The claim against Mr Ong for breach of warranty of authority also failed. Judicial Commissioner Tan pointed out that Mr Baizanis did not transact directly with Mr Ong, but with Zee, and Mr Ong had made no warranty regarding Zee’s authority.
Furthermore, the court found that Mr Baizanis failed to demonstrate that the loss of his cryptocurrencies was due to internal fraud as defined by the clause in the service agreement. Even if the agreement was binding, the clause would not have been triggered, and Snap’s obligation to indemnify would not have come into effect, the judgment noted.
The court also dismissed the claim that Snap and Mr Ong had a duty to supervise Zee, noting that Mr Baizanis failed to establish that such a duty existed.
Following the ruling, Snap’s lawyers said their client is “very pleased that the court has dismissed all claims against it”. “In particular, the court found that the document which the plaintiff sought to rely on as his contract with our client was not authentic and was, in fact, a forgery,” they added.
Noting that the case has put a spotlight on the risks involved in cryptocurrency investments, Mr Sarbrinder Singh of law firm Sanders Law, who represented Mr Ong, said investors should do their due diligence by performing thorough background checks and reaching out to the people running any investment scheme.
Mr Ong, who faces a separate lawsuit from Torque’s liquidators seeking to recover hundreds of millions in cryptocurrency that were allegedly lost on his watch, said he is not surprised by the outcome of the lawsuit.
“I have always been confident that I am innocent. This whole case is absurd to me because I don’t even know who George (Baizanis) is. He also said he has never met me. I am shocked to be dragged into the lawsuit, and of course, I would go all out to prove my innocence,” he said.
Mr Baizanis said he does not agree with the judgment.
