SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jansen Chow and Ang Leong Hao, Rajah & Tann Singapore
Ser Kang Wei v Salas Porras [2025] SGHC 257 (“Ser Kang Wei”) The principles in Continental Shipping were consid - ered by the High Court in Ser Kang Wei, a complex cross-border fraud involving an intricate web of trans - national entities across multiple jurisdictions, includ - ing the UAE, Singapore and Zimbabwe. The claim - ants alleged that the defendants had perpetrated a fraudulent gold investment scheme, inducing them to transfer USDT to cryptocurrency wallets controlled by the defendants. The scheme involved elaborate representations of lucrative gold-trading opportuni - ties, underpinned by South African and Zimbabwean entities. Upon investigation, these entities turned out to have had no dealings with the defendants’ fund. The defendants relied on Continental Shipping to argue that the mere ability to move assets does not equate to a real risk of dissipation. However, the Court distinguished the case on its facts, noting that the Court of Appeal had itself observed that the ability to move assets, “when coupled with findings of dishon - est conduct on the part of the defendant, can lead to a finding of a real risk of dissipation”. Considering the evidence before it, such as a pattern of compa - nies being “incorporated, restructured and dissolved within a short period of time” for no discernible com - mercial purpose and the non-disclosure of certain bank accounts and shares, the Court found a real risk of dissipation and maintained the worldwide Mareva injunction, including over cryptocurrency assets. The case illustrates both the continued willingness of Singapore courts to extend freezing relief to digital assets and the practical reality that cryptocurrency is increasingly the medium through which fraud pro - ceeds are transferred and concealed. Crypto-Assets The treatment of cryptocurrency is one of the most dynamic areas of Singapore’s fraud and asset recov - ery jurisprudence. Given the pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions and ease of cross-border movement, the ability to assert proprietary rights over cryptocurrency is critical for fraud victims. The foundations were laid in earlier decisions: in CLM v CLN [2022] 5 SLR 273; [2022] SGHC 46, the High
Court granted Singapore’s first worldwide Mareva injunction against “persons unknown” in a cryptocur - rency theft case, in ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin [2023] 5 SLR 1748; [2023] SGHC 199, the Court defini - tively held that cryptocurrency constitutes a chose in action capable of being held on trust and in Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital [2024] 4 SLR 907; [2024] SGHC 21, the Court established that the situs of a crypto asset is determined by the residence of the person controlling the private key. Building on this framework, the Singapore Courts have, in 2025 and 2026, addressed more granular questions, including the valuation of cryptocurrency for damages assess - ment and the treatment of digital assets in insolvency. Kalen, Alexandru v World Exchange Services [2026] SGHC 31 (“Kalen Alexandru”) The case concerned a representative claim brought on behalf of 85 individuals who held digital tokens and fiat monies on the defendant’s online trading platform. The claimants had previously succeeded in establish - ing that the defendant breached the applicable user agreement by failing to allow them access to their stored digital tokens and funds. The claimants also succeeded in their claim that the defendant breached the buyback agreement, as it failed to purchase the digital tokens from them. At the assessment of damages stage, among oth - er issues, the Court was required to determine the appropriate valuation date for the claimants’ losses. The claimants argued that the valuation date should be the trial date, while the defendant contended that it should be the date of breach. The Court held that the correct approach is to assess the valuation date by reference to the time when a claimant is reasonably expected to mitigate their losses. Whether the claim - ant is reasonably expected to mitigate depends on, among other factors, when the claimant has knowl - edge of the breach and whether it is possible and reasonable to mitigate. Conceptually, the valuation date may coincide with the date of breach itself if the claimant has knowledge of the breach and it is pos - sible and reasonable to mitigate at that point. On the facts, the Court found that the appropriate valuation date was a reasonable time after the claimants first discovered their inability to control, transfer, or with - draw their digital tokens and funds.
319 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook