When Do You Need a Cryptocurrency Lawyer in Singapore?

Last updated on September 23, 2026

Cryptocurrency investing is usually described in terms of market risk and how far a token’s price might swing. However, crypto investments can involve more than the issue of market volatility. Investors might sign a complex investment agreement without fully understanding its terms, put money into a project or exchange whose legal status turns out to be uncertain, lose control over a wallet through a dispute with a business partner, or hand assets to a platform that later becomes insolvent.

Underlying much of this is a popular saying in the crypto community: “not your keys, not your coins”. The idea is that whoever holds the private key to a wallet effectively controls and “owns” whatever cryptocurrency sits in it. Singapore’s courts have increasingly had to work through the difficult question of who has the legally enforceable right to a cryptoasset, because it is not always the same person as whoever technically controls the wallet.

For everyday purchases of major cryptocurrencies through a regulated exchange, most investors will never need to consult a lawyer. The picture changes when an investment becomes larger, more complex, or more novel, such as when there is a private token sale or a new allocation to a project that the investor does not fully understand.

This article looks at four broad situations in which a Singapore-based crypto investor may benefit from legal advice:

It also explores how Singapore’s courts have approached the ownership, custody, control and location of cryptoassets.

When Should Crypto Investors Get Legal Advice?

1. Before making an investment

The best time to involve a lawyer is usually before committing funds, especially for private or non-standard token investments such as a pre-sale or a private placement. At this stage, a lawyer’s role is largely one of legal due diligence – verifying who the investor is actually dealing with, and what they can lawfully do.

Due diligence involves the following:

Identifying the legal entity and individuals behind the project. Crypto projects are often marketed under a brand name which may or may not correspond to a real legal entity that can be held accountable. A lawyer will attempt to trace the actual entity issuing the token or operating the platform, and where possible, may identify the individuals who control it.
Reviewing the project’s corporate structure and ownership. This includes how the issuing entity is owned and controlled, whether it forms part of a wider group (and if so, which entity an investor has rights against should a dispute arise), and whether the structure involves any conflicts of interest.
Considering the legal and regulatory status of the activity. Businesses carrying out certain crypto-related activities in Singapore require a licence. Under the Payment Services Act, dealing in digital payment tokens or facilitating their exchange is a regulated payment service requiring a Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) licence. In fact, from 30 June 2025, Digital Token Service Providers who provide services solely to customers outside of Singapore will need to be licensed. However, the MAS has clarified that it will generally not license such providers due to high money laundering risks, meaning that cryptocurrency exchanges that only serve foreigners may be unable to continue to do so from a Singapore base. A crypto lawyer can help investors determine whether a service provider is licensed to carry out crypto-related activities in Singapore before deciding where to invest their funds.
Identifying contractual, jurisdictional and enforcement risks. It would be diligent to consider where the counterparty is incorporated, which law governs the agreement, whom the investor would have to sue in case of a dispute, and if any resulting judgment is enforceable against the counterparty’s assets. For example, a counterparty may be incorporated in Spain but have its assets in a Swiss bank. If the agreement is governed by Spanish law, it is likely the investor would have to bring a suit in Spain if things go awry. Once a judgment is obtained, the investor may have to enforce the judgment in Switzerland where the company’s assets are located.

Legal due diligence complements, rather than replaces, financial and technical due diligence. It is not concerned about the economics behind an investment but, rather, addresses the question of whether the investor has actual enforceable rights against an entity that the investor can practically secure his legal rights against if things do not go as planned.

2. While reviewing a crypto investment contract

Before entering into a crypto investment agreement, it is strongly recommended that a lawyer first review the terms of what has been proposed. An investor should never sign a contract without first understanding exactly what legal rights it gives them. In particular, what right they are buying in the agreement, such as a right to receive tokens or receiving an equity-like interest that will vest at a later date.

Crypto investment documentation can take different forms such as a token purchase agreement, a simple agreement for future tokens (SAFT), a platform’s terms of service, or a fund’s subscription documents. In these documents, lawyers will look out for important clauses such as:

Custody and title to the tokens
Risk disclosure and exclusion clauses
Lock-up periods
Unilateral variation or cancellation rights
Dispute resolution and governing law
Limitation of liability that affects an investor’s position if something goes wrong

If a certain clause carries a risk to the investor, the lawyer should explain the risks involved and negotiate a fairer version of the clause with the counterparty. For example, the agreement might include a unilateral variation or cancellation clause stating:

“[The platform] may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without prior notice, cancel, reverse, adjust or void any transaction if the transaction arose from an error.”

Such a clause is concerning because it means that an investor may not be certain a trade is truly final and that the profits can be collected. The term “error” is also unclear – the error might stem from the platform’s own negligent system design or maintenance fault. To counter these issues, the investor’s lawyer could negotiate for a time limit (such as 48 hours) within which the platform can exercise this right and a requirement that the platform gives reasons before doing so. The investor would also benefit from a caveat in the clause stating that the right can only be exercised if the error did not originate from the platform’s own negligence.

An investment agreement contains many clauses that might need careful review. This is why a lawyer is needed to highlight areas of risk and negotiate with the counterparty to come to an agreement on terms that provide greater clarity and fairer protection for both parties.

3. When something goes wrong after investing

Even a well-documented investment with the required due diligence conducted can go wrong. Common situations in which investors turn to a lawyer include:

Suspected fraud or misrepresentation by the counterparty, where, for instance, the counterparty lied to an investor about its credibility to induce the investor to transfer funds. In such a case, a lawyer can help the investor with preserving evidence and bringing a civil claim against the counterparty.
Unauthorised transfers out of a wallet, such as when an exchange transfers tokens out of an investor’s account without the investor’s consent. Here, a lawyer could help with seeking a freezing or proprietary injunction to stop further dissipation of the funds, disclosure orders to find out where the funds went, and a claim against the exchange for breach of contract.
A counterparty refusing to return or release cryptoassets even though this was previously agreed upon. A lawyer could help with reviewing the investment agreement to establish the counterparty’s obligations and a potential breach of the investment agreement, before sending a formal demand for the cryptoassets.
An exchange, custodian or project going insolvent, which means that the entity cannot be sued and the remaining assets of the entity will be disseminated according to insolvency rules. In 2023, digital payment token service providers have been required by MAS to segregate customers’ assets from their own and explicitly hold those assets on a statutory trust for their customers to facilitate recovery in case the provider goes insolvent. Here, a lawyer could help with establishing where the investor stands in the counterparty’s pool of creditors and file a proof of claim in a timely manner.
Disputes over who actually owns, or has a beneficial interest in, particular cryptoassets. For example, in the case of Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 (discussed in further detail below), a pertinent issue at hand was whether the exchange actually held cryptocurrency on trust for B2C2. It was ultimately held in the case that there was no trust created. A lawyer would help with reviewing the surrounding facts and the platform’s terms and conditions to determine if a trust has been established and an investor can claim for a specific cryptoasset.

4. Disputes over who actually owns cryptoassets

In the case where there is a dispute over who actually owns the crypto in question, it is important to highlight that there is a difference between technical control – who can operate a wallet or use a private key to access cryptoassets, and legal ownership – who has the legally enforceable rights to the assets.

Cryptoassets are typically held in either one of two ways:

Through a wallet, where the investor personally controls the private key to a wallet; or
Through an exchange account, where the balance shown to the investor is only a record of what is owed to the investor by the exchange, and the investor does not have direct legal ownership over the cryptoassets.

Accordingly, if an investor does not have direct legal ownership over the cryptoassets, they may still be able to lay claim to the cryptocurrency if they are able to show that they have an equitable claim over the cryptoassets. Equitable claims rely on legal concepts such as trusts and equitable contractual theories. This has been long established in the cases of bank accounts, where money stolen from bank accounts can be traced in equity.

The distinction between control and legal ownership is important because just because someone has control over cryptoassets does not mean they have legal ownership of the crypto. Singapore courts have only recently held that cryptoassets can in fact be considered property and held on trust for others in the landmark decision of ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin.

In the case, Ho was a cryptocurrency exchange’s employee who had control over the exchange’s Tether stablecoin (USDT) and funds as part of her job description. She misappropriated USDT and fiat currency from the exchange and transferred it into her wallets she secretly controlled. The High Court ruled that even though she had control over the USDT and money, the USDT and funds were actually held by Ho in trust for the exchange while she was handling them, so Ho should pay back to the exchange the USDT and money she unlawfully transferred to herself.

Most people who control their own wallet are also its legal owner. However, there are common situations where they diverge, and an investor’s cryptoassets end up controlled by someone other than themselves. Take, for instance:

Custodial arrangements, where another person or entity holds assets on an investor’s behalf
Trustees or agents who hold cryptoassets in a fiduciary capacity for a beneficiary or principal
Company wallets, where corporate assets are held in a wallet whose keys are controlled by people connected to a company rather than by the company as a legal entity
Employees or business partners holding keys on behalf of an employer, such as in the case of ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin
Exchange accounts, where the balance shown to a user is a record of what the exchange owes them and not what the user directly controls

“Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins” – Is This Maxim Legally Accurate in Singapore’s Context?

Cases in Singapore suggest that “not your keys, not your coins” is simply a rule of thumb about practical risk rather than an accurate description of Singapore law. Singapore’s courts have shown an encouraging willingness to use trusts, proprietary injunctions and constructive trusts generally in the investor’s favour.

Considering treating cryptocurrency as property

In 2020, the case of Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd arose before the courts. Quoine operated a cryptocurrency exchange that B2C2 was trading on. In the case, a software error had let B2C2 execute several trades at 250 times the prevailing market rate, which, when Quoine noticed, it unilaterally reversed the trades. B2C2 filed a suit, arguing that the reversal breached a trust over the cryptocurrency.

The Singapore Court of Appeal ultimately did not decide whether cryptocurrency is capable of being held on trust, as the facts of the case were inconsistent with any intention to create a trust. However, it observed that there was a possibility of cryptocurrency giving rise to property rights.

Actually treating cryptocurrency as property

The question of the exact nature of cryptocurrency was answered in the 2022 case of CLM v CLN, where a claimant’s cryptocurrency wallets were compromised, leading to the theft of millions of BTC and ETH. Some of the compromised wallets were traced to exchanges operating in Singapore. The Singapore High Court held that cryptocurrency is capable of giving rise to proprietary rights and granted a proprietary injunction and a worldwide freezing injunction against the unknown thieves.

Treating cryptocurrency as property that was held on constructive trust

By 2024, ByBit v Ho Kai Xin (the misappropriation case summarised above) had confirmed that USDT can be considered property held on a constructive trust for the claimant employer. A constructive trust is said to be created and identifies a true beneficial owner of property even where there was no explicit intention to create a trust. In this case, even though there was no explicit creation of a trust, it can be said that Ho, the employer, only held the cryptoassets on constructive trust on behalf of the true beneficial owner, the employer ByBit.

Where a cryptoasset is legally located and the concept of its “situs”

Most recently, the courts have had to determine where a cryptoasset is legally located – its “situs” – a question that matters for jurisdiction and enforcement. In Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd, the High Court held that a cryptoasset’s situs is best determined by the residence of whoever controls the private key to the relevant wallet (where they live currently), rather than the owner’s domicile (permanent legal home). This is, because, the court opined, the residence of a person is a better indicator of whether the control is being exercised, and it is more difficult to identify a person’s domicile.

How a cryptocurrency lawyer can help with claims

A cryptocurrency lawyer can help assess the facts of your case and determine if there is a civil claim available based on your situation. Depending on the nature of your dispute, there can be different causes of action that you can pursue that a lawyer can discuss with you. For instance, where an employee or someone with authorised access to your cryptoassets has misappropriated the assets, a claim may lie in breach of trust or constructive trust. Claims may also arise out of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, or unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment is a legal claim that prevents a person from keeping a benefit (such as cryptocurrency) that was unfairly received at another person’s expense.

The paperwork involved in such an endeavour can be expected to pile up, so a lawyer can also organise the evidence to be submitted in your claim. The lawyer will be able to point out to you what is the most important evidence to be used in your case and what kind of information to preserve immediately before the trail goes cold.

Given the borderless nature of blockchain transactions, it is common for wrongdoers or misappropriated assets to be located overseas. Unfortunately, this makes recovery significantly more difficult. Even so, a lawyer can help improve the odds of recovery in cross-border cases by coordinating cross-border tracing, linking up with forensic accountants and applying for disclosure orders against exchanges to identify wrongdoers. Where fraud is suspected, it is also worth filing a police report – the Singapore Police Force may cooperate with foreign law enforcement even as your civil case is ongoing.

—

A Singapore-based crypto investor may benefit from legal advice in several situations:

Before investing: to conduct legal due diligence and identify potential risks
Before signing: to understand investment, custody and contractual rights
After a dispute or suspecting fraud: to assess potential claims and remedies
Where ownership or custody is disputed: to understand the legal significance of wallet and private-key control

“Not your keys, not your coins” is a useful practical principle, but private-key control and legal ownership are not necessarily the same thing. The extent of this distinction is where a lawyer’s advice matters the most.

As cryptocurrency law continues to evolve through new MAS regulation and developing case law, advice that was accurate a year ago may no longer be relevant. Investors facing a significant transaction or dispute should consider obtaining up-to-date advice from a cryptocurrency lawyer with relevant commercial and/or dispute-resolution experience.