3 ms·
tl;dr Crypto.com, which is a Singapore-based exchange, mistakenly sent $10.5 million when Thevamanogari Manivel asked for a $100 refund back in May 2021. But
by isaacfrond 4y ago
tl;dr
Crypto.com, which is a Singapore-based exchange, mistakenly sent $10.5 million when Thevamanogari Manivel asked for a $100 refund back in May 2021.
But instead of notifying Crypto.com of the mistake, Manivel and her sister Thilagavathy Gangadory allegedly went shopping—with Manivel buying a $1.35 million five-bedroom home as a gift.
The company has since taken legal action and Victoria’s Supreme Court has ordered the home to be sold and the money returned, according to the report.
- tehlike 4y agoCode was not law after all :)
- gandalfgreybeer 4y agoI sort of agree with the money being returned ethically. But isn’t one of the points of crypto decentralization and deregulation and at that point, courts shouldn’t really have jurisdiction? Please correct me if I’m wrong since I am not really interested in digging into crypto beyond high level details.
- glofish 4y agoit has absolutely nothing to do with ethics, decentralization, deregulation or crypto. it is about correcting an error (an obvious and clear cut one at that). Getting a wire by error from another bank would fall under the exact same guidance. had the error gone the other way around, instead of 100 she would have gotten only 1 dollar back as refund because someone mistyped a number, she and everyone else would have argued that the error should be rectified promptly, no? In cases like this it is exceedingly important to note whether the error was obvious or not at the recipient's side. It determines whether the receiving party is acting with malice or not. By spending money knowingly that is not yours you are commiting a crime.