Rio Christofle v Malcolm Tan: Breach of Contract in Cryptocurrency Transaction
In Rio Christofle v Malcolm Tan Chun Chuen, the Singapore High Court addressed a breach of contract claim concerning a cryptocurrency transaction. Rio Christofle sued Malcolm Tan for failing to pay S$315,846.93 for 12.14 Bitcoin. Tan argued he acted as a middleman for Qrypt Technologies Pte Ltd. The court, led by Justice Lee Seiu Kin, dismissed Christofle's claim, finding that Christofle was not the proper party to the agreement, as he was acting on behalf of GCXpress Commerce Pte Ltd, and Tan was acting on behalf of Qrypt Technologies Pte Ltd.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving Rio Christofle and Malcolm Tan concerning a breach of contract in a cryptocurrency transaction. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rio Christofle | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Allister Lim Wee Sing, Liew Hui Min |
| Malcolm Tan Chun Chuen | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Mohammad Maiyaz Al Islam |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Allister Lim Wee Sing | ALP Law Corporation |
| Liew Hui Min | ALP Law Corporation |
| Mohammad Maiyaz Al Islam | Magna Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Rio Christofle set up GCXpress Commerce Pte Ltd for cryptocurrency trading.
- Malcolm Tan was the managing director of Qrypt Technologies Pte Ltd.
- Tan contacted Christofle to purchase Bitcoin worth S$320,000.00.
- Christofle transferred 12.14 Bitcoin to Tan's specified cryptocurrency wallet.
- Christofle did not receive the S$320,000.00 in cash.
- The defendant claimed that Qrypt was merely a middleman broker who acted to facilitate the sale of the 12.14 Bitcoin from GCX to the Buyers.
5. Formal Citations
- Rio Christofle v Tan Chun Chuen Malcolm, Suit 1247 of 2020, [2023] SGHC 66
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rio Christofle set up GCXpress Commerce Pte Ltd for cryptocurrency trading. | |
| GCXpress Commerce Pte Ltd's exemption from holding a licence under the Payment Services Act 2019 for the provision of a digital payment token service ended. | |
| Malcolm Tan contacted Rio Christofle to purchase Bitcoin worth S$320,000.00. | |
| Rio Christofle transferred 12.14 Bitcoin to the cryptocurrency wallet specified by Malcolm Tan. | |
| Malcolm Tan made a police report. | |
| Agreement between parties. | |
| Bitcoin transferred. | |
| Rio Christofle AEIC dated. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial. | |
| Judgment Reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that there was a breach of contract, but the plaintiff was not the proper party to bring the claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Illegality of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the agreement was not illegal under the Payment Services Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Proper Parties to a Contract
- Outcome: The court found that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant were the proper parties to the agreement, as they were acting on behalf of their respective companies.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Return of Bitcoin
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Cryptocurrency Transactions
11. Industries
- Finance
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANC Holdings Pte Ltd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 666 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can take cognisance of evidence of illegality even if it is not pleaded. |
| Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd v Chenab Contractor Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 375 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio to contract and tort. |
| North Star (S) Capital Pte Ltd v Yip Fook Meng | High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 677 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can invoke illegality of its own motion. |
| Siraj Ansari bin Mohamed Shariff v Juliana bte Bahadin and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 186 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can invoke illegality of its own motion. |
| Fan Ren Ray and others v Toh Fong Peng and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 117 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can invoke illegality of its own motion. |
| Edler v Auerbach | King's Bench | Yes | [1950] 1 KB 359 | England and Wales | Cited for the propositions regarding when a court can invoke illegality. |
| Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the propositions regarding when a court can invoke illegality. |
| Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 363 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will be slow to imply the statutory prohibition of contracts. |
| The “Dolphina” | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 992 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that only parties to a contract have the standing to sue and enforce those contractual obligations. |
| Must Rich Construction Ltd v Chan Ka Lok | Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court | Yes | [2022] HKEC 35 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that only parties to a contract have the standing to sue and enforce those contractual obligations. |
| B High House International Pte Ltd v MCDP Phoenix Services Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 12 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the principle that only parties to a contract have the standing to sue and enforce those contractual obligations is especially pertinent where parties are dealing through intermediaries. |
| iVenture Card Ltd and others v Big Bus Singapore City Sightseeing Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 302 | Singapore | Cited for the approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one. |
| Americas Bulk Transport Limited (Liberia) v Cosco Bulk Carrier Limited (China) m.v. Grand Fortune | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2020] EWHC 147 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for the approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one. |
| Hector v Lyons | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1988) 58 P & CR 156 | England and Wales | Cited for the approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one. |
| Shogun Finance Limited v Hudson | House of Lords | Yes | [2004] 1 AC 919 | United Kingdom | Cited for the approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one. |
| Bhoomatidevi d/o Kishinchand Chugani Mrs Kavita Gope Mirwani v Nantakumar s/o v Ramachandra and another | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 37 | Singapore | Cited for the approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one. |
| Gregor Fisken Limited v Bernard Carl | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] EWCA Civ 792 | England and Wales | Cited for the approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one. |
| Estor Limited v Multifit (UK) Limited | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2009] EWHC 2565 (TCC) | England and Wales | Cited for the approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one. |
| Hamid v Francis Bradshaw Partnership | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] EWCA Civ 470 | England and Wales | Cited for the approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one. |
| Diane Lumley v Foster & Co Group Ltd & Ors | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2022] EWHC 54 (TCC) | England and Wales | Cited for the approach taken to identifying the proper parties to a contract is an objective one. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lange Vivian | State Courts | Yes | [2021] SGMC 11 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the facts of the case from the present case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Payment Services Act 2019 | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act 1909 s 5 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bitcoin
- Cryptocurrency
- Digital Payment Token
- Payment Services Act
- GCXpress Commerce Pte Ltd
- Qrypt Technologies Pte Ltd
- KYC
- AML/CFT
- Telegram
- Wallet Address
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- breach
- cryptocurrency
- bitcoin
- payment services act
- singapore
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Financial Regulation
- Cryptocurrency
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Cryptocurrency Law
- Payment Services Act