A Singapore court has frozen about S$75 million ($58 million) in Bitcoin and USD Coin after a major crypto trading platform alleged that an internal ledger error caused it to mistakenly credit thousands of BTC and Bitcoin Cash to a long-standing customer.

The Singapore International Commercial Court said the interim proprietary injunction prevents the customer from disposing of, dealing with or reducing the value of about 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC, along with assets, profits or interest derived from them. The order was granted on March 26 after a hearing before Singapore High Court Justice Aidan Xu and SICC International Judges Anthony Meagher and David Goddard.

The dispute involves an anonymised group of companies that operates what the court described as one of the world’s largest digital asset trading platforms and a customer who had used the platform since around 2013. Court documents identified the parties only as DVA, DVB and DVC while an application for confidentiality orders remains pending.

Along with freezing the crypto, the court ordered the defendant to disclose where the disputed assets and their proceeds were being held. The judges declined, however, to give the platform group advance permission to use that disclosure to seek similar injunctions in other jurisdictions, leaving it free to apply for permission later if required.

Singapore court dispute traces back to unsupported wallets

At the centre of the case are two specialised wallets that once contained 2,500 BTC and 2,500 Bitcoin Cash. According to the judgment, the wallets were designed as a self-custody product that required security credentials, including a user key held solely by the customer.

Support for the wallet product ended in April 2018, although customers could continue accessing the wallets for a period through an unsupported open-source tool. In March 2020, the entire 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH balance was transferred away from the specialised wallets, leaving them effectively empty.

The platform group alleged that a technical problem prevented those withdrawals from being recorded correctly on its internal ledgers. Because the ledger continued to show the assets as remaining in the specialised wallets, the companies operated for several years on the assumption that the customer was still entitled to the balances.

A relationship manager later tried to help the customer recover what the platform believed were assets trapped in the discontinued wallet product. Acting on its ledger records, the platform transferred another 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH into other accounts belonging to the customer in July 2024.

The claimants say those digital assets came from their own holdings inside the platform group’s omnibus wallets and were transferred solely because of the mistaken balance shown on the internal system. The customer disputes that account and has maintained that the assets transferred to him were rightfully his.

Mistaken crypto transfers have previously resulted in lengthy recovery disputes. In 2022, crypto.news reported on a Crypto.com transfer error in which the exchange mistakenly sent an Australian customer about $10.5 million instead of a $100 refund and discovered the error months later during an audit.

Customer moved 780 BTC and converted another 20 BTC to USDC

After receiving the July 2024 transfers, the defendant began moving part of the crypto away from the platform.

Court records show that on July 13, 2024, the customer converted 20 BTC into about 816,773 USDC and transferred the stablecoins to an unhosted wallet. Five withdrawals between July 17 and Nov. 10 moved another 380 BTC to a separate unhosted address.

A further 200 BTC was transferred on Nov. 24, followed by another 200 BTC on Jan. 7, 2025, bringing the amount sent to a third external wallet to 400 BTC. Some 150 BTC from that wallet was later transferred elsewhere in February 2026, according to evidence submitted by the claimants.

The companies also told the court that subsequent transactions involving the 380 BTC and 816,773 USDC made their current locations difficult to determine. The defendant did not dispute making the transactions but maintained that he had been dealing with crypto that belonged to him.

By the time the platform acted, 1,700 BTC and the full 2,500 BCH transferred in July 2024 remained in the customer’s accounts. The companies froze those wallets on Jan. 29, 2025, and re-credited the remaining assets to themselves in an attempt to reverse part of the earlier transfer.

The platform group subsequently sought the return of the 780 BTC and 816,773 USDC that had already left its system, but the customer refused. The companies valued the assets at roughly S$75 million at the time of the injunction hearing.

Platform alleges unjust enrichment and constructive trust

Proceedings were initially filed in the General Division of Singapore’s High Court in November 2025 before being transferred by consent to the SICC.

The claimants’ 62-page statement of claim contains four causes of action, including unjust enrichment, a proprietary claim, deceit or negligent misrepresentation, and an alleged breach of the contractual provisions governing the platform’s services. They are also seeking a declaration that the defendant holds the disputed assets on constructive trust for one of the claimant companies and must return them.

According to the claimants, the July 2024 transfers resulted from their incorrect understanding of the old wallet balances, while the customer allegedly knew about the mistake and took advantage of it.

The defendant has rejected that version of events. He told the court that he did not remember making the March 2020 transfers, although he accepted that blockchain records show the transfers occurred, and argued that the platform’s own admission of faulty internal ledger records weakened its claim that the assets transferred in 2024 belonged to the companies.

He also argued that the transferred crypto could have represented his own assets held elsewhere on the platform or assets belonging to other customers. Having maintained extensive crypto holdings and activity, the defendant said he relied on the platform to keep track of what he held and believed that the July 2024 assets belonged to him.

The customer has counterclaimed for the assets that remain frozen on the platform or compensation of equivalent value, while denying that he knew the companies had made any mistake.

Singapore courts have dealt with several high-value crypto disputes involving exchange operators over the past year. Earlier in August, Binance and RedotPay gave conflicting accounts over the status of a separate Singapore proceeding tied to claims worth nearly $473 million.

Singapore’s courts have also played a role in handling distressed crypto businesses, including proceedings involving WazirX’s Singapore-based parent Zettai, whose restructuring proposal returned to court after receiving 95.7% creditor support in August 2025.

Judges find serious ownership question to be tried

For the interim stage of the case, the three-judge panel found enough evidence to establish a serious question over whether the platform companies retained a proprietary interest in some or all of the disputed assets.

The court said it was arguable that the specialised wallet balances were effectively zero before the July 2024 credits and that the platform transferred 2,500 BTC and 2,500 BCH because its internal records incorrectly showed the earlier holdings as still present.

Judges also found an arguable case that the customer knew about the platform’s mistake either when the transfers were made or, at the latest, after the platform discovered the issue and contacted him in 2025. Under that scenario, the court said an argument could be made that identifiable assets and traceable proceeds were held on constructive trust for the claimants.

On whether an injunction was necessary, the court considered the risk that the companies could win at trial but still be unable to recover the crypto if the assets were moved or dissipated.

The judges noted evidence that the defendant had used part of the disputed assets as security for a loan to cover legal costs and had not provided updated evidence about his financial position or current asset holdings. The court found sufficient doubt over his ability to satisfy a substantial judgment if the companies eventually succeeded.

At the same time, the platform group gave the court an undertaking to compensate the customer for losses caused by the injunction if it later turns out that the order should not have been granted.

The disclosure order requires the defendant to identify the whereabouts of assets covered by the injunction, including relevant crypto controlled through third parties acting under his direct or indirect instructions. The SICC left both sides free to return to court, including if the claimants later seek permission to use the disclosed information in civil proceedings outside Singapore.

Visa is reportedly seeking a new stablecoin settlement and over the counter partner after Mastercard acquired BVNK, which previously filled that role.

The confidential request for product seeks a provider with cryptocurrency exchange licenses in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Singapore, according to a report published on August 18.

The documents reportedly call for support across several stablecoins, including the ability to conduct swaps and provide settlement services. The selected company would also help process transactions involving Open USD.

Visa declined to comment on the reported process. It has not publicly confirmed the request, named any candidates or disclosed a selection timetable.

Visa wants one partner across four regulated markets

The reported licensing requirements give the search a clear U.S. angle. A successful candidate would need regulatory coverage spanning four major financial markets rather than operating through a patchwork of regional partners.

According to the report, Visa has narrowed its attention to one settlement and over the counter provider. Its identity remains undisclosed. No evidence currently shows that Visa has made a final selection or entered a binding agreement.

The required services would extend beyond basic token transfers. The documents reportedly seek a company capable of converting between stablecoins, supplying institutional liquidity and handling settlement across different jurisdictions.

These requirements could limit the field to infrastructure providers with established licensing, banking relationships and liquidity operations. They also suggest Visa wants one coordinated service rather than separate arrangements in each country.

Mastercard’s BVNK acquisition created the reported gap

Mastercard completed its acquisition of BVNK on August 3. The payments company said BVNK would strengthen its infrastructure for stablecoin payments, settlements, payouts and treasury operations.

The transaction was announced in March at a value of up to $1.8 billion. BVNK said at the time that its infrastructure processed about $30 billion in annual payment volume.

As previously reported, Mastercard completed its BVNK acquisition after obtaining the necessary approvals. The change in ownership placed BVNK under one of Visa’s largest competitors.

BVNK had served as Visa’s stablecoin settlement partner. Neither Visa nor BVNK has publicly explained how Mastercard’s acquisition affected that earlier commercial relationship.

Visa already operates other stablecoin programs

Visa announced a separate partnership with ZeroHash on August 5. That arrangement allows eligible Visa Direct clients to fund accounts and send payouts through stablecoins.

However, the reported request was dated after the ZeroHash announcement. It also covered markets where ZeroHash reportedly does not hold the licenses sought by Visa. The new search therefore appears to address a broader geographic and operational need.

Visa has also introduced the Visa Stablecoin Platform. The company said in a July release that the platform would help institutions access, store, issue, redeem and transfer stablecoins.

Open USD is its initial supported asset. In related coverage, Visa launched its Open USD platform with selected clients participating in beta testing.

The selection process has no public deadline

Visa has not disclosed when it plans to choose a provider or begin expanded settlement services. Any agreement would likely depend on licensing checks, technical integration and commercial negotiations.

The reported partner would also need to connect with Open USD, which is backed by a consortium that includes Visa, Mastercard and Coinbase. More than 140 companies were associated with the initiative when it was announced.

As crypto.news reported, Visa supports a multiple coin strategy rather than treating Open USD as a replacement for USDT or USDC. That position fits the reported requirement for a partner capable of handling several stablecoins.

Until Visa confirms the request or names a provider, the RFP and its requirements remain attributed to the documents reviewed by CoinDesk.

Asset manager Neuberger has partnered with Securitize to launch its first tokenized fixed-income fund, a move aimed at bringing actively managed credit exposure to investors through tokenized shares. The Neuberger Securitize High Income Tokenized Fund (HINC) will target high-yield bonds and also include collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) and leveraged loans, according to an announcement Tuesday.

Unlike many recent tokenized products that have leaned heavily toward simpler exposures, the fund is explicitly positioned as an “actively managed high-yield strategy.” It arrives at a time when investors appear increasingly willing to pay attention to yield again as competition for funding continues and the cost of capital becomes more relevant to portfolio construction.

Key takeaways

• Neuberger and Securitize launched the Neuberger Securitize High Income Tokenized Fund (HINC), their first tokenized fixed-income offering together.
• The fund focuses primarily on high-yield bonds, with additional exposure to CLOs and leveraged loans.
• The tokenized shares will be issued and managed across four blockchain networks: Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, and Sui.
• Neuberger will act as subadvisor to the tokenized fund for the first time, marking a step into tokenized credit via Securitize infrastructure.
• Securitize reports nearly $5 billion in distributed asset value across 26 tokenized real-world assets, according to RWA.xyz data.

Why this credit-focused tokenized fund matters

Tokenization has been expanding across real-world assets, but fixed-income products have varied widely in structure—some offer straightforward exposure, while others attempt to replicate more traditional asset management approaches. HINC’s emphasis on high-yield credit and active management signals an attempt to meet investor demand where it is currently most acute: higher yields amid a macro backdrop in which capital is no longer assumed to be cheap.

Commenting on the broader shift in market assumptions, Saxo chief investment strategist Charu Chanana said in a Tuesday client note that “the previous market regime rewarded investors for assuming that capital would remain cheap and plentiful.” He added that the “emerging regime may reward investors for recognising that capital has a price again,” a framing consistent with why many fixed-income strategies are seeing renewed attention.

How the fund is structured and where tokens will live

According to the announcement, HINC will primarily invest in high-yield bonds. It also plans to hold additional positions in collateralized loan obligations and leveraged loans, giving the strategy multiple credit channels rather than relying on a single security type.

Securitize will provide the infrastructure to issue and manage tokenized shares on four blockchain networks: Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), Avalanche (AVAX), and Sui (SUI). By spreading issuance across multiple networks, the offering could be positioned to reach different liquidity and access ecosystems—though the practical impact for investors will depend on how each network is supported by wallets, custody arrangements, and market access mechanisms.

The fund is available to qualified investors, in line with the regulated nature of most tokenized securities offerings.

Neuberger’s role and Securitize’s scaling track record

The collaboration is notable not only for its asset class but for the roles involved. The filing describes Neuberger serving as subadvisor to a tokenized fund for the first time, while Securitize handles the tokenization layer—issuing and managing tokenized shares using its platform.

Neuberger brings substantial balance-sheet scale in traditional asset management terms. The announcement states that Neuberger’s fixed-income platform manages more than $230 billion in assets, and that the firm manages about $613 billion overall.

Securitize’s own progress in tokenization infrastructure is also part of the story. RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement puts Securitize at about $4.96 billion in distributed asset value across 26 tokenized real-world assets. The company’s catalog includes BlackRock’s $2.7 billion BUIDL fund, a $355 million tokenized AAA CLO fund, and a $95 million Apollo diversified credit fund—examples that show why a credit-focused launch fits neatly into Securitize’s current product direction.

Market reaction to the launch

Securitize shares rose around 5% in Tuesday morning trading, according to the linked quote on Yahoo Finance (ticker: SECZ). That move brought the company’s market capitalization to roughly $838 million.

Even with the day’s gain, the stock remains significantly below earlier post-IPO levels: the article states Securitize is still down more than 50% from levels reached shortly after its public debut in July. For investors, this matters because it highlights the tension between long-term expectations for tokenization growth and the near-term market’s scrutiny of execution, adoption, and revenue conversion.

The same dynamic often plays out across the tokenized real-world asset space: platforms that build infrastructure can attract interest even before large flows arrive, while traditional markets continue to weigh tangible uptake and scale in a risk-conscious environment.

For now, the key question around HINC is how quickly tokenized fixed-income demand translates into meaningful allocations from qualified investors across the four supported blockchains—particularly as the strategy blends high-yield bonds with CLOs and leveraged loans. Readers should watch for details on distribution mechanics, investor access, and whether this actively managed credit model attracts sustained inflows as “capital has a price again” becomes the prevailing portfolio assumption.