Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang: Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, and Conspiracy in Cross-Border Remittance
In Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang, the High Court of Singapore addressed claims arising from a failed cross-border remittance. Lyu Yan engaged Lim Tien Chiang (Joseph) to remit funds from China to Singapore. When the remittance failed, Lyu Yan sued Joseph for breach of contract and misrepresentation, and all defendants, including Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan and Lim ZhengDe (Derek), for conspiracy, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties. The court found Joseph liable for breach of contract and negligence, and Jonathan and Derek liable for conspiracy and negligence. The court also found all defendants liable for unjust enrichment. The court dismissed the misrepresentation and fiduciary duty claims.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addresses claims of breach of contract, misrepresentation, and conspiracy in a failed cross-border remittance, ultimately finding liability for breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lyu Yan @ Lu Yan | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Jimmy Yap |
| Lim Tien Chiang | Defendant | Individual | Liable for Breach of Contract, Negligence, and Unjust Enrichment | Lost | Gino Hardial Singh, Pai Aniket Rajendra |
| Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan | Defendant | Individual | Liable for Conspiracy, Negligence, and Unjust Enrichment | Lost | Chooi Jing Yen, Hamza Malik |
| Lim ZhengDe | Defendant | Individual | Liable for Conspiracy, Negligence, and Unjust Enrichment | Lost | Chooi Jing Yen, Hamza Malik |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jimmy Yap | Jimmy Yap & Co. |
| Gino Hardial Singh | Abbots Chambers LLC |
| Pai Aniket Rajendra | Abbots Chambers LLC |
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Hamza Malik | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Lyu Yan sought to transfer RMB from China to her Singapore bank accounts.
- BNP Paribas referred Lyu Yan to Joseph for remittance services.
- Lyu Yan and Joseph agreed to convert RMB21,075,000 to US$3m.
- Lyu Yan transferred RMB to bank accounts provided by Joseph, Jonathan, and Derek.
- Jonathan and Derek transferred the RMB to accounts nominated by "Allan."
- Lyu Yan never received the US$3m or the return of her RMB.
- Jonathan and Derek claimed "Allan" disappeared with the funds.
5. Formal Citations
- Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang and others, Suit No 1109 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 145
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lyu Yan contacted Joseph to discuss proposed remittance. | |
| Lyu Yan instructed Joseph to remit the equivalent of US$3m in RMB. | |
| Lyu Yan transferred funds to Chinese bank accounts for the First Transaction. | |
| Lyu Yan received the equivalent amount in USD in her Singapore Credit Suisse bank account. | |
| Lyu Yan agreed to engage Joseph’s services for the Second Transaction. | |
| Lyu Yan transferred RMB13,975,000 to Jonathan’s Chinese bank accounts. | |
| Lyu Yan transferred RMB7,000,000 to Derek’s Chinese bank account. | |
| Lyu Yan transferred RMB100,000 to Kang Tie Tie’s Chinese bank account. | |
| Jonathan transferred RMB13,970,000 to Chinese bank accounts nominated by Allan. | |
| Derek transferred RMB7,000,000 to bank accounts nominated by Allan. | |
| Joseph added to WhatsApp group chat with Derek, Jonathan, and Allan. | |
| Allan stopped replying in the WhatsApp group chat. | |
| Lyu Yan met Joseph and spoke to Derek via conference call. | |
| Lyu Yan met with Jonathan, Joseph, and Derek. | |
| Lyu Yan commenced action against the defendants. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found Joseph liable for breaching his obligation to ensure the remittance of funds.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to ensure remittance of funds
- Failure to convert funds into USD
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court dismissed the misrepresentation claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Conspiracy to Defraud
- Outcome: The court found Jonathan and Derek liable for conspiracy to defraud Lyu Yan.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found Joseph, Jonathan, and Derek liable for negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty of care
- Failure to verify licensed remittance companies
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found Joseph, Jonathan, and Derek liable for unjust enrichment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Total failure of basis
- Fiduciary Duties
- Outcome: The court dismissed the fiduciary duties claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Foreign Illegality
- Outcome: The court rejected the defense of foreign illegality.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Rescission of Contract
- Account of Profits
- Declaration of Assets
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy to Defraud
- Negligence
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peh Teck Quee v Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 842 | Singapore | Cited for the doctrine of foreign illegality and its two strands. |
| Foster v Driscoll and others | English decision | Yes | [1929] 1 KB 470 | England | Cited for the principle that a court will not enforce a contract if its object involves violating the law of a foreign and friendly state. |
| Singapore Finance Ltd v Soetanto | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 645 | Singapore | Cited in relation to foreign illegality but not followed in preference to Peh Teck Quee. |
| BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another | unknown | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the principle from Foster v Driscoll. |
| Ralli Brothers v Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar | English decision | Yes | [1920] 2 KB 287 | England | Cited for the principle regarding illegality at the place of performance (lex loci solutionis). |
| Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal | unknown | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 109 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of fiduciary duties. |
| Zhou Weidong v Liew Kai Lung and others | unknown | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 1236 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that total failure of basis may arise in a non-contractual context. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Remittance
- Foreign Exchange
- Escrow Arrangement
- Counterparty
- Underground Banking
- Licensed Remittance Company
- Total Failure of Basis
15.2 Keywords
- Remittance
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy
- Negligence
- Unjust Enrichment
- Foreign Illegality
- Singapore
- Cross-Border Transaction
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Banking Law
- Financial Regulations
- Cross-Border Transactions
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Restitution
- Equity
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy
- Negligence
- Unjust Enrichment
- Fiduciary Relationships
- Remedies
- Illegality and Public Policy
- Illegality under Foreign Law