Cryptopia: Sharma v. Cryptopia Ltd

 

Claiming to have lost Bitcoin currently worth $108 million in the 2019 heist which saw Christchurch-based Cryptopia hacked and some thirty million dollars in cryptocurrency stolen, customer Vihang Sharma failed in a High Court bid to halt any payout by Cryptopia liquidators.  Suspicious of Dr Sharma’s bona fides, the High Court required he provide verifiable details of his claimed loss.

Liquidators from Grant Thornton are working to a court-ordered plan to identify and pay Cryptopia customers a pro-rata distribution of assets remaining.

The High Court was told of ongoing discussions between the liquidators and Dr Sharma.  Since Cryptopia required a unique email address for each customer account, the liquidators require proof from Dr Sharma of the email addresses used for each of his customer accounts so they can verify his claimed holdings.

Liquidators say they can find no account balances matching those claimed by Dr Sharma.

Dr Sharma claims he held up to 471 separate customer accounts with Cryptopia, all operated without an email identifier.

These accounts were operated solely through use of an API, an application programming interface, he claims.  This provided sufficient client authentication to access his Cryptopia accounts and undertake trades, he says.

The liquidators say that even if these accounts were operated with an API key, Cryptopia protocols still required registration of an email address when setting up accounts.  They refused to investigate his claim without evidence of account registration emails.

Days before the court-ordered September cut-off date for customer claims, Dr Sharma asked for a High Court order blocking liquidators from making any distributions until his claim was finalised.

Justice Isac refused.

Dr Sharma left it to the last minute in his attempt to block payouts, Justice Isac said.  Later payment on any valid claim by Dr Sharma can form part of a court-supervised final wash-up, he ruled.

An unverified claim to be owed $108 million is not grounds for an immediate injunction, he ruled.  Dr Sharma must come back to court with further evidence.

Justice Isac said the court also wants to hear about the probable connection between the Dr Vihang Sharma now seeking a court injunction to block payouts and the Dr Vihang Sharma who earlier in the year sought to bribe a court registry official to get information off the court file while falsely claiming Justice Isac was conducting ‘secret teleconferences.’

Dr Sharma is based overseas.

Sharma v. Cryptopia Ltd – High Court (2.10.25)

25.212

Charitable Trust: re Estate Thomas Burke

 

It was a touching gesture for Thomas Burke to provide for his sister and another friend, but leaving the residue of his estate for use ‘as relax for religious as nuns’ in his partly handwritten will led to multiple court cases after his 1987 death, having his estate holding $60,500 cash nearly four decades later and yet another court case needed to decide who is entitled to this money.

Mr Burke’s major asset was a house on Mt Pleasant Road, in Christchurch.  This house and its contents were sold shortly after his death, with the High Court then asked to rule on interpretation of his will.

His sister, a nun with the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, was a beneficiary.  Known as Sister Leo, she was entitled to all estate income during her lifetime.

Mr Burke’s will then stated that on his sister’s death, all estate income would go to his friend Bridie Meagher.  His estate could not be finalised until after her death.

She died in Christchurch in 2022, aged 94.

Back in 1994, the High Court decided a vague reference in Mr Burke’s will of leaving the bulk of estate ‘as relax for religious as nuns’ was valid as a charitable gift.  Capital of the estate had to be kept intact.  Left open was the question: how would this capital be used to benefit nuns generally, on death of Bridie Meagher as the last surviving income beneficiary?

Thirty years later, Justice Gendall answered this question.

The late Mr Burke’s charitable intention of providing a haven for nuns was best achieved by giving all the money to the late Sister Leo’s catholic order: St Joseph of the Sacred Heart.  The current head of the order told the High Court how this money would be used for the benefit of nuns.

It was impracticable to continue any ongoing charitable trust for nuns in general, given the relatively small sum of money involved, Justice Gendall said.

Sacred Heart will be receiving less than the estate’s current balance of $65,000.  Some $12,000 is to be deducted for legal costs arising from this latest court application, the court ruled.

re Estate of Thomas Cyril Burke – High Court (1.10.25)

25.211