Binance and RedotPay Fight Over Singapore Lawsuit Outcome

Binance-linked entities and stablecoin payments card provider RedotPay are sparring over whether a Singapore legal case tied to their wider Hong Kong dispute is winding down after a hearing held on Aug. 7.

RedotPay told Cointelegraph that it expects Binance to discontinue the Singapore proceedings following that hearing and said it will seek legal costs if the claimant withdraws. Binance, however, pushed back, telling Cointelegraph that reports claiming it is withdrawing its Singapore claims are false and that it is continuing to pursue its case.

Key takeaways

• RedotPay expects Binance-linked parties to discontinue the Singapore proceedings after an Aug. 7 hearing.
• Binance says it is not abandoning its Singapore claims and has notified the court and RedotPay accordingly.
• The Singapore dispute is part of a broader, parallel legal battle that includes a Hong Kong case seeking nearly $473 million.
• The parties’ next steps will likely hinge on whether the Singapore case is formally withdrawn and how costs are handled.

Dispute over whether the Singapore case is ending

The disagreement is the latest turn in a cross-jurisdiction fight that has already drawn attention for its size. According to a RedotPay spokesperson, RedotPay expects Binance to stop the Singapore proceedings after the Aug. 7 hearing. In that scenario, RedotPay said it would request legal costs stemming from the discontinuance and that the parties would attempt to reach an agreement on those costs.

Binance’s response is direct. In comments to Cointelegraph, a Binance spokesperson said the claim that Binance would withdraw its Singapore case is incorrect. Binance stated that it is “not abandoning its claims” and that it has informed both the court and RedotPay of its position.

While both sides reference the same Aug. 7 hearing, their public descriptions of what follows diverge—one side treating discontinuance as the likely outcome, the other insisting the case remains active. For market participants, this matters because procedural developments can affect timelines, litigation exposure, and leverage in related negotiations, particularly when disputes are running simultaneously across regions.

Hong Kong lawsuit seeks nearly $473 million in damages

The Singapore action forms part of a broader legal fight between Binance-affiliated entities and RedotPay, including a separate case in Hong Kong. Earlier coverage from Bloomberg, as cited by Cointelegraph, reported that Nest Trading, DistributedTechnologies and Chaintecs Consulting Singapore had filed a petition in Hong Kong against RedotPay’s co-founders.

The Hong Kong plaintiffs allege that RedotPay diverted more than 470,000 Binance Card users. Their core claim is that RedotPay allowed Binance Pay funds to be used for stablecoin card top-ups outside the terms of a commercial agreement. Damages were estimated at $472.8 million, based on a claimed lifetime customer value of $925 per user.

In parallel, Chaintecs pursued related proceedings against RedotPay affiliates in Singapore, where a hearing had been scheduled for Aug. 7—prompting the current exchange about discontinuance and costs.

RedotPay has rejected the allegations. It told Cointelegraph it would defend itself through the legal process, characterizing the claims as “unfounded allegations” at the time they first surfaced.

What the Binance Pay and RedotPay partnership enabled

RedotPay and Binance’s connection in this dispute traces back to their partnership announced in December 2023. RedotPay said at the time that it had established Binance Pay functionality, allowing Binance Pay users to make direct deposits to RedotPay cards.

Binance later ended support for the integration. RedotPay told Cointelegraph that Binance discontinued the Binance Pay support as of April 3, 2026, citing a review of its merchant partners. That operational change occurred months before the legal controversy gained mainstream attention.

In disputes like these, contract implementation details and timing often become pivotal. The plaintiffs’ theory in the Hong Kong matter centers on whether RedotPay used Binance Pay funds in a way allegedly inconsistent with the commercial agreement. The fact that Binance later ended the integration after reviewing merchant partners adds another dimension, even though it does not, on its own, resolve the underlying contention over what was permitted during the partnership period.

Why the Singapore procedural fight matters

Even without a final decision on the merits, the question of whether the Singapore proceedings continue—or are discontinued—can influence how both sides manage risk and strategy across the broader dispute. If Binance were to discontinue in Singapore, RedotPay’s statement suggests it would treat the matter as a cost event that could become a negotiation point between the parties.

Binance’s statement, on the other hand, signals that it does not view the Singapore claim as concluded. That stance implies further litigation steps may follow, at least unless the court records and filings later reflect a withdrawal.

Until the Singapore case’s status is clarified through court action, filings, or formal orders, the public accounts remain in tension: RedotPay expects a discontinuance and costs discussion, while Binance says it has no plans to withdraw its claims.

Readers should watch for official court documentation in Singapore after the Aug. 7 hearing—particularly any formal discontinuance order or cost determination—and for whether the procedural posture there shifts the momentum in the parallel Hong Kong damages case.