Cryptocurrency in Corporate Insolvency: Challenges for Asset Recovery and Creditor Protection in Malaysia (A Comparative Study with Uk and Singapore)

Traditional corporate insolvency systems are facing serious issues as a result of the growing use of cryptocurrencies in business transactions and corporate investment portfolios. Although digital assets like cryptocurrencies can be valuable parts of a company’s estate, the insolvency process is made more difficult by their decentralized and extremely volatile character especially when it comes to asset recovery and creditor protection. This study discusses deeply at the practical and legal issues surrounding cryptocurrencies in Malaysian corporate insolvency processes with a focus on how well the current legal system handles new digital asset problems. With a focus on the Companies Act 2016 and the regulatory framework created by the Capital Markets and Services (Prescription of Securities) (Digital Currency and Digital Token) Order 2019, the study first examines the current legal position in Malaysia regarding corporate insolvency and digital assets. The study also identifies institutional and regulatory actions that could improve insolvency administration involving digital assets and increase legal certainty by comparing the legal strategies adopted in Singapore and the United Kingdom. The results imply that the present Malaysian framework is still inadequate to handle the special features of cryptocurrencies in insolvency procedures. As a result, the study suggests specific legislative changes, judicial clarification, improved regulatory cooperation and the creation of specialized insolvency procedures.

Cryptocurrency, Corporate Insolvency, Digital Assets, Asset Recovery, Creditor Protection in the United Kingdom and Singapore

1. Cases [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556 (Comm) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Aaron Loh Cheng Lee and another v Hodlnaut Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. D'Aloia v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 1723 (Ch). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Re Genesis Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 240 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Re Zipmex Co Ltd and other matters [2022] SGHC 196 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Robert Ong Thien Cheng v Luno Pte Ltd and BitX Malaysia Sdn Bhd, [2020] MLJU 2506. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] NZHC 728 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Legislation [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Capital Markets and Services (Prescription of Securities) (Digital Currency and Digital Token) Order 2019 (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (UK), r. 25.1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Companies Act 2016 (Act 777) (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 (Malaysia). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (UK). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), s. 436. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Insolvency, Restructuring, and Dissolution Act 2018 (Singapore) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Payment Services Act 2019 (Singapore) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Journal Articles [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Ahmad Shariff, Nurretina, et al. “A Philosophical Analysis of the Corporate Rescue Mechanism in Malaysia.” UUM Journal of Legal Studies 12 (2021): 167–189. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ahmad Shariff, Nurretina, et al. “A Call for Regulation of Estate Administration of Cryptocurrency in Malaysia.” UUM Journal of Legal Studies 14, no. 2 (2023): 735–764. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Cheong, B. C., & Lin, K. (2024). Crypto assets are property, specifically, choses in action, that are capable of being held on trust. SAL Practitioner, 2024(2), 1–4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Haentjens, M., De Graaf, T., & Kokorin, I. (2022). The failed hopes of disintermediation: Crypto-custodian insolvency, legal risks and how to avoid them. International Insolvency Review, 31(3), 423–445. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Latiff, Norliza Abdul, et al. “Customer Protection and Money Laundering in the Era of Digital Currency.” Management and Accounting Review 21, no. 3 (2022): 89–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. See, A. W. L., & Yip, M. (2020). Restitution of mistakenly transferred Bitcoins. Law Quarterly Review, 136, 587–594. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Regulatory and Institutional Materials [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Bank Negara Malaysia. (n.d.). Anti-money laundering, countering financing of terrorism and targeted financial sanctions for financial institutions. Retrieved May 27, 2026. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Cone, G., Bjorklund, N. S., & Dyekman, G. C. (2021). Digital assets and property rights in insolvency. Trusts & Trustees, 27(5), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/ttab051 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Financial Conduct Authority. (n.d.). Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS). Retrieved May 27, 2026, from https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CASS/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Memorandum Opinion And Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part The Foreign Representatives’ Service Motion Appearances,Chapter 15, Case No. 22-10920. Retrieved June 6, 2026, from https://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/312810_79_opinion.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Nydia Remolina, Aurelio Gurrea-Martínez and Daniel Liu, ‘The Treatment of Digital Assets in Insolvency’ (2024) Oxford Handbook of Digital Assets and the Law (forthcoming). Retrieved May 25, 2026, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4915592 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Securities Commission Malaysia. (2020). Guidelines on digital assets. Retrieved May 27, 2026, from https://www.sc.com.my/regulation/guidelines/digital-assets [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Securities Commission Malaysia. (2024). Guidelines on digital assets (SC-GL/1-2020, 3rd revision). Retrieved May 24, 2026, from https://www.sc.com.my/api/documentms/download.ashx?id=ae96213d-e71b-4682-8ac6-127a6da558ea [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. UK Jurisdiction Taskforce. (2019). Legal statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts. Retrieved May 27, 2026, from https://lawtechuk.io/explore/ukjt-legal-statement-on-cryptoassets-and-smart-contracts/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Digital and Web sources [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Global Restructuring Review. (2026). Malaysia's move to adopt the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency. Global Restructuring Review. https://globalrestructuringreview.com/review/asia-pacific-restructuring-review/2026/article/malaysias-move-adopt-the-uncitral-model-law-cross-border-insolvency [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Monetary Authority of Singapore. (2022, April 27). MAS' approach to the crypto ecosystem [Speech summary]. Retrieved May 28, 2026, from https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/speeches/2022/mas-approach-to-the-crypto-ecosystem [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Wong Han Wey, & Medha Ong Ann Ting. (2025, July 29). A step forward: Cross-border insolvency bill 2025. Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill. https://lh-ag.com/dispute-resolution-a-step-forward-cross-border-insolvency-bill-2025/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Cross-Border Insolvency and the Proactivity Gap: A Comparative Study of Provisional Relief in Malaysia and Singapore