top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureSarah Dixon

Crypto.Com Mistakenly Sends $10 Million To Woman Who Spends It


High profile platform crypto.com accidentally paid more than $10 million into Australian woman’s account and didn’t realise the error until 7 months later.


Crypto.com has now launched legal action against the owner of the account, Thevamanogari Manivel, and her sister Thilagavathy Gangadory, after Manivel failed to return the money.

According to the Mail Online, the issue began when an employee of Crypto.com was tasked with giving Ms Manivel a $100 refund in May 2021. However, the account number was mistakenly copied into the payment box instead of the $100, and $10,474,143 was sent to Ms Manivel.


The company realised its error when an audit before Christmas 2021 uncovered it. When it tried to have the money returned, it found that Ms Manivel had spent $1.35 million on a luxury 5-bedroom house, and that the rest had been moved to other accounts.


The Australian-based Herald Sun reported that the house also “has four bathrooms, a home gym and cinema,”


In February this year, Crypto.com applied through the courts to freeze Ms Manivel’s bank account, but it was found that $10.1 million had already been moved to a different account, and $430,000 had been transferred to Manivel’s daughter.


It further transpired that the house registration had been transferred to Manivel’s sister Ms Gangadory who lived in Malaysia.


Crypto.com has now taken legal action against Ms Gangadory in the Supreme Court, seeking to recover the cost of the house plus 10 percent interest.


Ms Gangadory was said to be “seeking legal advice” and that her lawyers would be in touch, but neither Gangadory nor lawyers have appeared.


In their absence the court has ordered that Gangadory pay Crypto.com $1.35 million with interest of $27,369, and has specified that the house in Craigieburn be sold.


However, Judge James Dudley Elliot did allow that the judgement was open to challenge given that it was uncontested, and that Gangadory still had the opportunity to “set aside the default judgement”.


Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Comments


bottom of page