Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang: Injunction for Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Unjust Enrichment

In Lyu Yan @ Lu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang, the High Court of Singapore heard the plaintiff's application for an injunction against Lim Tien Chiang, Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan, and Lim ZhengDe, the defendants, for misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff lost US$3 million in a remittance scheme involving unlicensed money changers. The court, finding a real risk of asset dissipation, granted the injunction, ordering the defendants to disclose their assets and financial transactions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Injunction granted against the defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendants for misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment after losing US$3m in a remittance scheme. The court granted the injunction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ang Jian Sheng JonathanDefendantIndividualInjunction grantedLost
Lim ZhengdeDefendantIndividualInjunction grantedLost
Lyu Yan @ Lu YanPlaintiffIndividualInjunction grantedWon
Lim Tien ChiangDefendantIndividualInjunction grantedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff transferred US$3m equivalent in RMB to defendants for remittance.
  2. First defendant used PT Niaga for the first transfer of US$3m.
  3. Second transfer of US$3m was to be made to plaintiff's BNP account.
  4. First defendant used third defendant's services for the second transfer.
  5. Plaintiff deposited RMB into four accounts, including those of the second and third defendants.
  6. Money was remitted to an unlicensed money changer known as 'Allan'.
  7. Defendants' explanations regarding the missing money were inadequate.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lyu Yan @ Lu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang and others, HC/Suit No 1109 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 10

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff deposited RMB equivalent of US$3m into four accounts.
Writ filed against the three defendants.
Summons filed for an order for injunction against the defendants.
Hearing held, interim injunction granted.
Interim injunction extended until further order.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Injunction to prevent asset dissipation
    • Outcome: The court granted the injunction, finding a real risk of asset dissipation.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court considered the claim of misrepresentation as part of the basis for granting the injunction.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Fraud
    • Outcome: The court considered the claim of fraud as part of the basis for granting the injunction.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Unjust enrichment
    • Outcome: The court considered the claim of unjust enrichment as part of the basis for granting the injunction.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Misrepresentation
  • Fraud
  • Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 45 r 7(6) of the Rules of Court
O 45 r 7(7) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Remittance
  • Injunction
  • Asset Dissipation
  • Unlicensed Money Changer
  • Mareva Injunction

15.2 Keywords

  • Injunction
  • Misrepresentation
  • Fraud
  • Unjust Enrichment
  • Remittance
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Injunctions
  • Civil Procedure
  • Financial Transactions