Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet: Mareva Injunction in Investment Scheme Dispute

Chan Pik Sun, the plaintiff, sued Wan Hoe Keet, Ho Sally, Ho Hao Tian Sebastian, and Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, seeking to recover approximately S$7.4 million invested in an investment scheme called “SureWin4U”. The plaintiff applied for a Mareva injunction to prevent the first and second defendants from disposing of their assets. Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of asset dissipation and noting the delay in bringing the application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs reserved.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff seeks Mareva injunction against defendants in a dispute over a failed investment scheme. The court dismissed the application, citing insufficient evidence of asset dissipation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chan Pik SunPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Ho SallyDefendantIndividualApplication DismissedWon
Ho Hao Tian SebastianDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
Wan Hoe KeetDefendantIndividualApplication DismissedWon
Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd (formerly known as SW4U Consultancy Pte Ltd)DefendantCorporationNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Sien Liang JosephLVM Law Chambers LLC
Lok Vi MingLVM Law Chambers LLC
Muk Chen Yeen JonathanLVM Law Chambers LLC
Tan Yan Ting TanyaLVM Law Chambers LLC
Cavinder BullDrew & Napier LLC
Lin ShuminDrew & Napier LLC
Ho Wei Wen DarylDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff invested approximately S$7.4 million in an investment scheme called “SureWin4U”.
  2. The plaintiff alleges the 1st and 2nd defendants made representations that deceived her into investing in SureWin4U.
  3. The plaintiff was told that investments in “SureWin4U” were made by purchasing “ying-bi”.
  4. The 1st and 2nd defendants listed their property for sale before the “SureWin4U” scam was discovered.
  5. The plaintiff sought the 1st and 2nd defendants to help her recover her investments.
  6. The investors went to the casinos themselves in an attempt to recover their losses by using the “100% success rate method”.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet and others, Suit No 806 of 2018(Summons No 1431 of 2020), [2020] SGHC 137

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Taiwanese news media reported on a fraudulent scheme known as “SureWin4U”.
Action was filed.
Plaintiff applied for a Mareva injunction.
Application heard by the judge.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Mareva Injunction
    • Outcome: The court refused to grant the Mareva injunction.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Dissipation of Assets
    • Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence of dissipation of assets.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Mareva Injunction
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraud
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

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

  • SureWin4U
  • Mareva Injunction
  • Ying-bi
  • Ponzi scheme
  • Dissipation of assets

15.2 Keywords

  • Mareva Injunction
  • Investment Scheme
  • SureWin4U
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Injunctions75
Mareva Injunction70
Investment Schemes65
Civil Procedure60
Ponzi Scheme60
Commercial Fraud50
Fraud and Deceit50
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Investment Scheme
  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions