The case of William Lim Tien Hou v Ling Kok Hua [2023] SGHC 18: Dealing with competing claims over property which is the subject matter of fraud 案件：如何处理涉及欺诈的财产的竞争索赔（新加坡近期案例分析）

In the recent case of William Lim Tien Hou v Ling Kok Hua [2023] SGHC 18, a scammer gained access to a compromised Facebook account belonging to the respondent’s former colleague and convinced the respondent to help with purchasing Bitcoin from the appellant. The scammer duped the respondent into making two transactions of $1 each to a bank account belonging to the appellant, but later altered the sum of one of the transactions from $1 to $10,000. Eventually, the appellant received a total of $10,001 (the “Money”) from the respondent, believing that such amount constituted payment for the Bitcoin he sold via an online trading platform to a third party.
在最近的 William Lim Tien Hou v Ling Kok Hua [2023] SGHC 18 的新加坡案件中，一名诈骗者盗用了属于被上诉人的前同事的Facebook（脸书）帐户，并用其盗用的身份说服被上诉人协助其向上诉人购买比特币。诈骗者要求被上诉人对上诉人的银行账户进行转账汇款，被上诉人在不知情的状况下确实根据诈骗者的要求将两笔 小额款项（每笔1新元）汇入上诉人的银行账户。之后，诈骗者将其中一笔交易的金额从 $1篡改成 $10,000。最终，上诉人在其银行账户里收到来自被上诉人汇入的总计 $10,001的款项（“相关争议款项”），并且上诉人相信相关争议款项确实是自己通过在线交易平台向第三方出售比特币所应当获得的对价支付。

Both the appellant and respondent laid claim to the Money. A disposal inquiry was held to determine how the Money should be distributed.
事后，上诉人和被上诉人均对相关争议款项的所有权提出诉求。新加坡高等法院（“法院”）对此展开了对应的听证，以确定应如何分配相关争议款项。

The Singapore High Court (the “Court”) noted that both parties were in lawful possession of the Money and it was unclear who had the stronger title to or interest in the Money. This was because the Money originated from the respondent’s bank account and was fraudulently transferred, and the appellant had received the Money in a legitimate contractual transaction.
新加坡法庭指出，双方均合法拥有相关争议款项。由于相关争议款项源自被上诉人的银行账户并在被上诉人遭到欺诈的情况下汇出，而上诉人则是在合法的合同交易中得到了相关争议款项，法院无法确定到底哪一方对相关争议款项拥有更强的所有权或权益。

Following an analysis of the relevant provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 governing the return of seized property, the Court eventually ruled that the Money should be returned to the person from whom it was seized, being the appellant.
新加坡法庭在进一步分析了《新加坡刑事诉讼法2010》中关于返还被没收资产的相关规定后，最终裁定，相关争议款项应返还给被收缴人，即上诉人。

The Court further held that a disposal inquiry is intended to be an inexpensive and expeditious manner of distributing items and is not meant to be conclusive as to title. The court in the disposal inquiry process is not concerned with examining whether full rights have been established at civil law, and does not necessarily delve into whether contracts are valid or property rights are properly created or transferred. Parties can commence separate civil proceedings to assert their rights.
新加坡法庭进一步裁定，处置调查旨在以一种经济实惠且快速的方式分配资产，而资产的真正最终所有权并不取决于刑事处置调查的结果。在刑事处置调查过程中，法院并不关心各方在民法制度下的权利是否完全成立，也不一定会深入地探讨相关合同是否有效，以及相关产权是否已适当地创设或得到正当转让。当事方可以另外启动民事诉讼程序以维护他们民事的权利。

Although cryptocurrency activity may be regarded as risky and perhaps forbidden from the perspective of financial and consumer regulation, a dealer or trader in cryptocurrency is not to be treated any differently from any other owner of a valuable asset in determining whether he/she has lawful possession of the relevant property in question. The Court noted that whether or not a cryptocurrency, as opposed to its monetary proceeds, is property is a question left to be decided at the relevant time.
从金融监管及消费者权益保护的角度来看，加密货币活动可能被视为风险大且有可能被禁止的活动。然而，在确定自然人或法律实体是否合法拥有相关加密货币资产时，法律不应对加密货币的交易商或交易者与其他有价资产的所有者进行区别对待。新加坡法庭在本案中还特别强调，到底加密货币是否可以被定性为资产目前还是一个需要时间确定的问题，本案对该等问题不做任何解释。

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This memorandum is only intended as a guide and does not purport to be an exhaustive or conclusive discussion of the matters set out herein and should not be relied on as a substitute for definitive legal advice. Reference should always be made to the applicable statutes, the relevant subsidiary legislations and other applicable guidelines. This memorandum is not to be transmitted to any other person nor is it to be relied upon by any other person or for any other purpose or quoted or referred to in any public document or filed with any governmental or other authorities without our consent in writing. This memorandum is limited to the laws of Singapore. In issuing this memorandum, we do not assume any obligation to notify or inform you of any developments subsequent to its date that might render its contents untrue or inaccurate in whole or in part at such later time. If you would like to discuss the implications of these legal developments on your business or obtain advice, please do not hesitate to approach your usual contact at Insights Law LLC or you may direct the inquiry to our key contacts stated above.

重要提示：本备忘录仅用于参考，并不视作对本文所载事项的详尽或结论性的讨论，且不应被依赖作为替代明确的法律意见。应参考所适用的法规、有关附属法例、及其他适用的原则。未经本所书面同意，本备忘录不得向任何其他人传送，任何人也不得就任何目的依赖本备忘录，并于任何公共文件引述或专署，或提交给任何政府或有关当局。本备忘录仅限于新加坡的法律。本所就这份备忘录的发行，对较后时间日期发生的任何进展导致本备忘录所呈现的全部或部分不实或不准确的内容不承担任何义务。如果您想了解这些法律发展对您业务的影响或咨询意见，请随时与您智诚法律（新加坡）的联系人联系，或直接联系上述的主要联系人。