- The High Court in Singapore recognizes crypto as a property that can be held in trust.
- The case involves a Seychelles-based crypto exchange, Bybit.
- The Court’s ruling shows a distinctive side to cryptocurrency.
Court Rules in Favour of Bybit in Trust Case
Judge Jeyaretnam of the High Court of Singapore ruled favorably in a case involving Bybit on July 25.
According to the summary judgment given by the High Court Judge, crypto is a property that can be held in trust.
The Judge stated that common law recognizes crypto as a thing in action. According to him, he believes there is no difference between crypto, fiat currency, and shells as long these objects share value.
The court case is between Bybit, a crypto exchange based in Seychelles, and its previous employee.
The case was brought before Judge Jeyaretnam by Bybit, a crypto exchange, against its former employee, Miss Ho Kai Xin.
Bybit claimed that its former employee, Miss Ho, had stolen $4.2 million in Tether USDT from the crypto exchange, which she transferred to her account.
In her defense, she claimed that her cousin, Jason Teo, stole the assets from Bybit without her knowledge.
The court has now ordered Miss Ho to return the stolen assets to Bybit.
The High Court’s ruling has given a distinctive side to what crypto may be quantified. The Judge described the stolen USDT and cryptocurrencies as property. He stated that cryptocurrencies need not be physical objects.
“It is only because people generally accept the exchange value of shells or beads or differently printed paper notes that they become currency. While some people are skeptical of the value of crypto assets, it is worth keeping in mind that value is not inherent in an object,” Jeyaretnam explained.
In his ruling, Judge Jeyaretname cited the consultation paper by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, which confirms his statement that cryptocurrency can be held in trust.
The judgment of the Singaporean High Court referenced Order 22 of Singapore’s Rules of Court 2021, which recognizes cryptocurrency as a property. Under the cited legal provision, a property includes “cash, debt, deposits of money, bonds, shares or other securities, membership in clubs or societies, and cryptocurrency or other digital currency.”
Judge Jeyaretnam concluded his ruling by stating that,
“The holder of a crypto asset has, in principle, an incorporeal right of property recognizable 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 constructs, such as money.”
Based on the balance of probability, Miss Ho was unable to prove that Jason stole the assets. This led the court to conclude that Jason Teo may not exist, and the summary judgment was granted in favor of Bybit.
While this case is based on the principle of trust in crypto, the summary judgment has provided more insight into crypto as a real-world asset beyond money.
