Ramona Ang, the wife of infamous crypto entrepreneur Craig Wright has won a lawsuit in the UK High court against UFX crypto exchange for abruptly closing her Bitcoin trading account without returning her funds. A UK High court judge Justice Butcher ruled in favor of Ang and ordered the defendant Reliantco, the operator of the UFX Exchange to duly compensate the petitioner in the case.

The judge ruled that the operator of the exchange failed to justify the counterclaim that Ang’s account was closed due to a breach of trust and also failed to prove their claim that even though the account was Ang’s name, it was primarily operated by her husband Craig Wright and the funds accumulated in the account came from fraudulent activities. Wright has opened an account on the same exchange back in 2017 along with his wife. However, his account was soon closed after he was accused of fraud, and a total sum of $10,000 was returned that was held in the account.

Ang Claims Over $2.5 Million in Compensation

Ang has claimed a total of $2,643,020 in total compensation comprising of her investment in Bitcoin futures along with the gains made on that position and an additional sum of over a million dollar for missing out on an opportunity to claim 3,530 in Bitcoin Cash tokens due to the hard-fork of the bitcoin mainent in 2018.

Ang claimed that she has invested $400,000 in a position on the Bitcoin Futures contract which would have returned in access of $300,000 in gain on her position totaling $708,857 and an additional $1,334,163 that could have come from her investment in Bitcoin that could have earned her an equal amount in Bitcoin Cash.

The judge in his final judgment noted that even though Ang has not given an accurate picture about her account being used by her husband, but he is of the belief that she was the primary owner and thus the exchange has no right to close her account without any prior notice and then seize the funds in it, The verdict read,

“Whilst it is true to say that I have made findings that Ms. Ang has given inaccurate, and indeed I find untruthful, evidence as to Dr. Wright’s having never accessed her account, I have found that she opened it and was its principal user. I have rejected the case that the account was simply Dr. Wright’s and that everything Ms. Ang did in relation to the account was done as his agent. While not condoning any untruthful evidence, I do not consider that the respects in which Ms. Ang’s evidence.”