OCM Opportunities Fund II v Burhan Uray: Mareva Injunction, Asset Disclosure, Cross-Examination
In OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others, the Singapore High Court, presided over by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, addressed the plaintiffs' application to cross-examine several defendants on their affidavits of assets, which were filed pursuant to a worldwide Mareva injunction. The plaintiffs alleged a complex fraud involving fictitious sales and diversion of funds. The court allowed the application for cross-examination for most defendants, finding their asset disclosures deficient, but ordered one defendant, Betty Pai, to file a further affidavit explaining the whereabouts of proceeds from a property sale instead of facing cross-examination.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed in part. Cross-examination ordered for most defendants to ensure complete asset disclosure.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to cross-examine defendants on affidavits of assets in Mareva injunction case. Court ordered cross-examination to ensure complete asset disclosure.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP | Plaintiff | Partnership | Application allowed in part | Partial | Davinder Singh, Yarni Loi, Kabir Singh, Tan Mei Yen |
| Columbia/HCA Master Retirement Trust | Plaintiff | Trust | Application allowed in part | Partial | Davinder Singh, Yarni Loi, Kabir Singh, Tan Mei Yen |
| Gryphon Domestic VI, LLC | Plaintiff | Limited Liability Partnership | Application allowed in part | Partial | Davinder Singh, Yarni Loi, Kabir Singh, Tan Mei Yen |
| OCM Emerging Markets Fund, LP | Plaintiff | Partnership | Application allowed in part | Partial | Davinder Singh, Yarni Loi, Kabir Singh, Tan Mei Yen |
| ASO I (Delaware) LLC | Plaintiff | Limited Liability Partnership | Application allowed in part | Partial | Davinder Singh, Yarni Loi, Kabir Singh, Tan Mei Yen |
| Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) | Defendant | Individual | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| Joseph Wong Kiia Tai | Defendant | Individual | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| Soejono Varinata | Defendant | Individual | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| H Sudradjat Djajapert Junda | Defendant | Individual | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| Hendrick Burhan | Defendant | Individual | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| Joseph Siswanto | Defendant | Individual | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| PT Daya Guna Samudera Tbk | Defendant | Corporation | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| Gary Chan Wei Long | Defendant | Individual | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | A S Shankar |
| WMP Trading Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| Betty Pai alias Pai Sha | Defendant | Individual | Further affidavit ordered | Other | Molly Lim, Ambrose Chia |
| Borneo Jaya Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| Natura Holdings Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
| Handforth Profits Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Cross-examination ordered | Lost | N Sreenivasan, Nigel Pereira |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Davinder Singh | Drew and Napier LLC |
| Yarni Loi | Drew and Napier LLC |
| Kabir Singh | Drew and Napier LLC |
| Tan Mei Yen | Drew and Napier LLC |
| N Sreenivasan | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Nigel Pereira | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| A S Shankar | Rajah Velu and Co |
| Molly Lim | Wong Tan and Molly Lim LLC |
| Ambrose Chia | Wong Tan and Molly Lim LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendants.
- The injunction required the defendants to disclose their worldwide assets by affidavit.
- Plaintiffs alleged the defendants conspired to commit a complex fraud.
- The alleged fraud involved fictitious sales and diversion of funds.
- Plaintiffs claimed the defendants falsely inflated profits to deceive them into buying bonds.
- Plaintiffs argued the defendants' asset disclosures were incomplete and inadequate.
- Some defendants had been subject to a previous Mareva injunction in BMR proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others, Suit 50/2004, SIC 1150/2004, [2004] SGHC 165
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs obtained ex parte a worldwide injunction (Mareva order). | |
| Defendants' application to suspend disclosure of assets refused. | |
| Plaintiffs' application to cross-examine defendants on affidavits of assets filed. | |
| Defendants' application was decided. | |
| Chao Hick Tin JA heard the defendants’ application for an expedited appeal. | |
| Chao JA heard further arguments on the defendants’ application for an expedited appeal. | |
| D1 to D8 and D11 to D15 to file their defence. | |
| Court order allowing the plaintiffs’ application. | |
| Application for variation of the Mareva order was dismissed. | |
| D12 to file and serve a further affidavit. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Incomplete Asset Disclosure
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants' affidavits of assets were deficient, inadequate, and lacking in particulars, justifying an order for cross-examination.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to disclose all assets
- Inadequate particulars of assets
- Failure to disclose jointly owned assets
- Failure to disclose assets held by nominee
- Scope of Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The court held that the Mareva jurisdiction extends to all assets, including salary, provided the defendant is the legal or beneficial owner.
- Category: Substantive
- Cross-Examination on Affidavits
- Outcome: The court ordered cross-examination of the defendants on their affidavits of assets, finding it just and convenient to ensure the Mareva order's effectiveness.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1985] FSR 173
8. Remedies Sought
- Mareva injunction
- Disclosure of assets
- Cross-examination on affidavits
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraud
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Provides a fuller account of the facts of the case. |
| House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite | N/A | Yes | [1985] FSR 173 | N/A | Cited for the test of whether it is just and convenient to make an order for cross-examination. |
| Yukong Line Ltd of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of Liberia | N/A | Yes | [1996] TLR 584 | N/A | Cited to caution against abuse of cross-examination to extract material for the main action. |
| Belgolaise SA v Deepak Lal Purchandani | N/A | Yes | [1999] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 116 | N/A | Cited regarding the particularity required in a committal application. |
| Kodak (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Cochran | Supreme Court | Yes | 1750 of 1996, 1674–1675 of 1996 (4 April 1996), SC (NSW) (unreported) | New South Wales | Cited to support the argument that a defendant is only obliged to disclose the value of his assets to the best of his ability. |
| Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Hickey | N/A | Yes | [1996] 33 ATR 453 | N/A | Cited for the proposition that cross-examination is allowed on what has happened earlier to very large sums of money. |
| Petromar Energy Resources Pte Ltd v Glencore International AG | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited to contrast the disclosure obligation in this case with the wide disclosure orders obtained ex parte in that case. |
| American Express Bank Ltd v Abdul Manaff bin Ahmad | N/A | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR 780 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether salary can be injuncted. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva injunction
- Affidavit of assets
- Cross-examination
- Disclosure of assets
- Worldwide assets
- Nominee
- Holding affidavit
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva injunction
- asset disclosure
- cross-examination
- fraud
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Injunctions
- Civil Procedure
- Fraud
- Asset Disclosure
17. Areas of Law
- Injunctions
- Civil Procedure