How Jatinder Singh's Crypto Windfall Became a Criminal Case: A $6.8M Crypto.com Mishap

In one of Australia’s most unusual cryptocurrency fraud cases, Jatinder Singh faces potential jail time for what began as an administrative error from Crypto.com. The saga reveals how a simple clerical mistake spiraled into a major legal battle—and raises pressing questions about responsibility when massive sums of digital currency change hands by accident.

The Accidental Windfall: When a $100 Refund Turned Into $10.47 Million

In May 2021, what should have been a routine transaction became anything but ordinary. Jatinder Singh and his partner, Thevamanogari Manivel, were entitled to receive a 100 Australian dollar refund from Crypto.com, the major digital asset platform operated by Foris DAX Asia (a Singapore-based subsidiary of Foris DAX MT Limited). Instead of the modest refund, the couple’s account received 10.47 million Australian dollars—approximately $6.86 million USD—due to an internal processing error.

At the time, Crypto.com boasted millions of users and handled billions in transactions, making such errors theoretically rare. Yet somehow, this substantial sum landed in Singh’s account without immediate detection. Rather than alerting the platform to the mistake, Singh made a fateful decision: he would keep the money.

A Lavish Spending Spree and the Seven-Month Discovery Gap

What followed was a remarkable display of spending. Singh claimed he believed the windfall was legitimate—perhaps the result of winning an online lottery or some other stroke of fortune. With that belief (or so he claimed), he embarked on a purchasing frenzy. He acquired multiple residential properties, gifted a friend 1 million Australian dollars, and transferred portions of the funds internationally.

Months passed without incident. It wasn’t until December 2021—seven months after the erroneous transfer—that Crypto.com’s internal audit finally uncovered the error. By then, the damage was substantial. While investigators would eventually recover approximately 4.9 million Australian dollars, a significant chunk had already been spent or moved beyond easy reach. Singh’s partner, Manivel, later pleaded guilty to retaining proceeds of crime and received a seven-month prison sentence (already served) plus eighteen months of community corrections.

The Legal Confrontation: Prosecution Demands Accountability

Fast forward to mid-2024, and the case reached Australian courts. The Crown’s position, articulated by prosecutor Campbell Thomson, was unambiguous: this was no mere “crime of opportunity,” but rather a serious offense warranting incarceration. Thomson argued that the sheer magnitude of the misappropriated funds—and Singh’s deliberate failure to report the error—justified jail time as a proportionate punishment. He suggested that even accounting for time already spent in custody awaiting trial, a custodial sentence remained appropriate.

Singh’s legal team painted a different picture. His lawyer, Martin Kozlowski, urged the court toward leniency, emphasizing that Singh may not have fully understood the gravity of receiving such an enormous sum from a multinational corporation. Kozlowski also highlighted a mitigating factor: Crypto.com itself took months to discover its own error, suggesting the platform bore some responsibility for the situation. “It must be taken into account the funds here came from a multinational that didn’t even know the funds were gone until an audit sometime later,” Kozlowski contended.

Prosecutors countered by pointing out that Singh appeared to be a flight risk—only a fraction of the misappropriated amount had been recovered, and evidence suggested Singh had deliberately moved portions of the money abroad to conceal it.

The Broader Picture: Crypto Crime and Money Laundering in Australia

The Singh case arrives amid a wider troubling trend. Australia has witnessed a marked uptick in cryptocurrency-related criminal activity. In July 2024, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)—the nation’s premier financial intelligence agency—released a comprehensive national risk assessment flagging that criminals increasingly exploit cryptocurrency and related financial services to launder proceeds from crime and finance illicit activities.

The case underscores vulnerabilities in how digital asset platforms detect and respond to anomalies, as well as the legal system’s struggle to address novel scenarios where substantial sums exchange hands through technological mishap. Whether Singh receives a custodial sentence, the outcome will likely reverberate through Australian cryptocurrency circles and regulatory bodies as they continue hardening defenses against both accidental and intentional financial crimes.