does one even begin to seek legal remedy for stolen cryptocurrency in the borderless nature and anonymity of the internet? Whilst all cryptocurrency transactions are public and transparent, it is extremely difficult to identify the user of a particular wallet. There are often also difficulties ascertaining the exact entity operating a cryptocurrency exchange, and which countries have jurisdiction over them.
These were some of the novel issues before the Singapore High Court in CLM v CLN and ors [2022] SGHC 46. In this exceptional case, the Singapore Court granted the first reported freezing injunction against "persons unknown" in Singapore for S$9.6 million worth of cryptocurrency assets stolen from the Plaintiff.
In reaching its decision, the Singapore High Court analysed jurisprudence across multiple jurisdictions and held that cryptocurrency could be classified as property that could be protected using proprietary injunctions. The Singapore High Court also considered that it had sufficient jurisdiction to grant ancillary disclosure orders against certain cryptocurrency exchanges in aid of the Plaintiff's efforts to trace and recover the stolen cryptocurrency.
The Plaintiff was successfully represented by Danny Ong and Jansen Chow from the Fraud, Asset Recovery and Investigations team.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
