Cryptocurrency platform Crypto.com accidentally transfers $10.5 million to Melbourne woman

Two Melbourne women have gone on a spending spree after $10.5 million was accidentally deposited into one of their bank accounts.

One of the world’s largest cryptocurrency trading platforms, Crypto.com, accidentally transferred the money to Thevamanogari Manivel back in May 2021, when the company were attempting to process a refund of just $100.

Watch more in the video above

Watch the latest News on Channel 7 or stream for free on 7plus >>

Instead of transferring the refund, however, someone entered an account number in the payment section and accidentally transferred the large sum.

Now, seven months on, the company has launched legal action against Manivel and her sister Thilagavathy Gangadory, after realising their mistake.

The error was discovered during an audit in December 2021, court documents revealed.

The only issue – Manivel and Gangadory had already spent a portion of the money.

Manivel bought the five bedroom home as a gift for her sister. Credit: 7NEWS

The court found that following the error last year, Manivel transferred the $10.1 million into a joint account.

Then in February this year, the funds were taken out of two accounts to buy a $1.35m million property in Craigieburn.

It’s understood Manivel had bought the five-bedroom home as a gift for her sister.

Now, the crypto company has won part of their legal battle with a judge in Victoria’s Supreme Court ordering the luxury home be sold, and the money returned to the company.

7NEWS understands if the homeowner doesn’t put the property on the market a receiver could be appointed to arrange the sale, or if they ignore the orders they could face contempt of court.

“There’s no doubt that if you saw that in your account you would know it shouldn’t be there, and the onus is actually on you to actually call the sender and to say look that shouldn’t have come into my account,” Justin Lawrence from Henderson and Ball Lawyers told 7NEWS.

“If you’re withholding property of someone else you’re effectively holding property by deception, you’re not entitled to it, you need to give it back.”

The case returns to court in October.


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*