Crypto.com is seeking the remaining $3 million from the couple. Source: Shutterstock.
A Melbourne couple is facing trial after they spent more than $10 million that was accidentally transferred to them by Crypto.com.
Thevamanogari Manievl and her husband Jatinder Singh appeared in court via video link, where they detailed their accounts of what happened when a Crypto.com worker in Bulgaria accidentally entered a $10.5 million refund instead of $100.
Both the husband and wife are being accused of theft.
It was alleged by Singh that he thought the money was the winnings from a competition advertised by Crypto.com, however the exchange company said they never ran such competitions.
He went and spent a large sum of the money, buying four houses, several vehicles and pieces of valuable art and furniture.
Manivel had gifted her three daughters over $1 million.
About $4 million was transferred to a Malaysian bank account and it’s believed that Manievl was trying to go back to her home in Malaysia when she was intercepted and arrested at Melbourne Airport.
She had only purchased a one-way ticket and was carrying about $11,000 in cash and alleged that she was flying home to see her ex-husband and children. The court granted her bail on the proviso she surrender her passport.
Manievl has pleaded not guilty to three charges while Singh also pleaded not guilty to theft that included withdrawing the Crypto.com money from the bank.
Prosecutors say that majority of the money has been returned to Crypto.com but that $3 million is still outstanding with courts taking action to freeze the properties and retrieve money from relatives overseas.
Justice Elliot, who is presiding over the case said that because Manivel had not appeared in court and made no attempt to correspond with Crypto.com solicitors it has to be taken that what the prosecution has put forward is true.
“References to the facts of this case based on such uncontested evidence are necessarily open to challenge if Gangadory ever seeks to set aside the default judgment,” Justice Elliot.
“[Because she] has not responded to any of the correspondence from (Crypto.com’s) solicitors” and that “the effect of not filing an appearance is that the allegations in the statement of claim are taken to be admitted.”
