According to testimony given in court, the woman who reportedly purchased her dream home using a $10.4 million cryptocurrency transfer error thought her boyfriend had won.
The mistake was made when Crypto.com wanted to repay $100 to Thevamanogari Manivel in May 2021, but entered the wrong account number in the bank transfer section instead of the correct amount.
The Melbourne Magistrates’ Court heard Manivel’s claim that her co-accused tricked her on Tuesday.
Jessica Willard, Manivel’s attorney, said before the court that her client was unaware that the money might have been stolen.
She claimed that whether Ms. Manivel was aware that the money was stolen or not, the dishonesty component is at the heart of the whole problem.
The court was informed that Manivel told police her co-accused had “earned the money” when she was arrested.
That’s what he says in his interview record as well, Ms. Manivel added.
Seven months after the transfer, and just before last Christmas, a company audit uncovered the $10,474,143 error.
The Commonwealth Bank, however, asserts that the couple was aware that the money had been transmitted in error.
When the case comes to court the following month, Ms. Willard will question a CBA official about how its investigation was conducted.
They claim that a contact was made along the way to inform her of the payments. She asserted that CBA was Ms. Manivel’s most important witness.
The bank maintained a record of its communications with the accused, according to prosecutor Vanessa Kambouropoulos, who testified before the court.
Manivel appeared in court via video link while sporting a blue prison uniform.
In an effort to recover its funds, Crypto.com has also filed a lawsuit against Manivel and her sister Thilagavathy Gangadory.
The luxury home had already cost $1.35 million when Crypto.com alleges it attempted to get its money back, and the remaining funds had been transferred to other accounts.
When Daily Mail Australia visited the “Crypto mansion” earlier this month, it was covered in tall, unsightly weeds and displayed other telltale signs of neglect.
May of last year saw a sharp decrease in the price of cryptocurrencies at the time the error occurred.
The Herald Sun stated at the time that the Craigieburn house, which features four bathrooms, a home gym, and a theater, was purchased on February 3.
Four days later, Crypto.com issued orders to freeze Manivel’s bank account; but, according to court records, $10.1 million had already been transferred to another joint account, and $430,000 had been sent to her daughter, Raveena Vijian.
Before Crypto.com could issue a freezing order against Ms Gangadory in March, the house registration was later moved to the Malaysian resident.
After that, the corporation filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court to recover the cost of the house plus 10% interest.
Since neither Ms. Gangadory nor her attorneys showed up in court or filed a defense, the case was won by default.
In addition to ruling that the Craigieburn home be sold, Justice James Dudley Elliott ordered Ms. Gangadory to pay Crypto.com $1.35 million, $27,369 in interest, and charges.
As he delivered his ruling, Mr. Elliott stated, “It is established that the Craigieburn property was obtained using funds traceable to the wrongful payment and would never have been in Gangadory’s hands if the wrongful payment had not been made.”
So, by obtaining the Craigieburn property’s purchase price from the erroneous payment, Gangadory was unfairly enriched.
The orders pertaining to the sale of the Craigieburn property were, in my opinion, appropriate.
The matter was heard by the commercial division of the Victorian Supreme Court in May, but Justice Elliott’s decision wasn’t made public until last month.
Justice Elliott stated that because Ms. Gangadory was not represented in court, “references to the facts of this case based on such uncontested evidence are necessarily susceptible to attack if Gangadory ever moves to set aside the default decision.”
In addition, the court stated that she “has not answered to any of the correspondence from (Crypto.com’s) solicitors” and that “the effect of not filing an appearance is that the accusations in the statement of claim are presumed to be admitted” due to her lack of appearance.
According to reports, separate orders have been made in relation to the remaining funds sent to Ms. Manivel.
The legal counsel for Crypto.com, Cornwalls Law, said Daily Mail Australia that it was unable to comment because the case was pending in court.