The man is facing criminal charges in Hong Kong alleging theft of cryptocurrencies valued at approximately US$16.74 million
A West Vancouver man accused of stealing millions of dollars in cryptocurrency from a now-defunct crypto holding company has failed to have orders allowing a search of his home and freezing of his assets set aside by the courts.
According to a B.C. Court of Appealing ruling released June 16, Weiyi Su (who also goes by Victor Su) was a former director of Atom Holdings, a Cayman Islands-based cryptocurrency holding company for the AAX Group cryptocurrency exchange that collapsed in 2022 “leaving users unable to withdraw substantial assets.”
Several directors and management from AAX Group have gone into hiding or been arrested, the ruling notes, and Atom Holdings launched numerous court actions in various jurisdictions in hopes of recovering assets. That included proceedings in B.C. Supreme Court naming Su where the company alleges Mr. Su diverted cryptocurrencies worth millions of dollars from the AAX Group.
Su was arrested in Hong Kong in July of 2024 on charges alleging theft of cryptocurrencies valued at approximately US$16.74 million, the ruling notes.
In B.C. Supreme Court, Atom Holdings submitted “considerable evidence” that Su was a key figure in AAX Group and an authorized signatory to the company’s bank account, the court of appealing ruling notes. The court also heard evidence from a cybersecurity expert hired by Atom to review the company’s records and assist in their investigation. That probe found a significant portion of the assets Su had access to had been dispersed, some of which moved from AAX cryptocurrency wallets to unknown destinations.
The investigator’s affidavit submitted to the court included excerpts of an interview with the founder and former executive of AAX accusing Su of being “100 per cent responsible for taking the missing assets.”
A B.C. Supreme Court chambers judge agreed to Atom Holdings’ request for an order to search Su’s West Vancouver home without his being made aware of the hearing or the pending search. It was executed on April 5, 2024.
When that search yielded transaction records from Su’s personal laptop indicating involvement in the transfer of AAX Group assets, they returned to court three days later seeking an order that Su’s assets be frozen, the court documents state. Their cybersecurity expert filed another affidavit asserting that roughly US$16 million had been transferred out of an AAX Group wallet to a new one just a few hours after the search.
Su then hired a lawyer and sought to have both the order allowing the search and the order to freeze his assets set aside.
Su submitted that Atom’s investigator had used “extortionate and dishonest” means to coerce the founder’s interview and Su asserted the partial transcript omitted statements that would have taken suspicion away from himself, including statements that others in the company had access to the same crypto wallets.
He argued that Atom’s tactics and selective omissions would have been material to the judge’s decision on whether to allow the search and ensuing freezing of his assets and, therefore, the orders should not stand.
The lower court judge agreed that more complete disclosure would have been “prudent and preferable,” but ultimately the questionable evidence would have been “merely icing on the cake” and that “the court would still have issued the orders.”
Su then took the matter to the B.C. Court of Appeal, arguing the Supreme Court judge was wrong to find there was no material non-disclosure. Instead of deciding whether not the orders would stand based on the non-disclosed facts being “necessary” or “critical,” the court should have only been considering whether they “might have” influenced the decision, he claimed.
Writing a unanimous decision for the three-judge panel, Chief Justice Leonard Marchand rejected Su’s arguments, finding the Supreme Court judge was entitled to determine to what degree the submissions were material.
“Mr. Su has not pointed to any legal error, misapplication of principle or misconception of evidence by the chambers judge. Instead, he asks this court to reweigh the evidence and reach different conclusions,” he said.
