Crypto.com Sues User After Refunding $10M Instead of $100

Crypto.com reportedly didn’t realise it had sent $10 million to one of its users by mistake for seven months

article-image

Crypto.com; Source: Shutterstock

share
  • Two sisters in Melbourne reportedly used the erroneous AU$10 million ($6.6 million) to buy a luxurious mansion
  • A judge has ordered the property be sold and the funds returned to Crypto.com

Exchange platform Crypto.com is reeling from an expensive mistake after accidentally refunding an Australian woman an amount way higher than she expected. 

The woman, based in Melbourne, sought a AU$100 ($66) refund from the exchange in May last year, but received AU$10 million ($6.6 million), Daily Mail reported.

Crypto.com didn’t realize the error until seven months later, during an end-of-year audit, according to the outlet. 

The Singapore-headquartered exchange legally pursued the user to recover the money, informing the court that the blunder happened because an account number was entered the payment field, instead of the initially requested amount, the report said.

But by the time Crypto.com realized what happened, the cash had already gone towards a multi-million dollar mansion in the Melbourne suburb of Craigieburn, complete with a home cinema and gym.

The women are not getting away easily. A judge has now reportedly ordered their property be sold and for the exchange’s money to be paid back.

Crypto.com will likely win in court as it’s a well-established company, but this will serve as a cautionary tale for other companies, according to Alexander Tkachenko, CEO of asset tokenization platform VNX.

“While random errors occur on most platforms, this one is too costly to ignore,” he told Blockworks. Representatives for Crypto.com didn’t return request for comment by press time. 

Crypto.com was founded in 2016 in Hong Kong and counts over 50 million active users, according to the company.

The fiasco echoes a similar event that took place around the same time last year.

Crypto lender BlockFi mistakenly deposited bitcoin worth millions of dollars to a number of user accounts in May 2021, when the asset traded around $49,000. 

Staff had accidentally processed payments in BTC rather than stablecoin GUSD. In a tweet, BlockFi said some clients who participated in a trading promotion would see inaccurate bonus payments. 

CEO Zac Prince said the firm sent a “couple hundred” in bitcoin to less than 100 users. Reports of legal threats to the recipients later surfaced.

Article updated to correct intended stablecoin in BlockFi’s erroneous payments.


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Tags

Decoding crypto and the markets. Daily, with Byron Gilliam.

Upcoming Events

Javits Center North | 445 11th Ave

Tues - Thurs, March 24 - 26, 2026

Blockworks’ Digital Asset Summit (DAS) will feature conversations between the builders, allocators, and legislators who will shape the trajectory of the digital asset ecosystem in the US and abroad.

recent research

Research Report Templates (3).png

Research

South Korea is emerging as one of the most important global hubs for regulated digital assets, and Upbit sits at the center of this shift. Naver’s proposed acquisition could create the country’s dominant super app for payments, trading, and digital finance. This report breaks down the numbers, the regulatory tailwinds, the economics of the deal, and why the merger may unlock one of the most attractive asymmetries in Korea’s public markets.

article-image

Lido unveils a new buyback plan while BTC treasury companies slip below mNAV — can either model can truly return value?

article-image

If financial nihilism has driven you into memecoins, zero-day options, and sports betting, consider financial optimism instead

article-image

A new Sui-based protocol promises to unlock Bitcoin’s idle liquidity and eliminate wrapped-token risk

article-image

Could blockchain rails finally realize Ted Nelson’s non-linear, pro-creator “docuverse”?

article-image

What does Uniswap’s proposal to activate protocol fees and unify incentives mean for UNI token holders?

article-image

A recent mistrial illustrates how juries need more background information when it comes to judging complex systems like Ethereum