A court in Singapore has denied an appeal from Quoine, effectively ending the crypto exchange\u2019s challenge to an adverse ruling handed down last March. The appeal comes as part of legal wrangling over reversed trades, in a case first heard last March, The Straits Times reported. The case, the first of its kind to be heard in a Singapore court, emerged after Quoine reversed seven crypto trades initiated by market maker B2C2. The trades exploited what Quoine has described as an \u2018error\u2019 in its software, allowing B2C2 software to exchange ETH for BTC at over 10x the market rate, resulting in significant gains for the firm. The gains from the trade were initially credited to B2C2, after the transaction was settled. However, the following day, Quoine was alerted to the discrepancy, and proceeded to reverse the transactions that B2C2 said had been wrongfully reversed. In the initial case, B2C2 accused Quoine of breach of trust and breach of contract over the transaction, appealing to the court to recover the sum of 3,092 BTC which had been reversed. The Singapore International Commercial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, agreeing that the reversal of the transactions had been wrongful, and ordering payment of the full amount from Quoine. However, the exchange appealed the decision, with the court asked to consider the issue again on the basis that the transactions were nothing more than a simple error. In court this week, the appeals court denied Quoine\u2019s grounds for appeal. In doing so, they said there were no mistakes in the terms of the trading contract, and even if the reversals were mistaken, B2C2\u2019s software had no way of distinguishing between mistakes and intentional moves. As a result, the court denied the appeal, and ordered Quoine to reach a settlement with B2C2 over the sums involved. Given the change in market value of BTC over the period, the case is likely to result in a substantial liability, after an almost three-year legal battle to reach a final judgement. The judgement was upheld by majority decision, with four of five judges ruling against the appeal.