The case comes as the liquidation of iCE3X remains unresolved more than five years after the platform shut down. (Image source: iStock)
A crypto-currency trader is challenging a R2.85 million claim brought by the liquidators of collapsed South African crypto exchange iCE3X, arguing the funds he withdrew from the platform were his own money, rather than company assets.
Dietmar Rheeder-Kleist, the defendant, is asking the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town to compel the liquidators to produce the agreement governing his account so he can formulate his defence.
The matter is scheduled to be heard on 15 October, according to Rheeder-Kleist’s amended heads of argument filed on 11 October.
The liquidators, Marthinus Breytenbach and Gottlieb Moabelo, are seeking to recover R2 850 805.77 under provisions of the Insolvency Act relating to dispositions of company assets.
Rheeder-Kleist disputes the characterisation of the transactions, maintaining that iCE3X, operated by Internet Currency Evolution Cubed (ICEC), facilitated his personal crypto-currency trading and held his funds in a custodial capacity.
See also
In his supplementary affidavit seen by ITWeb, he argues the money remained his property, was kept separate from ICEC’s operational capital, and was not an investment in the company, or a contribution to a joint venture.
He contends that withdrawals between January and March 2021 were returns of his own funds, rather than preferential repayments of an investment debt or distributions of company assets.
The case comes as the liquidation of iCE3X, one of South Africa’s oldest crypto-currency exchanges, remains unresolved more than five years after the platform shut down.
As ITWeb reported in April 2021, iCE3X suspended trading and withdrawals after identifying discrepancies in its Bitcoin and Litecoin balances.
The company subsequently initiated voluntary liquidation, leaving customers unable to access some of their digital assets. At the time, the exchange had about 80 000 accounts.
The liquidation has since involved efforts to trace and recover crypto-currency and establish which assets belong to the insolvent estate and which may belong to customers.
In July 2026, the liquidators said they were seeking a further extension, until 31 May 2027, to lodge the liquidation and distribution account.
They said legal disputes over ownership of crypto-assets and efforts to recover crypto-currency allegedly worth more than R30 million remained unresolved.
The liquidators also planned further proceedings in the UK to pursue assets they believe remain outstanding.
Gareth Grobler, iCE3X’s former sole director and shareholder, disputed the alleged shortfall in a subsequent interview with ITWeb, saying he had not been presented with fully verified and audited figures conclusively supporting the claim.
He said he had facilitated the transfer of substantial crypto-currency holdings and cash to the estate.
The dispute over Rheeder-Kleist’s funds raises a related question: whether crypto-currency held in customer accounts should be treated as company property available to creditors, or as assets held on behalf of customers.
The liquidators’ particulars of claim allege that users accepted the platform’s terms electronically and describe its transaction functions and the crypto-currency acquired on behalf of users.
Rheeder-Kleist says he needs the agreement that actually applied to his account and the disputed transactions to establish the contractual basis of his defence.
He points out that a general platform terms printout attached to the pleadings is dated 14 May 2021, after the disputed transfers. He argues that the liquidators should produce the agreement applicable to his account, or establish that the version already supplied is the one he accepted.
The trader brought an application under Rules 30 and 30A of the Uniform Rules of Court after requesting the agreement in February 2024. He says the document remains outstanding despite subsequent procedural notices and court papers.
He is asking the court primarily to dismiss the main action because of the alleged failure to comply with document-production requirements. Alternatively, he wants an order compelling production within five court days.
The application also seeks to overturn a notice of bar issued in May 2024, which prevents him from delivering a plea until the procedural position is resolved.
Rheeder-Kleist says he took steps to defend the action and pursued the agreement because he considered it necessary to plead.
He is seeking 15 court days to deliver his plea after the required documents are produced or, if no further production is ordered, after the court’s ruling. He also wants protection against default judgement before that period expires.
In a further challenge to the claim, Rheeder-Kleist says the 12 transfers listed in the liquidators’ particulars of claim total R2 610 884.97, compared with the R2 850 805.77 being sought. He identifies a difference of R239 920.80 and argues that the amounts require reconciliation.
The heads of argument set out Rheeder-Kleist’s submissions and the relief he is seeking. They do not establish that the court has accepted his version of events. The ownership of the disputed funds and whether the transfers are recoverable remain issues for judicial determination.
The liquidators had not responded to ITWeb’s queries at the time of publication.