Singapore - Market Insights

With a series of landmark decisions, Singapore continues to strengthen its position as a leading forum for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and foreign judgments. These decisions reflect not only a strong commitment to upholding the finality of awards/foreign judgments, but also the Singapore courts’ readiness to confront emerging enforcement-related issues.

In particular, as cryptoassets become more widely held, our legal framework will need to continue developing to ensure that enforcement mechanisms remain robust and effective. While the courts have recognised cryptoassets as property capable of being the subject of a Mareva (freezing) injunction/enforcement order, the decentralised, volatile and highly mobile nature of cryptoassets continues to test traditional legal principles and enforcement mechanisms. To address these challenges, it is anticipated that the courts will, in due course, have to provide further guidance on the standards of proof required to establish ownership of cryptoassets, the valuation of these assets, and develop new mechanisms and procedures for the seizure and realisation of such assets.

Upholding finality of arbitral awards and foreign judgments — transnational issue estoppel

In The Republic of India v. Deutsche Telekom AG [2024] 1 SLR 56 (“Deutsche Telekom”), the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel (which application to foreign judgments is generally well established) extends to international commercial arbitration. Accordingly, where the seat court has determined an issue, the parties are precluded from relitigating that issue before the enforcement court. This doctrine is grounded in the principles of international comity and finality of litigation.

In Hulley Enterprises Ltd and others v. The Russian Federation [2025] SGHC(I) 19 (“Hulley Enterprises”), the High Court applied Deutsche Telekom and confirmed that transnational issue estoppel also applies to the determination of issues of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1979 (“Act”).

Hulley Enterprises originates from the three arbitral awards (“Yukos Awards”) made in 2014 in favour of the former majority shareholders of OAO Yukos Oil Company (the “Yukos Claimants”) against the Russian Federation, worth more than USD 63 billion. The Yukos Awards — among the largest awards in arbitration history — spawned setting-aside proceedings brought by the Russian Federation before the seat court in the Netherlands which were only fully and finally disposed of in 2025; concurrently, the award creditors pursued enforcement of the Yukos Awards in multiple jurisdictions, including England and Singapore.

In Singapore, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) dismissed the Russian Federation’s application to set aside an ex parte order, granting permission to the Yukos Claimants to enforce the Yukos Awards.

Before the SICC, the Russian Federation argued that enforcement should be refused on the grounds of state immunity, arguing that the exception in the Act (which provides that a state is not immune from the Singapore court’s jurisdiction where it had “agreed in writing to submit a dispute which has arisen, or may arise, to arbitration”), did not apply as there was no valid arbitration agreement. The SICC rejected this argument, holding that the Russian Federation was precluded from re-litigating these jurisdictional issues that had been raised and conclusively determined against the Russian Federation in setting-aside proceedings before the Dutch seat court.

This decision in Hulley Enterprises is aligned with the English Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling in Hulley Enterprises Ltd v. The Russian Federation [2025] EWCA Civ 108 (arising from parallel enforcement proceedings between the same parties), and continues a trend seen among Commonwealth courts in reinforcing transnational issue estoppel as a mechanism for limiting resurrection and relitigation of issues concerning the enforcement of awards across multiple jurisdictions.

These decisions underscore a broader commitment to international comity, the finality of litigation and a pro-enforcement approach. It remains an open question under Singapore law, however, whether transnational issue estoppel would apply to decisions of another enforcement court.

From recognition and enforcement to execution — grappling with cryptoassets

Obtaining permission to enforce an award or foreign judgment is often only the beginning. Downstream execution may prove to be a more complex process. In particular, given the increasing ubiquity of cryptoassets, enforcement against such assets may represent an important avenue for recovery. This is especially so in the case of high-value awards, where recourse to traditional asset classes — such as bank accounts and real or tangible property — may be insufficient. Judgment creditors may therefore need to expand their enforcement strategies to encompass non-traditional assets, including cryptoassets.

However, cryptoassets are intangible and decentralised, and can be transferred instantly across borders, concealed through anonymous wallets or stored offline in cold wallets that are difficult to access — these key characteristics render cryptoassets especially susceptible to use as tools for evading execution. They also give rise to practical challenges and novel enforcement issues relating to:

• the legal classification of cryptoassets;
• determination as to the lex situs and ownership of cryptoassets; and
• valuation and realisation of cryptoassets.

Against this backdrop, Singapore has emerged as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction for enforcement, with a legal framework that is prepared to innovate and adapt to support execution against cryptoassets.

Singapore joins other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as England, New Zealand and Australia, in recognising cryptoassets as a form of property.

In the 2021 reform to Singapore’s civil procedure rules (i.e., the Rules of Court 2021 which came into force on 1 April 2022), a simplified and streamlined enforcement regime was introduced under Order 22. Notably, the new regime expressly recognised cryptocurrency as a category of movable assets subject to enforcement proceedings. Order 22 rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 defines “movable property” to include “cash, debt, deposits of money, bonds, shares or other securities, membership in clubs or societies, and cryptocurrency or other digital currency” (emphasis added).

Consistent with this, in ByBit Fintech Ltd v. Ho Kai Xin and others [2023] 5 SLR 1748 (“ByBit”), the Singapore High Court confirmed that cryptoassets (the United States Dollar Tether in that case) constituted property (specifically a chose in action) (ByBit at [36]) capable of being held on trust.

The intangible and decentralised nature of cryptoassets may also give rise to jurisdictional difficulties. Presently, the Singapore High Court in Cheong Jun Yoong v. Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others [2024] 4 SLR 907 (“Three Arrows Capital”) ruled that the location of a cryptoasset “is best determined by looking at where it is controlled” (Three Arrows Capital at [60]). This is in turn determined by the residence (as opposed to domicile) of the person who controls the private key, since control over a cryptoasset is with the person who controls the private key to which the cryptoasset is linked (Three Arrows Capital at [61] and [63]). In practice, successful enforcement requires tracing the award debtor’s crypto holdings and identifying who controls the relevant wallets. Where cryptoassets are held in exchanges or custodial wallets that hold the private key to the cryptoassets on behalf of the account holder, enforcement orders can be made against these intermediaries, who are more likely to comply with the order. On the other hand, where the cryptoassets are held in privately held wallets or cold wallets kept offline, courts and enforcement officers may face difficulty seizing the wallet or compelling compliance with the order.

Another tricky aspect of cryptoassets is valuation. As these assets are typically dependent on an often-volatile market, difficulties can arise as to how these cryptoassets are valued. The Singapore High Court’s decision in Fantom Foundation Ltd v. Multichain Foundation Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 173 (“Fantom”) illustrates such difficulties. In Fantom, the court had to assess damages following a default judgment granted in favour of Fantom Foundation, arising from a security breach of Multichain’s systems, which allegedly resulted in the loss of Fantom’s cryptoassets (Fantom at [15]). The court noted that ascertaining the market value of cryptocurrency at a particular point in time can never be forensically precise since cryptocurrencies lack any inherently objective value, and valuation necessarily involves a degree of estimation (Fantom at [37]). Here, the spot value valuation method and the volume-weighted average price method were put before and considered by the court. Although the claimant elected to rely on the spot value method, which resulted in a lower claim (Fantom at [29]), the court noted that both approaches were viable and that future cases are likely to give rise to further debate as to the most appropriate methodology. As for the valuation date, the court held that the general breach-date rule was an unsatisfactory reference point given the volatility of cryptoasset prices (Fantom at [26]). It further suggested that it may be arguable that an aggrieved party should be permitted to rely on a higher price at some point within a reasonable period after the breach, or that other novel valuation approaches may be warranted (Fantom at [48]).

The valuation issues and varying approaches canvassed in Fantom illustrates the fertile ground for future award creditors/debtors to advance valuation methodologies aligned with their interests. How the courts will navigate this thorny issue in the enforcement context remains to be seen, and prospective claimants would be well advised to monitor these developments.

Finally, interim asset preservation measures (whether pre- or post-judgment) may also be crucial. As acknowledged by the Singapore High Court in CLM v. CLN and others [2022] 5 SLR 273 (CLM) at [54], cryptoassets are “susceptible to being transferred by the click of a button, through digital wallets that may be completely anonymous and untraceable to the owner, and can be easily dissipated and hidden in cyberspace”. In this regard, the Singapore courts have shown willingness to grant Mareva (freezing) injunctions and proprietary injunctions over cryptoassets to preserve such assets (see CLM, ByBit), as well as make interim orders against persons unknown, so long as the description of the persons are sufficiently certain to identify who is included (CLM at [31]–[32]). These are critical tools in preserving asset value so that enforcement efforts are not undermined by the almost instantaneous dissipation of cryptoassets before execution can take place.

The enforcement of high-value arbitral awards is defined by both legal principle and practical recoverability. As asset profiles evolve and cryptoassets form a growing and significant part of award debtors’ assets, enforcement strategies must continue to expand beyond conventional targets. The Singapore courts have demonstrated a clear willingness to uphold the finality of awards, resist dilatory tactics and support effective execution, reinforcing Singapore’s position as a supportive and pragmatic forum for award creditors at the recognition, enforcement and execution stages.