TRW & Co · Disputes and arbitration
Crypto Asset Claims in Singapore: Proprietary Remedies and Damages
Cryptocurrency claims in Singapore now rest on clear foundations: crypto is property that can be held on trust, victims can obtain proprietary injunctions and disclosure orders against exchanges, and since the 2026 Kalen decision damages are valued when the claimant could reasonably mitigate. This guide explains the remedies, the valuation rule and what to do now.
Key pointAfter Kalen v World Exchange Services [2026] SGHC 31, waiting for a better price does not raise recoverable damages: losses are valued around the time the user could reasonably have bought replacement tokens or sued.
At a glance
Crypto is property
ByBit v Ho Kai Xin [2023] SGHC 199 held USDT is a thing in action capable of being held on trust, supporting proprietary claims.
Persons-unknown orders
CLM v CLN [2022] SGHC 46 granted proprietary injunctions against unidentified hackers and disclosure orders against exchanges joined as defendants.
Valuation rule
Kalen [2026] SGHC 31 values lost tokens when the claimant could reasonably mitigate, rejecting both the trial-date and highest-intermediate-value approaches.
Evidence of holdings
Dated screenshots supported by evidence of authenticity proved holdings in Kalen; platform experts' general doubts were not enough to displace them.
Enforcement
The Rules of Court 2021 list cryptocurrency as movable property, which assists enforcement of judgments against crypto assets.
Swipe or scroll →
The short answer: how courts handle cryptocurrency claims in Singapore
As of October 2026, cryptocurrency claims in Singapore rest on three settled building blocks. First, crypto assets are property: the High Court has held that a stablecoin is a thing in action capable of being held on trust. Second, victims of theft or fraud can obtain proprietary injunctions, worldwide freezing orders and disclosure orders against exchanges, including against persons unknown. Third, where a platform fails to return assets, damages are valued at the time the user could reasonably have been expected to mitigate, not at the price peak or the trial date.
That third point is the recent change. In Kalen, Alexandru v World Exchange Services Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 31, decided in early 2026, the High Court gave the most detailed guidance yet on valuing lost crypto. It affects every user, fund and platform with a claim over inaccessible tokens, and it applies now as a statement of how the Singapore courts approach the question.
The practical message is to act quickly, document holdings carefully and choose between proprietary and personal remedies early, because the remedy you pursue shapes what you can recover.
Crypto as property: the legal foundation
Early cases established that crypto assets can be the subject of proprietary rights. In B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2019] 4 SLR 17, the SICC treated cryptocurrency as property capable of being held on trust. In CLM v CLN [2022] SGHC 46, the High Court found, at the interlocutory stage, that Bitcoin and Ether met the classic criteria for property and granted a proprietary injunction over stolen assets.
ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin [2023] SGHC 199 took the analysis further. The court held that USDT is property capable of being held on trust, classified it as a thing in action, and declared an institutional constructive trust over stolen tokens that arose at the moment of theft, even if the tokens were mixed with others. It also noted that cryptocurrency is listed as movable property in the Rules of Court 2021, which matters for enforcement.
The property analysis is the key to proprietary remedies. If the claimant can show that specific tokens, or their traceable proceeds, belong to it in equity, it can claim them ahead of the defendant's unsecured creditors. That can be decisive where the defendant or the platform is insolvent.
Common causes of action
Cryptocurrency claims in Singapore usually combine several causes of action, so that the claimant is not left without a remedy if one fails. The choice depends on the relationship between the parties and on what happened to the assets.
- Breach of contract. The usual claim against a platform or custodian that fails to return assets or honour withdrawals, as in Kalen.
- Constructive trust and breach of trust. The core proprietary claim where assets were stolen or misappropriated, as in ByBit, where the trust arose at the time of the theft.
- Unjust enrichment. An alternative restitutionary claim where a recipient has been enriched at the claimant's expense; the court in ByBit did not need to decide it once the trust claim succeeded.
- Fraud and deceit. Personal claims against those who induced transfers by false statements, which require proof that the defendant knew the statements were false or was reckless as to their truth. Our contract disputes practice handles related misrepresentation claims.
Pleading these claims in the alternative from the start is usually sensible. It keeps proprietary relief available while preserving a straightforward damages claim if the tokens cannot be traced.
The regulatory backdrop
Disputes often involve regulated businesses. Digital payment token services are regulated by MAS under the Payment Services Act 2019, and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 adds a regime for digital token service providers with a Singapore connection. Regulatory status does not decide private claims, but it affects what records a platform must keep, how customer assets should be segregated, and whether a regulator's actions or a platform's insolvency will shape the recovery route. Our digital assets practice page covers the regulatory side.
Remedies available in cryptocurrency claims in Singapore
Cryptocurrency claims in Singapore typically involve one of three situations: theft or hacking by unknown persons; fraud or misappropriation by someone known to the victim; or a platform that freezes, loses or fails to return customer assets. The right mix of remedies depends on which situation applies.
| Remedy | What it does | When it fits |
|---|---|---|
| Proprietary injunction | Preserves specific assets or traceable proceeds claimed as the claimant's property | Stolen or misappropriated tokens that can be traced to identifiable wallets or accounts |
| Worldwide freezing (Mareva) order | Stops a defendant dealing with assets up to a value, wherever located | Real risk of dissipation and a good arguable case; personal claims |
| Persons-unknown injunction | Binds unidentified wrongdoers described with sufficient certainty | Hacks and scams where identities are not yet known |
| Disclosure orders | Require exchanges or others to reveal balances, account holders and transactions | Tracing and identifying defendants |
| Constructive trust declaration and tracing | Confirms beneficial ownership and follows assets into substitutes | Final judgment in theft and fraud cases, as in ByBit |
| Contract damages | Monetary compensation for breach of user or custody terms | Platform failure to return assets or perform |
In CLM v CLN, the court granted interim orders against persons unknown described by reference to their role in the theft, excluding exchanges acting in the ordinary course of business. It granted a worldwide freezing order, noting that the stolen assets were susceptible to being transferred by the click of a button. It also ordered exchanges joined as defendants to disclose account information. For more on disclosure routes, see our guide to Norwich Pharmacal and pre-action disclosure, and for freezing orders, our guide to Mareva injunctions.
In ByBit, the final orders included a declaration of constructive trust, payment of sums, transfer of funds held in a wallet, and an account and tracing order for the remaining value. The claimant also obtained summary judgment, showing that crypto fraud claims supported by clear records need not go to a full trial; see our guide to summary judgment.
Valuing lost crypto: what changed in 2026
Valuation is where volatility bites in cryptocurrency claims in Singapore. If a platform wrongly locks a user out when a token is worth one price and the case is tried years later at a very different price, which figure applies? In Kalen v World Exchange Services [2026] SGHC 31, users of a trading platform lost access to their tokens and money from mid-2018. They sued for breach of the user agreement and a buyback contract and succeeded.
On valuation, the court rejected the claimants' proposal to value the tokens at the trial date, and also rejected the so-called New York rule of the highest intermediate value between breach and a reasonable time later, because it would give the claimant the benefit of perfect hindsight. It held that the date of valuation should be the time when a claimant is reasonably expected to mitigate its losses.
Because the platform had described the outage as a technical problem and said withdrawals would resume, the users could reasonably treat it as temporary for a period. The court therefore valued the loss at a reasonable time after the breach, in the following months, using an average of prices from public data aggregators. The assessment came to over US$10 million. The court drew on obiter remarks in Fantom Foundation Ltd v Multichain Foundation Ltd [2024] SGHC 173 that the breach-date rule may not always be the best method for volatile assets. Commentary from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and Rajah & Tann discusses the decision.
Who is affected and what to do now
- Users and funds with locked assets. Expect damages to be measured around the time you could reasonably have bought replacement tokens or sued, not at a later peak. Decide early whether to mitigate.
- Platforms and exchanges. Customer communications during outages are evidence. Describing a problem as temporary may extend the period before users are expected to act, which can increase or decrease exposure depending on market movements.
- Claimants in fraud cases. A proprietary claim to the tokens themselves can avoid valuation disputes entirely if the assets are recovered. Personal claims depend on the valuation approach.
The decision also clarifies the position for claimants who can still buy the same tokens on the open market. Where replacement tokens are readily available, the court expects a reasonable claimant to consider buying them or starting proceedings within a reasonable time once it is clear the platform will not perform. Holding out for a later valuation is a risk the claimant bears. Conversely, a claimant who acts promptly on the platform's assurances is not penalised for believing them for a reasonable period.
Prove your holdings from the start. In Kalen, the claimants relied on dated account screenshots supported by evidence that they had not been altered, and the platform's expert could not show otherwise. Export statements, wallet histories and screenshots with metadata as soon as a problem arises.
Bringing a crypto claim, step by step
- Secure evidence. Record wallet addresses, transaction hashes, exchange account statements, screenshots and all platform communications.
- Trace the assets. Use blockchain analytics to follow transfers and identify exchanges where tokens arrived; exchanges are often the point where identities can be obtained.
- Report and notify. Report theft or fraud to the police and notify the receiving exchanges promptly, asking them to preserve and, where they will, freeze accounts.
- Seek urgent relief. Apply for proprietary and freezing injunctions, against persons unknown if necessary, with disclosure orders against exchanges.
- Serve and identify. Use permitted methods of service, including substituted service by email or other electronic means where personal service is impracticable.
- Decide the remedy. Choose proprietary claims where assets are traceable, and personal claims for damages or compensation where they are not; consider mitigation timing.
- Enforce. Use enforcement tools for judgments over movable property, including crypto, and coordinate with insolvency processes where a platform has failed.
Illustrative scenario: a hacked corporate wallet
Illustrative only; generic parties. A Singapore trading company holds stablecoins in a self-custody wallet. An attacker gains access and moves the tokens through several wallets to two exchanges. The company engages a tracing firm within a day and identifies the receiving accounts.
The company applies for a proprietary injunction against persons unknown, defined by their role in the hack, and joins the exchanges as defendants for disclosure. The exchanges disclose account holders and remaining balances. The company then seeks a worldwide freezing order against the identified account holders and amends its claim to name them.
This is how many cryptocurrency claims in Singapore unfold in practice. Some tokens are still in the exchange accounts and can be returned under a constructive trust declaration. The rest have been converted and moved. For those, the company pursues personal claims, and the valuation question becomes relevant. Prompt action meant that a large part of the loss could be recovered in specie.
Risks and common mistakes
Waiting for prices to recover
Claimants sometimes delay hoping a platform will reopen or prices will rise. After Kalen, the court values losses when the claimant could reasonably have mitigated. Waiting does not necessarily increase recoverable damages, and delay can make tracing and freezing harder.
Weak evidence of holdings
Without reliable records, quantity is disputed and claims shrink. Keep statements, wallet exports and timestamps. Screenshots should be supported by evidence of authenticity, such as metadata or contemporaneous emails.
Choosing only personal remedies
If the defendant or platform is insolvent, a personal claim ranks with other creditors. A proprietary claim over traceable tokens may do much better. Consider the proprietary route at the outset; our fraud and asset recovery practice regularly weighs these options.
Describing persons unknown too loosely
Orders against persons unknown must describe the defendants with enough certainty to identify who is included and who is not. Vague descriptions risk the order being set aside or being unenforceable against those who later surface.
Ignoring the platform's terms
User agreements govern custody, liability caps, governing law and dispute resolution. Some require arbitration or a foreign court. Check them before filing, and consider whether a clause can be challenged or must be followed.
Cross-border angle: exchanges and wallets abroad
Crypto moves across borders instantly, and many exchanges operate from outside Singapore. Claimants may need orders in other jurisdictions to obtain disclosure or freeze accounts, and service on foreign defendants may require the court's permission and substituted methods. Singapore judgments may then need to be enforced abroad; see our page on enforcement of foreign judgments.
TRW & Co coordinates tracing and enforcement across Singapore, London, Dubai, China and Bangladesh. Where Singapore court representation is required, we work alongside Singapore-qualified counsel. For contentious matters more broadly, see our commercial litigation practice.
Checklist for cryptocurrency claims in Singapore
- Preserve wallet data, transaction hashes, statements and platform messages immediately.
- Commission tracing and identify receiving exchanges.
- Seek proprietary, freezing and disclosure orders urgently where assets are moving.
- Decide between proprietary and personal remedies early.
- Consider when you could reasonably mitigate, and document that decision.
- Review the platform's terms for governing law and dispute resolution.
- Plan enforcement and cross-border steps from the outset.
Cryptocurrency claims in Singapore reward speed and good records. For an urgent assessment, contact our disputes team.
Frequently asked questions
01Is cryptocurrency property under Singapore law?
Yes. Singapore courts have repeatedly treated crypto assets as property. In ByBit Fintech v Ho Kai Xin [2023] SGHC 199, the High Court held that USDT is property capable of being held on trust and classified it as a thing in action. Earlier, CLM v CLN [2022] SGHC 46 found that Bitcoin and Ether met the criteria for property at the interlocutory stage. This allows victims to bring proprietary claims and seek proprietary injunctions over stolen or misappropriated tokens.
02Can I get an injunction against an unknown hacker in Singapore?
Yes. In CLM v CLN [2022] SGHC 46, the High Court granted interim orders against persons unknown, provided the description of the defendants was certain enough to identify who was included and who was not. The court also granted a worldwide freezing order and ordered exchanges that had been joined as defendants to disclose account and transaction information. Once identities emerge, the claim can be amended to name the actual defendants.
03How are damages for lost crypto calculated in Singapore?
Following Kalen v World Exchange Services [2026] SGHC 31, damages are valued at the time when the claimant could reasonably be expected to mitigate its loss, for example by buying replacement tokens or suing. That may be the breach date or a reasonable time after it, depending on what the claimant knew. The court rejected valuing at the trial date and rejected the highest intermediate value between breach and a later date, because that would reward hindsight.
04What if the exchange holding my crypto becomes insolvent?
Your position depends on whether you have a proprietary claim to specific assets or only a personal claim against the exchange. If the exchange held your tokens on trust and they are identifiable, you may be able to recover them ahead of unsecured creditors. If not, you will usually rank as an unsecured creditor in the insolvency. The platform's terms, how customer assets were segregated and the records available are all important.
05How quickly should I act if my crypto is stolen?
Immediately. Crypto can be moved in seconds, and courts in Singapore have recognised that risk when granting freezing orders. Secure your records, commission tracing, report to the police, notify the exchanges that received the funds, and seek urgent proprietary, freezing and disclosure orders. Delay can allow tokens to be converted, mixed or moved beyond reach, and may affect how damages are valued if you have to pursue a personal claim.
06Can a crypto fraud claim be decided without a full trial?
It can, where the evidence is clear. In ByBit Fintech v Ho Kai Xin, the claimant obtained summary judgment, a declaration of constructive trust, payment orders and an account and tracing order against an employee who had diverted stablecoins. Summary judgment is available where the claimant shows a prima facie case and the defendant cannot raise a triable issue. Good records of the transactions and the defendant's role are essential.
Sources and official materials
- CLM v CLN [2022] SGHC 46 — Crypto as property; persons-unknown and freezing orders; exchange disclosure
- ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin [2023] SGHC 199 — USDT as a thing in action; constructive trust; summary judgment
- Kalen, Alexandru v World Exchange Services Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 31 — Valuation date and assessment of crypto damages
- Payment Services Act 2019 — Regulation of digital payment token services
- Rules of Court 2021 — Civil procedure and enforcement against movable property
- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer: measuring damages in the cryptocurrency context — Commentary on Kalen and Fantom
General information only, current as at 20 October 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer–client relationship. Singapore law and regulatory practice change; check current official sources and take advice on the facts of your matter.
