ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin: Summary Judgment for Crypto Asset Theft and Constructive Trust
In ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin, the High Court of Singapore granted summary judgment in favor of ByBit Fintech Limited against Ms. Ho Kai Xin for breach of her employment contract and theft of cryptocurrency (USDT) and fiat currency. The court, presided over by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, declared that Ms. Ho held the stolen assets on an institutional constructive trust for ByBit and ordered the return of the assets or their equivalent value. The case involved a claim by ByBit against Ms. Ho for misappropriating USDT and fiat currency, with the court ultimately finding that Ms. Ho had fraudulently transferred the assets to herself.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favor of ByBit Fintech Limited.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
ByBit wins summary judgment against Ho Kai Xin for breach of contract and crypto asset theft. Court declares a constructive trust over stolen USDT.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ByBit Fintech Limited | Claimant | Corporation | Judgment for Claimant | Won | |
| Ho Kai Xin | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Persons Unknown | Defendant | Other | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Foris Dax Asia Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| FTX Trading Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Consensys Software Inc | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Quoine Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Jeyaretnam | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Ms. Ho was employed by WeChain and responsible for payroll processing of ByBit’s employees.
- Ms. Ho maintained Microsoft Excel spreadsheets tracking cash and cryptocurrency payments due to ByBit’s employees.
- ByBit discovered eight unusual cryptocurrency payments made between 31 May 2022 and 31 August 2022.
- A total of 4,209,720 USDT had been transferred to four Addresses.
- Ms. Ho's work email had sent to itself an email containing Address 1 on 19 May 2022.
- Ms. Ho had caused $117,238.46 to be paid into her personal bank account in May 2022.
- Ms. Ho confessed that she had become involved in the scheme some three months prior to the interview.
5. Formal Citations
- ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin and others, Originating Claim No 320 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 910 and 1526 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 199
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ms. Ho caused $117,238.46 to be paid into her personal bank account. | |
| Ms. Ho's work email sent an email containing Address 1 to itself. | |
| Unusual cryptocurrency payments were made. | |
| Last Anomalous Transaction occurred. | |
| Ms. Ho's work email received an email containing all four Addresses from Ms. Ho's personal email. | |
| ByBit discovered eight unusual cryptocurrency payments. | |
| Ms. Ho remained unable to provide any explanation for the Anomalous Transactions. | |
| Ms. Ho remained unable to provide any explanation for the Anomalous Transactions. | |
| ByBit contacted one of the supposed recipients of the Anomalous Transactions. | |
| ByBit interviewed Ms. Ho. | |
| ByBit interviewed Ms. Ho. | |
| ByBit commenced this action. | |
| Ms. Ho was personally served with the Originating Claim and the orders. | |
| Ms. Ho disclosed by affidavit that the Wallets associated with the four Addresses were owned by one Mr Jason Teo. | |
| Ms. Ho filed her defence and took out a third-party notice against Jason. | |
| ByBit obtained orders for more extensive disclosure against Ms. Ho and a number of third-parties. | |
| 1st Defendant’s Defence (Amendment No 1) was dated. | |
| ByBit took out this application for summary judgment. | |
| 3rd Affidavit of Yuchen Zhou was dated. | |
| Ms. Ho took over the conduct of her own defence. | |
| Claimant’s Skeletal Written Submissions was dated. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| 2nd Affidavit of Jonathan Cheong Hao Wei was dated. | |
| ByBit applied to amend their claim and to put in further submissions. | |
| Claimant’s Written Submissions was dated. | |
| I allowed the amendments, and proceeded with the application for summary judgment on the basis of ByBit’s Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 2). | |
| MAS, “Response to Public Consultation on Proposed Regulatory Measures for Digital Payment Token Services” published. | |
| ByBit’s Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 2), was filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether USDT is property capable of being held on trust
- Outcome: The court held that USDT is a chose in action and is property capable of being held on trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Ms. Ho breached her employment contract by abusing her position to transfer USDT and fiat currency to her own accounts.
- Category: Substantive
- Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court declared that Ms. Ho held the stolen assets on an institutional constructive trust for ByBit.
- Category: Substantive
- Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court granted summary judgment in favor of ByBit, finding that Ms. Ho had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Trust
- Return of Assets
- Payment of Equivalent Value
- Tracing Order
- Account of Profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Fraud
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Cryptocurrency
- Trusts Litigation
11. Industries
- Fintech
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth | N/A | Yes | [1965] 1 AC 1175 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a right must be definable, identifiable, capable of assumption, and have some degree of permanence to be considered property. |
| Colonial Bank v Whinney | N/A | Yes | (1885) 30 Ch D 261 | N/A | Cited for the principle that all personal things are either in possession or action, with no tertium quid between the two. |
| Miller v Race | N/A | Yes | (1758) 1 Burr 452 | N/A | Cited for the principle that what is treated as money by general consent is given the credit and currency of money. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 AC 669 | N/A | Cited for the principle that equity imposes a constructive trust on property obtained by fraud, making the property recoverable and traceable. |
| Foskett v McKeown | N/A | Yes | [2001] 1 AC 102 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a constructive trust may operate even if assets are mixed with other assets. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- USDT
- Tether
- Cryptocurrency
- Crypto Asset
- Address
- Wallet
- Private Key
- Constructive Trust
- Summary Judgment
- Choses in Action
- Stablecoin
- Anomalous Transactions
15.2 Keywords
- cryptocurrency
- USDT
- Tether
- constructive trust
- summary judgment
- ByBit
- Ho Kai Xin
- choses in action
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Cryptocurrency
- Trusts
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law