Assets of Tokenize Xchange founder and his ex-wife frozen by court order

[SINGAPORE] Hong Qi Yu, former CEO and founder of the entity behind the now-defunct cryptocurrency trading platform Tokenize Xchange, and his ex-wife have had up to almost S$53 million of their assets frozen under a Mareva injunction.

The sum is the total amount being claimed in a suit by nearly 250 former customers who had used the trading platform.

The injunction, which bars them from selling, disposing of, transferring, mortgaging, pledging or diminishing the value of their assets, stays in force after the Malaysian couple, both aged 36, failed to set it aside at the Sep 28 hearing before Justice Mohamed Faizal in a Singapore High Court.

Hong and and his ex-wife, Erin Koo Kee Hoon, are being sued by a group of 249 ex-customers, who are fronted by six of them in the representative action (known as a class-action suit in some jurisdictions), for the nearly S$53 million sum over alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy to cause them damage.

The group had started out with 272 individuals seeking a total claim amount of S$60.5 million when the civil action was launched in November 2025. However, 23 of them have since dropped out, reducing the claim to the current sum.

The amount represents the total value of the assets the claimants held on the exchange either as at Jul 31, 2025, or the date they attempted to withdraw these assets.

Peter McCorkindale, a claimant representing the group, disclosed in his Aug 7 affidavit in support of the application for the freezing order that investigators the group engaged had found out Hong has cryptocurrency assets as well as shares in six companies, and Koo is the owner of a condominium in Bukit Panjang.

Suresh Divyanathan of Dauntless Law Chambers, the lead counsel for the claimants, said: “Our claimants are happy with the current progress made in the case. They just want the return of the money and cryptocurrency assets which they had deposited with Tokenize Exchange as custodian.

“If an amicable settlement cannot be reached with the defendants, the claimants will not hesitate to take this case to trial.”

Hong’s counterclaim

Hong and Koo are contesting the claim.

They deny being responsible for the representations made about the trading platform; these include statements in the customer service agreement (CSA), which the claimants said they had relied on when they deposited their fiat or cryptocurrency with Tokenize Xchange and traded on the platform.

Hong denied he was the sole decision-maker and driving force behind AmazingTech, the operating entity behind Tokenize.

He also disputed that he had made the representations alleged by the claimants to be fraudulent in nature, and attributed the statements to AmazingTech.

Referring to the representations given during a video conference, he claimed that those were made on behalf of the company and not in his personal capacity.

He also alleged that some claimants did not rely on representations made by AmazingTech to keep their assets with Tokenize Xchange.

Hong insisted that AmazingTech segregated customers’ fiat currency and cryptocurrency, refuting the allegation that the funds were mixed with those in the company’s accounts.

According to a report filed by court-appointed interim judicial managers in September 2025, AmazingTech owed its customers about S$266.3 million. Its realisable assets were estimated at a mere S$2.6 million.

The claimants allege that the S$263.7 million difference had been fraudulently misappropriated by Hong and Koo.

Hong has filed a counterclaim against the claimants, contending that they have breached the CSA with their representative action, given that they had agreed to the clauses in the CSA.

These clauses include undertaking to limit their claim and to bear all risk of loss in the value of their digital assets in connection with holding, investing in, or trading in their digital assets.

Further, he said that AmazingTech’s total aggregate liability for any individual claim or series of connected claims is limited to a maximum of the fees it earned in the 12-month period preceding the event that gives rise to the claim for liability.

He alleged that he has suffered loss and damages in the form of legal costs and expenses incurred to defend the claim.

To the counterclaim, McCorkindale, a dentist by profession, and his group argued that clauses that purport to exclude or limit liability for fraud are void.

Koo claims to be unaware

In her defence, Koo claimed that she had quit AmazingTech more than four years before it was wound up in September 2025, upon the liquidators’ application.

Her role as the chief operating officer was merely a “nominal” title, as it was purely administrative in nature, with no decision-making powers in the management of the company, she argued.

She also alleged that she was in no way involved in the creation, drafting or review and confirmation of the CSA; neither did she have a part in circulating, disseminating or getting customers to enter into CSAs with AmazingTech.

She said she was unaware of Hong’s actions while she was employed by AmazingTech from March 2018 to April 2021, and also after she left the job.

Koo is represented by Suang Wijaya of Eugene Thuraisingam Asia; Hong is defended by Nichol Yeo of Nine Yards Chambers in both the representative action and criminal proceedings.

Hong faces one count of fraudulent trading between November 2022 and July 2025 in relation to AmazingTech. He is out on bail of S$250,000 and the next pre-trial conference is set for Nov 7.