In May 2021, Crypto.com inadvertently sent $10.5 million to a Melbourne woman named Thevamanogari Manivel who had requested a $100 refund. The Melbourne woman did not reveal their mistake and went on to buy a luxury five-bedroom home. This property included a home gym as well as a cinema, according to reports. The transaction was completed in February of this year.
It Took 7 Months for Crypto.com to Realize
After finding out about its error seven months later, Crypto.com filed litigation against Manivel and her sister Thilagavathy Gangadory, alleging fraud. It happened when instead of putting the refund amount in the correct area on the transfer, the company put in her account number instead. The entire sum was transferred to Ms. Manivel’s account as a result of this mistake. Just before last Christmas, a company audit revealed a $10,474,143 mistake.
The Woman Spent the Money Before the Case was Filed
The woman spent $1.35 million already on a lavish five-bedroom house, the remainder of the money was transferred to different accounts when Crypto.com attempted to reclaim its funds. On February 7, Crypto.com took legal action and froze Ms. Manivel’s bank account. According to court documents, most of the amount had already been moved to a different joint statement and her daughter Raveena Vijain had access to $430,000.
Before Manivel and Gangadory were sued by Crypto.com, the property registration was transferred to Ms. Gangadory in Malaysia. The case against Manivel and Gangadory was filed in the Victorian Supreme Court’s commercial division.
Ms. Gangadory Did Not attend the Hearing
A court recently made a judgment available to the public. However, Gangadory reportedly did not attend the hearing. The court heard that she was ‘seeking legal advice’ and her lawyers ‘would be in contact’, but neither she nor they appeared.
Ms. Gangadory was ordered to pay $1.35 million in damages, the interest of $27,369, and costs by Judge James Dudley Elliott of the County Court of Victoria. The home in Craigieburn must also be sold, he added. As Ms. Gangadory was not represented in court, Justice Elliott wrote that ‘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’.
The judge added that ‘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.
Cornwalls Law, Crypto.com’s lawyers, stated that as the matter is currently in court proceedings, they cannot comment at this time. Ms. Manivel and Ms. Gangadory could not be contacted for comments.
This year, a number of platforms have suffered major losses. Some were hacked and assaulted, while others succumbed to the bears. Crypto.com, on the other hand, appears to have driven itself into a $10.5 million deficit.