XBASE crypto exchange in UAE ordered to pay $7.4 million in court case
The Dubai Court of First Instance has ordered VARA regulated Relm (legally XBASE Virtual Assets Broker & Dealer Services LLC) to comply with an AED 27.2 million ($7.4 million) judgment, another judicial success in crypto criminal and civil cases.
According to Takyon.Law, Omer Ben Matityahu moved to enforce the judgment and XBase was given seven days to comply. His reported victory is therefore clear at the execution stage. He secured an enforceable monetary award. The public account does not disclose the underlying claim, evidence, reasoning, defense or any appeal, making it impossible to say why the court found for Matityahu or whether the dispute arose from XBase’s regulated brokerage activity.
XBASE part of RELM group currently still on VARA website
While XBase has been ordered to pay the $7.4 million, it currently remains listed as an active Virtual Asset Service Provider on Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority. Issued in March 2026, its license covers spot over-the-counter broker-dealer services for institutional and qualified investors.
The license and court order address different questions. Regulatory approval permits a named entity to conduct specified activities; it does not shield it from contractual claims or creditor enforcement. That distinction matters for groups operating under one brand through several companies. Relm identifies separate entities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Canada, the UK and Australia, putting the contracting, custody, execution and settlement entity at the centre of any claim.
UAE Courts Expand Crypto Remedies
The order follows a developing judicial pattern. In Case No. 1872/2024, the Dubai Court of First Instance ordered the return of 29 Bitcoin and 102 Ether—or their market value at enforcement—after accepting WhatsApp messages and wallet-transfer records as evidence of an investment arrangement. It showed how specific performance can preserve a claimant’s exposure to volatile assets during litigation.
A separate 2024 ruling enforced an employment contract that denominated part of a worker’s unpaid salary in EcoWatt tokens, ordering payment in tokens rather than automatic conversion to fiat. That case confirmed that clearly documented crypto obligations can be judicially recognized.
The DIFC Courts’ Digital Economy Court has gone further at the interim stage. In Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Ors, it continued a proprietary injunction and issued its first worldwide freezing order, preserving up to $456 million linked to TrueUSD reserves. The court found a serious issue to be tried over allegations that funds sent to Dubai-based Aria Commodities DMCC were held on constructive trust and diverted in breach of trust, accepted evidence of a real dissipation risk, and ordered enhanced disclosure to trace funds and ultimate beneficiaries.
The TrueUSD order is not a final finding of fraud or liability; the allegations remain contested. Its relevance to XBase is procedural. Dubai courts can freeze and trace assets before liability is decided, then enforce a monetary judgment after a claimant prevails. The Digital Economy Court also confirmed that its interim powers can support foreign proceedings where the eventual judgment would be enforceable through the DIFC Courts.
FTX Showed Why a Local Licence Is Not the Whole Story
FTX exposed the same gap between brand, legal entity, license stage and customer exposure on a larger scale. When the group entered US bankruptcy in November 2022, VARA revoked FTX MENA’s approval and suspended its minimum viable product license. The Dubai entity was still in a readiness phase and, according to the regulator, had not been authorised to onboard local clients or operate a domestic client-money account.
FTX EU’s later sale to UAE-licensed Backpack Exchange, approved through bankruptcy proceedings, reinforced that restitution and asset transfers follow the rights and liabilities of particular entities—not a global brand.
VARA has separately targeted firms outside the licensing perimeter, issuing cease-and-desist orders and penalties against providers including Shelbit and fining 19 firms in 2025 for unlicensed activity and marketing breaches. Those actions police market access and conduct; the XBase order enforces a private judgment against a company that remains licensed.
The Due-Diligence Test
The lesson is not that with a licensed entity it is much easier to take them to court then with an unregulated entity, but that does not mean that there will never be a reason to take them to court, because despite all efforts, things happen.
