Crypto.com Sues Woman After Sending Her $10M by Mistake | Hacker News Reader

Crypto.com Sues Woman After Sending Her $10M by Mistake

decrypt.co

10 pointstommoor15 comments

The irony is that if crypto.com had mistakenly sent $10M of a cryptocurrency they would have no hope of getting it back.

Technically, courts can still force one to send crypto back. If I steal $1000 (cash) from someone, the courts don't tell the other party, "well, it's cash, so tough luck". They, instead, will order me to give back the $1000 (possibly plus damages), and, if I refuse, hold me in contempt. The same can be done here; They can force Manivel to send the $10.5M back with the threat of jail time. Which is exactly what happened:

> ... Victoria's Supreme Court has ordered the home to be sold and the money returned, according to the report.

Crypto doesn't change reversibility because it's not above the law; it just makes it a lot harder. I will admit that I'm quibbling over semantics, though.

Really, crypto is like stuffing cash into a safe (your "wallet"). The wallet is just so secure that no locksmith can help you should you lose your (private) key. If I'm fleeced out of some money by a crypto scam, I have almost no hope of getting it back unless I know who the scammer is; Just like if I were to be mugged out the same amount of cash.

How is it stealing if someone drops an envelope with $1000 cash in your mailbox?

Not arguing that crypto.com has no right to the money, but stealing is very different from being the wrong recipient of a transaction/delivery.

If you keep it after you know it's not legally yours, you're stealing.

The part I'm having issues with is "taking", which is e.g. in the Merriam-Webster definition of "steal".

If someone hands/gifts you something you're still taking it (which would match that), maybe I was more thinking along the lines of robbing.

Um, no.

The crazy part of the story for me is that it apparently took crypto.com five months to notice that they sent her $10.5 million instead of the expected $100 refund! My god how could there be so little guardrails in place to not notice that immediately?

I love these kinds of stories, and almost always hope that the mistaken receipient gets to keep all or at least a nice chunk of the accidental windfall.

What's the likely outcome in this case?

When you accidentally transfer money to the wrong account, the bank shrugs and says there is nothing they can do. Go figure.

I assume that’s what crypto.com’s bank did (shrug), and that’s why crypto.com have to sue to get their money back.

I don’t see any irony about the bank’s behavior here. In this specific case, the bank appears to be acting consistently.

She probably thought she had gotten rich through crypto. Doesn't everybody?

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.

I 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.

it 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.

Code was not law after all :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com