Virgilio Tarrago Da Silveira v Hashstacs: Misrepresentation, Negligence, Unjust Enrichment, Conspiracy, Cryptocurrency
Virgilio Tarrago Da Silveira and Munchetty Investments Ltd. brought a claim in the Singapore International Commercial Court against Hashstacs Pte. Ltd. and Soh Kai Jun, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy related to the purchase of STACS Tokens. The claimants asserted that they were induced to buy the tokens based on false representations. The court, presided over by Simon Thorley IJ, dismissed the action, finding that the representations were not false and that the defendants were not liable.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE1.2 Outcome
Action dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Cryptocurrency investors Virgilio Tarrago Da Silveira and Munchetty Investments Ltd sue Hashstacs Pte. Ltd. for misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy. Claim dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virgilio Tarrago Da Silveira | Claimant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Munchetty Investments Ltd | Claimant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Hashstacs Pte. Ltd. | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Soh Kai Jun | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Thorley | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Silveira purchased 8,063,470.53 STACS Tokens between August and December 2019 for approximately US$76,000.
- The STACS Tokens were transferred to Munchetty Investments Ltd in September 2020.
- Claimants allege they were induced to buy tokens based on false representations by Hashstacs Pte Ltd (HS).
- HS is associated with Mr. Soh Kai Jun.
- Claimants assert HS acted fraudulently or negligently in making representations.
- HS claims statements relied upon were not its responsibility and were not actionable representations.
- HS denies acting fraudulently or negligently and denies conspiring to injure the claimants.
5. Formal Citations
- da Silveira, Virgilio Tarrago and another v Hashstacs Pte Ltd and another, Originating Application No 7 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(I) 32
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Nicholas Cowan co-founded Gibraltar Stock Exchange Limited | |
| Gibraltar Stock Exchange Limited received its full license | |
| Gibraltar Stock Exchange Group Limited was incorporated | |
| Gibraltar Blockchain Exchange Limited was incorporated | |
| Soh Kai Jun was appointed to the board of the GSX Group | |
| Rock Tokens were sold out on public offering | |
| GSX Group announced the establishment of Hashstacs Inc | |
| Nicholas Cowan released a press release regarding the STACS Protocol | |
| GSX Group published the STACS Protocol Whitepaper v1.0 | |
| GBX distributed the STACS Token T&Cs to Rock Token holders | |
| GSX Group issued the Second Whitepaper | |
| Hashstacs Inc was incorporated | |
| Joint Venture Agreement between Forever Honest, Prime Fintech, and GSX Group was formalized | |
| Hashstacs Pte Ltd was incorporated in Singapore | |
| STACS Network Whitepaper v 1.2 was produced | |
| Nicholas Cowan, Soh Kai Jun, and Adrian Hogg were appointed directors of H Inc | |
| The JVA was amended and Stellar became a party | |
| Virgilio Tarrago Da Silveira purchased STACS Tokens | |
| Virgilio Tarrago Da Silveira purchased STACS Tokens | |
| GSX Group announced it was rolling out a new GSX Group platform | |
| H Inc divested ownership of HS to the joint venture partners | |
| Purchasing, Services and Ratification Agreement was entered into | |
| Virgilio Tarrago Da Silveira transferred the tokens to Munchetty | |
| Superseding version of Purchasing, Services and Ratification Agreement was entered into | |
| HS proof-of-concept project with EFG Bank | |
| H Inc was dissolved | |
| STACS Tokens were swapped for GATE Tokens | |
| GATEnet Whitepaper was published | |
| GSX Group was acquired by Valereum PLC | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the representations were not false and that the defendant did not know they were false, therefore the action based on fraudulent misrepresentation failed.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the representations were not made by the defendant and were not false, therefore the action in negligent misrepresentation could not succeed.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGHC 234
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
- Negligent Misstatement
- Outcome: The court found that the representations were not made by the defendant and were not false, and that there was no special relationship between the claimants and the defendant, therefore the action in negligent misstatement could not succeed.
- Category: Substantive
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant was not enriched by any transaction fees generated on the STACS Protocol, therefore the claim based on unjust enrichment failed.
- Category: Substantive
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that there was no intention on the part of the defendant to cause damage to the claimants, therefore the allegation of conspiracy failed.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Negligent Misstatement
- Unjust Enrichment
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Cryptocurrency Law
11. Industries
- Financial Services
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Meow Moy Lan and others v Exklusiv Resorts Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 155 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a representation as to the future is not actionable unless it implies an existing fact or intention. |
| Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compañia De Navegación Palomar, SA and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 894 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a representation as to the future is not actionable unless it implies an existing fact or intention. |
| Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person who states an intention as to the future implicitly represents that he in fact has that intention at the time of making the statement. |
| Edgington v Fitzmaurice | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1885) 29 Ch D 459 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a person who states an intention as to the future implicitly represents that he in fact has that intention at the time of making the statement. |
| Sheila Kazzaz and anor v Standard Chartered Bank and ors | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of a statutory paradigm negligent misrepresentation claim under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. |
| Banque de Commerce et de Placements SA, DIFC Branch and anor v China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 145 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of a general, common law paradigm negligent misrepresentation claim. |
| Sheila Kazzaz and anor v Standard Chartered Bank | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for distinguishing the two types of negligent misrepresentation claims. |
| Lim Leong Huat v Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | No | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 318 | Singapore | Cited regarding the liability of a director in conspiracy. |
| Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd v Ching Kai Huat and others | Court of Appeal | No | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 80 | Singapore | Cited regarding the liability of a director in conspiracy. |
| PT Sandipala Arthaputra and others v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | No | [2018] 1 SLR 818 | Singapore | Cited regarding the liability of a director in conspiracy. |
| Said v Butt | King's Bench Division | No | [1920] 3 KB 497 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the liability of a director in conspiracy. |
| Lim Bee Lan v Lee Juan Loong and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 234 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to succeed in a negligent misrepresentation claim. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to succeed in a negligent misrepresentation claim. |
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
- STACS Tokens
- Hashstacs Pte Ltd
- Misrepresentation
- Negligence
- Unjust Enrichment
- Conspiracy
- Blockchain
- Cryptocurrency
- Distributed Ledger Technology
- Rock Token
- GATE Token
- STACS Protocol
15.2 Keywords
- cryptocurrency
- blockchain
- misrepresentation
- negligence
- unjust enrichment
- conspiracy
- STACS
- Hashstacs
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation | 90 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 85 |
| Torts | 80 |
| Negligence | 70 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 65 |
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 60 |
| Commercial Fraud | 50 |
| Commercial Litigation | 40 |
| Breach of Contract | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Cryptocurrency
- Blockchain Technology
- Financial Technology
- Investment Law
- Securities Law