STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja: Contempt of Court for Non-Disclosure of Assets

In STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja and others, the High Court of Singapore found Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja, Bella Novitia Kartika, and Yan Pratama Adisaputra in contempt of court for breaching freezing orders by failing to fully disclose their assets. STX Corp, a Korean corporation, initiated litigation against the defendants in connection with a coal mining operation in Indonesia. The court imposed fines on the defendants for their non-compliance, with varying amounts based on their culpability.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendants found in contempt of court and fined for failing to fully disclose assets.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court found Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja, Bella Novitia Kartika, and Yan Pratama Adisaputra in contempt of court for failing to fully disclose assets as required by freezing orders.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
STX CorpPlaintiffCorporationContempt of court found against defendantsWon
Jason Surjana TanuwidjajaDefendantIndividualFound in contempt of courtLost
Bella Novitia KartikaDefendantIndividualFound in contempt of courtLost
Yan Pratama AdisaputraDefendantIndividualFound in contempt of courtLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christopher Anand s/o DanielAdvocatus Law LLP
Ganga d/o AvadiarAdvocatus Law LLP
Foo Li Chuan ArleneAdvocatus Law LLP
Suresh s/o DamodaraDamodara Hazra LLP
Subashini d/o NarayanasamyHaridass Ho & Partners
Yogarajah Yoga SharminiHaridass Ho & Partners

4. Facts

  1. STX Corporation, a Korean company, was involved in a coal mining operation in Indonesia.
  2. STX Corp initiated litigation against Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja (JST), Bella Novitia Kartika (BNK), and Yan Pratama Adisaputra (YPA).
  3. The plaintiff obtained freezing orders against JST, BNK, and YPA, requiring them to disclose all their assets.
  4. The defendants admitted to breaching the deadlines for filing their Affidavits of Assets.
  5. JST transferred his interest in a Singapore property to his wife almost 30 years before the court order.
  6. BNK is the registered owner of a property in Perth, Australia, but claims it belongs to her mother.
  7. YPA pledged land in Indonesia to the plaintiff as security over a coal contract.

5. Formal Citations

  1. STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja and others, Suit No 960 of 2012 (Summonses No 2776 of 2013, 2777 of 2013 & 2778 of 2013), [2014] SGHC 45

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff obtained freezing orders against the defendants.
Freezing orders served on JST, BNK, and YPA via email.
JST filed an application for an extension of time to file his Affidavit of Assets in OS 1066.
JST's application for an extension of time was dismissed.
JST filed his Affidavit of Assets in OS 1066.
BNK and YPA filed their Affidavits of Assets in Suit 960 and OS 1066.
Judgment delivered.
YPA and BNK ordered to file an affidavit in each of S 960 and OS 1066.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of court for failure to comply with freezing order
    • Outcome: The court found the defendants in contempt of court for failing to fully disclose their assets and for delays in filing their affidavits of assets.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to disclose all assets
      • Delay in filing affidavit of assets
  2. Interpretation of 'all their assets' in a freezing order
    • Outcome: The court held that 'all their assets' refers to assets beneficially held by the defendants, not assets legally owned but held as trustees for third parties.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether 'all their assets' includes assets held on trust for others

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Committal to prison
  2. Fines
  3. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Mining

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Beow Hiong v Tan Boon AikCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR(R) 870SingaporeCited for the principle that the threshold to establish the guilty intention necessary for a finding of civil contempt is a low one.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v PT Bakrie InvestindoHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 105SingaporeCited for the principle that as long as there is a deliberate breach of the order, the reasons for disobedience are irrelevant in establishing liability.
Monex Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v E Clearing Singapore Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] 4 SLR 1169SingaporeCited for the two-step approach in finding contempt involving a disclosure order.
Federal Bank of the Middle East Ltd v Hadkinson and othersEnglish Court of AppealYes[2000] 1 WLR 1695England and WalesCited for the principle that the expression 'all their assets' refers to assets belonging to the defendant and which he could use to satisfy a claim made against him.
JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and othersEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2010] EWCA Civ 1436England and WalesCited to show the type of wording required to cover assets which are legally but not beneficially owned.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and othersCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited for the principle that the purpose of a court order depends on the precise terms of the order.
Shadrake Alan v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 778SingaporeCited for the general proposition that contempt proceedings are to ensure that the public confidence of the administration of justice is preserved.
Cartier International B.V. v Lee Hock Lee and anotherHigh CourtYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 340SingaporeCited as an instance where a custodial sentence was imposed for breach of an injunction against trade mark infringement.
P J Holdings Inc v Ariel Singapore Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 582SingaporeCited for the principle that an order for committal is a drastic remedy with criminal overtones and is a remedy of last resort.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and othersCourt of AppealYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 74SingaporeCited for the principle that a monthly salary that is paid into a bank account is caught by a freezing injunction as and when it is paid into the account.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Freezing order
  • Affidavit of Assets
  • Contempt of court
  • Disclosure of assets
  • Beneficial ownership
  • Trust
  • Committal
  • Injunction

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt of court
  • Freezing order
  • Asset disclosure
  • Singapore High Court
  • Civil litigation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court90
Freezing Order80
Civil Procedure70
Injunctions60
Evidence Law50
Asset Recovery40
Contract Law30
Company Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contempt of Court
  • Asset Disclosure
  • Freezing Orders