Woman Lived Lavish Lifestyle with Stolen Crypto

Ho Kai Xin, who defrauded a company of US$4.2 million (S$5.7 million) in cryptocurrency, was ordered by a civil court not to use the stolen funds.

However, she defied the October 2022 injunction, spending nearly S$840,000 on a freehold penthouse down payment and Louis Vuitton luxury goods between November and December.

On 27 January, she was sentenced to six weeks in jail for contempt of court.

Ho now faces both civil and criminal proceedings, having already pleaded guilty to criminal charges while awaiting sentencing.

The civil case stems from ByBit Fintech’s legal action to recover the stolen assets.

Despite an October 2022 asset freeze, Ho continued to fund her lavish lifestyle, violating court orders and deepening her legal troubles.

How $4.2 million Worth of Crypto Was Stolen

ByBit, a Seychelles-based cryptocurrency exchange, entrusted its payroll processing to WeChain Fintech, where Ho was employed.

As the sole custodian of payroll spreadsheets for 800 to 900 ByBit employees, Ho exploited her position to orchestrate an elaborate fraud.

ByBit compensated employees in both fiat and cryptocurrency, primarily in Tether (USDT).

Each month, Ho updated payroll spreadsheets based on internal instructions, listing employee wallet addresses for crypto payments.

However, she inserted fraudulent entries, linking her own wallet addresses to legitimate employee names to deceive ByBit’s finance team.

These employees were unaware their names had been misused.

Ho submitted the manipulated spreadsheets to her supervisor, who approved them without verifying their accuracy.

She then forwarded redacted versions to ByBit, ensuring identifying details were obscured.

ByBit processed the payments, unaware they were funding Ho’s scheme.

Between 31 May and 31 August 2022, she siphoned 4.2 million USDT across eight transfers.

Beyond crypto theft, Ho also fabricated fiat salary payments, diverting an additional $117,238.46 into her bank accounts.

She laundered the stolen funds by converting USDT into cash, transferring money across multiple accounts, and splurging on luxury goods.

Woman Pushes Blame to Fictitious Relative to Escape Crime

Ho’s scheme unravelled on 7 September 2022, when a finance director at WeChain detected unusually large cryptocurrency payments in the payroll spreadsheet.

As internal investigations commenced, Ho attempted to cover her tracks by altering a single digit in each fraudulent wallet address.

However, these discrepancies were discovered on 3 October.

Confronted the next day, she fabricated a story, blaming the transactions on a fictitious cousin, “Jason Teo,” whom she claimed owned the wallets.

Shortly after, she severed all contact with ByBit and WeChain.

In the following weeks, Ho cancelled her Build-To-Order HDB flat and diverted her stolen funds into luxury purchases, including a $3.7 million freehold penthouse, a Mercedes-Benz AMG A45, and high-end Louis Vuitton goods.

When ByBit sued her, she doubled down on her deception, falsely affirming in an affidavit that the wallets belonged to “Jason Teo.”

ByBit filed a police report on 28 February 2023.

Ho repeated her false claim during questioning, prompting investigators to spend 140 man-hours verifying the nonexistent cousin.

Authorities also engaged third-party specialists to trace the stolen crypto.

In July 2023, the High Court ruled in ByBit’s favour, enablling the company to recover 1.17 million USDT from Ho’s wallets and $141,787.11 from her bank account.

However, she has made no effort to repay the remaining funds.

In February 2024, Ho was charged with 44 counts of cheating, money laundering, and providing false information to the police.

She pleaded guilty to 14 charges on January 16, 2025, with the remaining counts to be considered during sentencing.

Her criminal case is set for mitigation and sentencing on 20 February.

Separately, ByBit pursued civil contempt proceedings against Ho for five transactions she conducted after her assets were frozen.

At the 27 January hearing, ByBit’s lawyer, Gerard Quek from PDLegal, sought a nine-month jail term to run consecutively with any sentence from the criminal case.

Ho, unrepresented in court, requested a maximum of three months to be served concurrently.

Justice Philip Jeyaretnam acknowledged that while civil contempt and criminal fraud are legally distinct, Ho’s acts of concealment overlapped in both cases.

He noted her delayed acceptance of responsibility but deferred the decision on whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively to the criminal court.