Crypto.com Sends $10.5m To Melbourne Woman
Notice: This page is a freshly imported case study from the original repository. The original content was in a different format, and may not have relevant information for all sections. Please help restructure the content by moving information from the 'About' section to other sections, and add any missing information or sources you can find. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.
Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!
Crypto.com accidentally transferred $10.5m to a woman in Australia. An employee reportedly messed up the account number and the amount to be transferred. 7 months later the platform realized the error and tried to pursue recovery.
This exchange or platform is based in Australia, or the incident targeted people primarily in Australia.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
About Crypto.com
"Cryptocurrency trading platform Crypto.com accidentally transferred $10.5m to an Australian woman when processing a $100 refund, and failed to notice the error for seven months."
"Crypto.com, which operates as Foris GFS in Australia, had paid out $10.5m instead of a $100 refund after Manivel’s account number was accidentally entered into the payment amount field."
"The recipient, Thevamanogari Manivel, didn’t notify Crypto.com, instead allegedly transferring funds to bank accounts held by her and her family. Crypto.com claims Manivel used the money to buy her sister a modern million-dollar house, complete with a home gym and theater."
"The company launched legal action in the Victorian supreme court this year, and in February was granted a freeze on Manivel’s Commonwealth Bank account, but most of the money had been transferred to other accounts – which were later frozen."
"Last Friday[ August 26th, 2022], Justice James Elliott, a judge for the Victorian Supreme Court in Australia, issued a default judgment in the case. This became necessary because, as Crypto.com alleged in the court document, Manivel and other named defendants, including her sister Thilagavathy Gangadory, failed to respond to a court summons."
"The court heard that $1.35m of the money had been used to buy a four-bedroom home in Craigieburn in Melbourne’s north in February, and the ownership of the property was then transferred into the name of Manivel’s sister, Thilagavathy Gangadory, who lives in Malaysia."
"Attempts to serve Gangadory the freezing orders were unsuccessful, as she never responded to emails from Crypto.com’s solicitors. The only communication provided to the court was an email reply to Manivel’s solicitors saying “received, thank you”."
"Neither Manivel nor Gangadory could be reached by Ars or other outlets for comment. A Crypto.com spokesperson told Ars, “As the matter is before the courts, we are unable to comment.”"
This exchange or platform is based in Australia, or the incident targeted people primarily in Australia.
The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.
Include:
- Known history of when and how the service was started.
- What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
- What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
- Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
- Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
- How were people recruited to participate?
- Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.
Don't Include:
- Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
- Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.
There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.
The Reality
This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:
- When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
- Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
- How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
- Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.
What Happened
The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| August 30th, 2022 | News Coverage | Various news articles come out on the situation. |
Technical Details
This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?
Total Amount Lost
The total amount lost has been estimated at $10,500,000 USD.
How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?
Immediate Reactions
How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?
Ultimate Outcome
What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?
Total Amount Recovered
The total amount recovered is unknown.
What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?
Ongoing Developments
What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?
Individual Prevention Policies
No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.
Platform Prevention Policies
Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.
Regulatory Prevention Policies
No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.
References
- ↑ Crypto.com accidentally transfers $10.5m to woman (Sep 27, 2022)
- ↑ peanutbuttergoodness comments on Crypto.com accidentally transfers $10.5m to woman instead of $100 (Apr 22, 2023)
- ↑ Crypto.com's $10,000,000 MISTAKE - YouTube (Apr 22, 2023)
- ↑ Cryptocurrency company accidentally transfers $10.5m to Australian woman and doesn’t notice for seven months | Cryptocurrencies | The Guardian (Apr 22, 2023)
- ↑ Crypto firm accidentally gave $10.5M to sisters, now wants their $1.35M house | Ars Technica (Apr 22, 2023)
- ↑ Crypto.com Sues User After Refunding $10M Instead of $100 - Blockworks (Apr 22, 2023)
- ↑ Crypto.Com Sues A Woman In Australia After Accidentally Issuing Her A Refund of $10M Instead Of $100 - Ethereum World News (Apr 22, 2023)
- ↑ Crypto.com accidentally transfers $10.5m to woman instead of $100 : CryptoCurrency (Apr 22, 2023)