Australian prosecutors are pushing for incarceration for Jatinder Singh, a 39-year-old man who lavishly spent millions after Crypto.com mistakenly credited him a substantial sum.
The error, originating from a clerical mistake, allowed Singh to access funds that were not rightfully his, leading to a significant legal battle.
Discovery of the financial blunder
In May 2021, an attempt by Singh to deposit $100 using his partner’s bank account led to a critical error when the deposit was rejected due to the names on the accounts not matching. An employee from Crypto.com, located in Bulgaria, erroneously transferred $10.47 million instead of the intended $100 refund into the bank account of Singh’s partner, Thevamanogari Manivel. This mistake was not discovered until an internal audit seven months later when Singh had already spent over $6 million.
Expenditure of Misappropriated Funds
Upon realising the error, Singh directed Manivel to withdraw the money immediately to prevent it from being reclaimed. Believing the windfall resulted from winning an online raffle, the couple embarked on a spending spree. They invested in real estate, purchasing two homes and two plots of land in Melbourne, and generously donated $1 million to a friend. After Crypto.com traced the error and demanded the return of the funds, Manivel, suspecting a scam, transferred $4 million to a bank in Malaysia.
Legal proceedings and potential consequences
During a pre-sentence hearing in the Victorian County Court, Singh admitted to the theft. His lawyer, Martin Kozlowski, presented a defence stating that Singh did not initially understand the severity of his actions, believing the funds were legitimately his. Kozlowski highlighted the delay in Crypto.com’s detection of the error, suggesting a lack of immediate harm due to the company’s size and global reach.
Kozlowski proposed a community corrections order, considering Singh’s year-long detention before sentencing. Contrarily, Prosecutor Campbell Thomson argued for a custodial sentence, emphasising the deliberate nature of Singh’s actions and the need for legal deterrence. He acknowledged that while some of the misappropriated funds had been recuperated in Australia, the $4 million in Malaysia was still unaccounted for.
The presiding Judge Martine Marich described the incident as not typical criminal masterminding but rather an exceptional case of finding sudden wealth. She acknowledged the unusual circumstances but highlighted the necessity for appropriate legal repercussions. The decision on Singh’s final sentencing is set to be announced later in the month.