SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jansen Chow and Ang Leong Hao, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
tion should be compensated with the difference between the two above-mentioned values as damages. In coming to this decision, the court only had the benefit of the expert evidence from Fantom Foundation as both defendants did not contest the claim. The court had considered (but eventually reject - ed) the alternative date (ie, 8 July 2023 (the date after the security breach was reported)), and ulti - mately agreed with Fantom Foundation’s expert that “the price of the assets would have been so volatile that it would not likely be of any sig - nificant utility as a sensible reference price point to accurately assess the [Fantom Foundation]’s loss” . Fantom Foundation’s second claim involved 4.175 million FTM that Multichain failed to return to the former. Although the court accepted the methodology provided by Fantom Foundation’s expert to quantify the FTM with reference to the date of the breach of contractual obligations by Multichain, the court observed that “assessing damages with reference to the date of breach in this manner may not always be just or even reflective of reality in some cases” . The court fur - ther noted the following challenges relating to valuation of cryptocurrency assets due to their inherently volatile nature. • Determination of Market Value of Cryptocur - rency Assets: The assessment of the value of a cryptocurrency asset can “never be forensi- cally precise, as there is no inherently objec- tive value of cryptocurrency” . The court fur - ther observed that different online exchanges price each cryptocurrency asset differently due to a variety of reasons. • Point in Time to Value Cryptocurrency Assets: The rule that damages have to be assessed with reference to the date of breach is a
general rule that could be departed from if it would result in injustice. The court observed that “[g]iven the volatility of cryptocurrencies, the breach date rule may not always represent the best assessment methodology to value cryptocurrencies in all circumstances.” Fantom Foundation is an important decision in Singapore, which acknowledged the difficulties in valuing cryptocurrency assets and laid the seeds for further development in this area of law. Legislative Developments Protection from Scams Bill 2024 The Protection from Scams Bill 2024 was passed in Parliament in January 2025. This Bill was introduced due to the increasing number of scams in Singapore. Indeed, the Singapore Parliament noted that the total amount lost to scams hit a high of SGD1.1 billion in 2024, which was a 70% increase from 2023. The Parliament envisioned for the Bill to protect individuals from scams by empowering specified officers to issue restriction orders to banks, temporarily prohibit - ing certain transactions and credit facilities for scam victims. The Bill addresses the increasing prevalence of scams and provides legal powers for authorities to intervene and prevent further financial losses. This Bill mainly empowers specified officers to issue Restriction Orders to restrain banking transactions of a person if there is reason to believe that the person may be being scammed. Part 2 of the Bill empowers specified officers, including police officers and commercial affairs officers, to issue restriction orders to banks. These orders can prohibit the transfer or with - drawal of money from a scam victim’s bank account and the granting or drawdown of credit facilities. These are intended to provide time for authorities to engage and convince victims that
317 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook