Chen Yun Hian Christopher v BHNV Online Ltd: Conflict of Laws & Jurisdiction in Fraud Claim

In Chen Yun Hian Christopher v BHNV Online Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed jurisdictional challenges in a fraud case. The plaintiff, Christopher Yun Hian Chen, alleged that the defendants conspired to defraud him through a binary options trading platform, leading to significant financial losses. The first, fifth, and sixth defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction. Judicial Commissioner Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi granted the defendants' applications, declaring that the court lacked jurisdiction over them, finding that Belize was the proper forum and the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Applications by the first, fifth, and sixth defendants granted; the court declared it lacked jurisdiction over them.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court dismisses plaintiff's fraud claim against defendants due to lack of jurisdiction and failure to prove a serious issue.

1.7 Decision Date

30 December 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Christopher Yun Hian Chen	Plaintiff	Individual	Applications Dismissed	Lost	Raeza Khaled Salem Ibrahim, Kulvinder Kaur, Charlene Wee Swee Ting
BHNV Online Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Application Granted	Won	Calvin Liang, Yu Kexin, Eugene Jedidiah Low
Dean Taylor	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
Tom Williams	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
Michael Cooper	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
Ben Yitzhak Zur	Defendant	Individual	Application Granted	Won	Calvin Liang, Yu Kexin, Eugene Jedidiah Low
Gilad Tisona	Defendant	Individual	Application Granted	Won	Gregory Vijayendran SC, Tan Eu Shan Kevin, Andrew Tan Jian Ming

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Raeza Khaled Salem Ibrahim	Salem Ibrahim LLC
Kulvinder Kaur	Salem Ibrahim LLC
Charlene Wee Swee Ting	Salem Ibrahim LLC
Calvin Liang	Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice)
Yu Kexin	Yu Law
Eugene Jedidiah Low	Ark Law Corporation
Gregory Vijayendran SC	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Tan Eu Shan Kevin	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Andrew Tan Jian Ming	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff alleged defendants conspired to defraud him via a binary options platform.
Plaintiff claimed defendants manipulated his trading activities and misappropriated his money.
Plaintiff transferred US$11.55 million to the first defendant's bank account.
First defendant is a company incorporated in Belize.
Sixth defendant purchased some of the first defendant’s assets.
Plaintiff filed a “protective writ” in Belize.
Plaintiff claimed Opteck was a fraudulent trading platform.

5. Formal Citations

Chen Yun Hian Christopher v BHNV Online Ltd and others, Suit No 34 of 2017 (Summonses Nos 5512 and 5513 of 2019), [2020] SGHC 284

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-08-01	Plaintiff encountered a pop-up advertisement for Opteck.com.
2013-09-10	Second defendant introduced himself to the plaintiff.
2013-09-25	Plaintiff's trading account was created.
2013-09-30	Plaintiff made a further deposit of US$45,000.
2013-10-10	Plaintiff made the first telegraphic transfer of US$50,000.
2013-11-07	Plaintiff made the second telegraphic transfer of US$1,000,000.
2013-11-20	Plaintiff made the third telegraphic transfer of US$5,000,000.
2013-11-29	Plaintiff made the fourth telegraphic transfer of US$3,500,000.
2013-12-05	Plaintiff made the fifth telegraphic transfer of US$2,000,000.
2013-12-17	Plaintiff made a series of ten trades totaling US$18,000,000.
2014-02-05	Plaintiff filed a police report with the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force.
2014-07-22	Plaintiff's solicitors filed a criminal complaint with the Romanian authorities.
2014-10-02	Plaintiff's solicitors sent a letter to the CAD alleging fraud.
2015-04-02	CST purchased some of the first defendant’s assets through a corporate vehicular route.
2017-01-17	Plaintiff commenced Suit 34 against the first to fifth defendants.
2018-04-04	Plaintiff applied for leave to join the sixth defendant as a defendant in Suit 34.
2019-12-13	Plaintiff filed a “protective writ” in Belize against the first defendant.
2020-07-22	Court granted the sixth defendant’s application in SUM 5512 as well as the first and fifth defendants’ application in SUM 5513.
2020-12-31	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the first, fifth, and sixth defendants.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Exclusive jurisdiction clause
  - Natural forum
  - Service out of jurisdiction
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 4 SLR 500
  - [2018] 2 SLR 1271
Fraud
- Outcome: The court found that there was no serious issue to be tried regarding the plaintiff's claims of fraud.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unlawful means conspiracy
  - Misrepresentation
  - Deceit
  - Undue influence
Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court determined that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract was valid.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Declaratory relief
Rescission of transactions
Account of all moneys paid to the defendants
Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Unlawful means conspiracy
Breach of contract
Breach of fiduciary duties
Proprietary claim for moneys had and received
Misrepresentation
Deceit
Undue influence

10. Practice Areas

International Litigation
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte Ltd	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 500	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for valid service out of jurisdiction.
Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 1271	Singapore	Cited for the burden of showing a good arguable case that an exclusive jurisdiction clause exists.
Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR(R) 638	Singapore	Cited regarding the court refraining from ascribing special significance to particular phraseology.
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society (No. 1)	England and Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 WLR 896	England and Wales	Cited for the principles of contractual interpretation.
Arnold v Britton	United Kingdom Supreme Court	Yes	[2015] 2 WLR 1593	United Kingdom	Cited for factors relevant to contractual interpretation.
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[2009] 1 AC 1101	United Kingdom	Cited for the approach to interpreting contracts with linguistic mistakes.
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 373	Singapore	Cited for examining the substance of the controversy without paying undue attention to the details of how it has been pleaded.
Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others	England and Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] All ER 951	England and Wales	Cited for the construction of an arbitration clause.
Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Ltd and another v State Bank of India and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 292	Singapore	Cited for the analysis of whether a plaintiff has shown strong cause.
Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 779	Singapore	Cited for the factors relevant in analyzing if a plaintiff has shown strong cause.
The “Vishva Apurva”	Singapore High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 912	Singapore	Cited for the court not being concerned with balancing the conveniences or deciding which of two fora is the more convenient forum.
Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 265	Singapore	Cited for the connecting factors that link the dispute with the competing jurisdictions.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises Ltd	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 391	Singapore	Cited for the burden lying on the plaintiff to establish cogently that he will be denied substantial justice if the case is not heard in that forum.
Oro Negro Drilling Pte Ltd and others v Integradora de Servicios Petroleros Oro Negro SAPI de CV and others and another appeal (Jesus Angel Guerra Mendez, non-party)	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 226	Singapore	Cited for the starting presumption in relation to tortious claims is that the place where the tort occurred is prima facie the natural forum for determining that tortious claim.
Trafigura Beheer BV v Kookmin Bank Co	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2006] EWHC 1450	England and Wales	Cited for the most significant factor that relates to the two parties is the pre-existing relationship of the letter of credit.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377	Singapore	Cited for the first issue to be determined under the Spiliada test is whether there is prima facie some other available forum where it is more appropriate that the case be tried.
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 543	Singapore	Cited for the legal burden of proving that Singapore is the proper forum lies on the defendant at this stage.
Siemens AG v Holdrich Investments Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 1007	Singapore	Cited for it would be preferable for the Belizean courts rather than the Singaporean courts to apply Belizean law.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and others	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428	Singapore	Cited for the documents material to the present dispute, they were either easily transportable between jurisdictions.
Transniko Pte Ltd v Communication Technology Sdn Bhd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 941	Singapore	Cited for where an offer is made and accepted over the telephone, a contract is formed at the place where the offeror receives the notification of acceptance by the offeree.
Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew	England and Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 Ch 18	England and Wales	Cited for the cornerstone of a fiduciary relationship is a relationship of trust and confidence.
Bunge SA and another v Indian Bank	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 330	Singapore	Cited for the High Court’s judgment in Bunge SA and another v Indian Bank [2015] SGHC 330 provided a complete answer to this “preliminary” objection.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 11 r 1 of the Rules of Court
Order 12 r 7(4) of the Rules of Court
Order 32 r 6 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Binary options
Opteck
Volksbank Account
Telegraphic transfers
Exclusive jurisdiction clause
Protective writ
Unlawful means conspiracy
Asset Purchase
Frozen Moneys

15.2 Keywords

Jurisdiction
Fraud
Conflict of Laws
Binary Options
Singapore High Court

16. Subjects

Conflict of Laws
Jurisdiction
Fraud
Civil Procedure
Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

Conflict of Laws
Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Tort Law
Fraud Law
Jurisdiction