Toyota Tsusho v Foo Tseh Wan: Contempt of Court for Failure to Disclose Assets

In a case between Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Plaintiff) and Foo Tseh Wan, Wah Sin Industrial Pte. Ltd., Vintech Engrg Pte. Ltd., and TKA Amusement (S) Pte. Ltd. (Defendants), the High Court of Singapore, on 21 November 2016 and 10 February 2017, found Gan Teck Beng, a director of Vintech, in contempt of court. The contempt arose from Gan's failure to fully disclose Vintech's assets, specifically a US$10,136,400 sum, as required by a Mareva Injunction. The court sentenced Gan to three months' imprisonment, suspended for ten days to allow compliance with the disclosure order.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Committal Order granted against Gan Teck Beng for contempt of court; sentence of three months’ imprisonment suspended for ten days to afford Gan an opportunity to comply with the Mareva Injunction.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Gan Teck Beng was found in contempt of court for failing to disclose assets in compliance with a Mareva Injunction, hindering Toyota Tsusho's ability to trace funds.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn BhdPlaintiffCorporationCommittal Order grantedWon
Foo Tseh WanDefendantIndividualOtherNeutral
Wah Sin Industrial Pte. Ltd.DefendantCorporationOtherNeutral
Vintech Engrg Pte. Ltd.DefendantCorporationOtherNeutral
TKA Amusement (S) Pte. Ltd.DefendantCorporationOtherNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Han GuangyuanCavenagh Law LLP
KeithCavenagh Law LLP
Goh Rui Xian ElsaCavenagh Law LLP
Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam SinghKirpal & Associates
Oh Hsiu Leem OsborneHu Shoulin

4. Facts

  1. Toyota Tsusho alleged a conspiracy by its former employee Foo Tseh Wan and the defendants to defraud the company.
  2. The plaintiff secured a worldwide Mareva Injunction against the four defendants.
  3. The Mareva Injunction required the defendants to disclose all their assets.
  4. Vintech's director, Gan Teck Beng, filed an affidavit of assets on behalf of Vintech.
  5. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with Vintech’s affidavit, alleging failure to account for US$10,136,400 withdrawn from Vintech’s account.
  6. Gan claimed the US$ sum was paid in cash to ASP, a supplier, but provided no credible evidence.
  7. Gan used the words 'dummy invoices' in an email regarding invoices from ASP.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn BhdvFoo Tseh Wan and others, Suit No 753 of 2015 (Summons No 4665 of 2016), [2017] SGHC 24

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Foo Tseh Wan resigned from Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.
Writ of summons filed by Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.
Worldwide Mareva Injunction and Anton Piller order obtained.
Vintech’s affidavit of means filed.
Statement of claim filed by Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.
Mareva Injunction and Disclosure Order obtained against Gan personally in Suit 834.
Gan filed an affidavit of his personal assets and means.
Stay of proceedings granted to Vintech.
Plaintiff granted an order in terms of the Discovery Application.
Bank furnished requested documents to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff's application to examine Gan on his two affidavits of means were granted by consent.
First examination hearing took place.
Plaintiff’s solicitors sent letter to Vintech’s counsel listing documents requested.
Gan filed his 7th affidavit.
Second examination hearing took place.
Gan filed his 8th affidavit to resist the Committal Application.
Committal Application granted and Gan sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, suspended for ten days.
Gan filed his 9th affidavit in purported compliance of the Committal Order.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Contempt of Court
    • Outcome: The court found Gan Teck Beng in contempt of court for failing to comply with the Disclosure Order and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment, suspended for ten days to afford him a final opportunity to comply with the Disclosure Order within the Mareva Injunction.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to comply with Disclosure Order
      • Breach of Mareva Injunction
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 2 SLR(R) 592
      • [2007] 2 SLR(R) 518
      • [2012] 4 SLR 1169
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. An account of profits
  3. A declaration that the defendants are constructive trustees
  4. Exemplary damages
  5. Punitive damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraud
  • Conspiracy
  • Deceit
  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract
  • Monies had and received

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • International Trade

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and othersHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR (R) 74SingaporeCited for the principle that the court can grant examination applications where affidavits of means cry out for particulars and/or explanations.
House of Spring Gardens Ltd v WaiteN/AYes[1985] FSR 173United KingdomCited as the UK decision followed in OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others for granting examination applications.
Yukong Line Ltd of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Corporation of LiberiaN/ANo[1996] TLR 584N/ACited to argue that the court should not allow the cross-examination process to be used to extract material to build the plaintiff’s case.
Summit Holdings Ltd and another v Business Software AllianceN/AYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 592SingaporeCited for the standard of proof required for civil contempt cases, which is the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and othersCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited for reaffirming the standard of proof required for civil contempt cases, which is the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
Monex Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v E-Clearing (Singapore) Pte LtdN/AYes[2012] 4 SLR 1169SingaporeCited for the standard of proof required for civil contempt cases, which is the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, and for the principle that a committal order is a measure of last resort.
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan YaoN/AYes[2016] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the standard of proof required for civil contempt cases, which is the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, and for the penalty imposed in a contempt case.
STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja and othersN/AYes[2014] 2 SLR 1261SingaporeCited for the principle that a freezing order covers assets not legally but beneficially owned by the enjoined party.
Federal Bank of the Middle East Ltd v HadkinsonN/AYes[2000] 1 WLR 1695N/ACited in STX Corp v Jason Surjana Tanuwidjaja and others for the principle that a freezing order covers assets not legally but beneficially owned by the enjoined party.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony SebastianN/AYes[2013] 1 SLR 245SingaporeCited for the guidelines on the length of the sentence of imprisonment in contempt cases.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mareva Injunction
  • Anton Piller Order
  • Disclosure Order
  • Affidavit of means
  • Committal Application
  • Contempt of court
  • Dummy invoices
  • Constructive trust

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt
  • Disclosure
  • Assets
  • Mareva Injunction
  • Fraud
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Contempt90
Contempt of Court90
Fraud and Deceit70
Misrepresentation60
Breach of Contract50
Asset Recovery40
Trust Law40
Litigation30
Contract Law30
Affidavits20
Duty to Account20
Mareva Injunctions20
Evidence20
Estoppel20

16. Subjects

  • Contempt of Court
  • Civil Procedure
  • Disclosure of Assets