The Micro Tellers Network v Cheng Yi Han: Mareva Injunction & Fraudulent Misrepresentation
In The Micro Tellers Network Limited and others v Cheng Yi Han and others, the Singapore High Court considered the plaintiffs' application for a worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendants, Cheng Yi Han, Andrew Ling Hui, and Providence Asset Management. The plaintiffs, The Micro Tellers Network Limited, Michael Lin Daoji, Rio Lim Yong Chee, and Wong Zhi Yang, claimed that the defendants induced them to transfer money and cryptocurrency based on fraudulent misrepresentations related to a bank acquisition and cryptocurrency trading. The court, finding a good arguable case for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy, granted the worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendants' assets up to US$9,799,221.94.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs’ application for a worldwide Mareva injunction against the Defendants’ assets granted.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court grants worldwide Mareva injunction against defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation in cryptocurrency investment scheme.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Micro Tellers Network Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application for worldwide Mareva injunction granted | Won | |
| Michael Lin Daoji | Plaintiff | Individual | Application for worldwide Mareva injunction granted | Won | |
| Rio Lim Yong Chee | Plaintiff | Individual | Application for worldwide Mareva injunction granted | Won | |
| Cheng Yi Han (Zhong Yihan) | Defendant | Individual | Worldwide Mareva injunction granted against assets | Lost | |
| Ling Hui Andrew | Defendant | Individual | Worldwide Mareva injunction granted against assets | Lost | |
| Providence Asset Management | Defendant | Corporation | Worldwide Mareva injunction granted against assets | Lost | |
| Wong Zhi Yang, Clement | Plaintiff | Individual | Application for worldwide Mareva injunction granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- P1 transferred the equivalent of US$2,700,198 to the Defendants based on fraudulent representations.
- The Defendants represented that the MT Investment would be used to purchase 85% of the shares of a private bank in Curacao.
- Instead of acquiring Curacao Bank, a bank in Comoros was acquired at only US$4 million.
- RG transferred money or BTC to D3’s DBS Account or to a cryptocurrency wallet controlled by D3.
- The Defendants represented that US$5,197,146.20 of the RG Funds could be used to purchase 554.66 BTC to be sold in Europe for €5,000,000.
- D1 informed RG that the Defendants had transferred the 554.66 BTC to the buyer but that the cash given by the latter was counterfeit.
- US$2,074,051.80 of the RG Funds remained in D3’s DBS Account (the Float).
- D1 and D2 employed numerous delay tactics such that RG has only been repaid $238,486 of the Float.
5. Formal Citations
- The Micro Tellers Network Ltd and others v Cheng Yi Han and others, Suit No 916 of 2019 (Summons No 6207 of 2019), [2020] SGHC 130
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendants made fraudulent representations to Charles to induce P1 to transfer money and/or cryptocurrency. | |
| P1 completed payment of the MT Investment. | |
| Shareholders’ agreement executed by P1 and BSI. | |
| D2 filed Suit 653 of 2019 against Feng to recover the monies. | |
| Settlement agreement dated between D2 and Riady. | |
| Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 1) dated. | |
| D2’s Defence (Amendment No. 1) dated. | |
| D1’s Defence (Amendment No. 2) dated. | |
| Alankriti Sethi’s 1st affidavit dated. | |
| D2’s 3rd affidavit dated. | |
| Plaintiff’s written submissions dated. | |
| D1’s 1st affidavit dated. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Notes of Evidence. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Minute Sheet. | |
| Minute Sheet. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that P1 and RG had shown a good arguable case against the Defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation of fact
- Intention to induce reliance
- Actual reliance
- Damages suffered
- Knowledge of falsity
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that P1 and RG had shown a good arguable case against the Defendants for conspiracy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Agreement to commit unlawful act
- Intention to cause damage
- Acts performed in furtherance of agreement
- Resulting loss
- Real Risk of Asset Dissipation
- Outcome: The court found that there was a real risk that the Defendants would dissipate their assets to frustrate the enforcement of an anticipated court judgment.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Dishonesty of defendant
- Attempts to dispose of assets
- Nature of assets
- Defendant's domicile or residence
- Worldwide Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: The court granted a worldwide Mareva injunction against the Defendants’ assets.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Necessity
- Assets outside jurisdiction
8. Remedies Sought
- Worldwide Mareva Injunction
- Monetary Damages
- Account of Profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy (Lawful and Unlawful)
- Negligent Misstatement
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Breach of Trust
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Injunctions
- Asset Recovery
11. Industries
- Financial Services
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar and another v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 558 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of a plaintiff seeking a Mareva injunction and the threshold of necessity for a worldwide Mareva injunction. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation and that a misrepresentation need not be the sole inducement. |
| Creative Technology Ltd and another v Huawei International Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 201 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an entire agreement clause only denudes any pre-contractual statements or representations of contractual effect unless clearly expressed. |
| RBC Properties Pte Ltd v Defu Furniture Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 997 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an entire agreement clause only denudes any pre-contractual statements or representations of contractual effect unless clearly expressed. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 159 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement that the plaintiff must produce solid evidence to demonstrate a real risk of asset dissipation. |
| Guan Chong Cocoa Manufacturer Sdn Bhd v Pratiwi Shipping SA | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 157 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fewer the assets within the jurisdiction, the greater the necessity for taking protective measures in relation to those outside it. |
| Teo Siew Har v Lee Kuan Yew | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 410 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may issue a Mareva injunction over assets belonging to a third party where the assets are in truth the assets of the defendant. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva Injunction
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Cryptocurrency
- Bank Acquisition
- Asset Dissipation
- Europe Transaction
- The Float
- BSI
- WPS Account
- 5&2 Account
15.2 Keywords
- Mareva Injunction
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Cryptocurrency
- Asset Dissipation
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Fraud and Deceit | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Injunctions | 70 |
| Commercial Litigation | 60 |
| Commercial Disputes | 55 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 40 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 35 |
| Business Formation | 30 |
| Corporate Law | 25 |
| Arbitration | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions
- Fraud
- Cryptocurrency
- Banking
- Investments