Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan v Lyu Yan: Illegality and Public Policy in Cross-Border Remittance
In Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan v Lyu Yan, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal concerning a failed cross-border remittance. Lyu Yan engaged Joseph to remit money from her China bank accounts to her Singapore bank account. Joseph enlisted Jonathan and Derek's help, but the money disappeared. Lyu Yan sued Joseph, Jonathan, and Derek. The High Court allowed Lyu Yan’s claims against Jonathan and Derek in conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment. Jonathan and Derek appealed, arguing that Allan defrauded Lyu Yan and that the rule in Foster v Driscoll barred Lyu Yan’s claims. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Allan was fictitious and that the rule in Foster v Driscoll did not apply. The court upheld the claims in conspiracy and unjust enrichment but expressed doubts about the negligence claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning a failed cross-border remittance. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants liable for conspiracy and unjust enrichment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Chooi Jing Yen, Joel Wong En Jie |
| Lim Zhengde | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Chooi Jing Yen, Joel Wong En Jie |
| Lyu Yan @ Lu Yan | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Jimmy Yap |
| Lim Tien Chiang | Defendant | Individual | No Appeal | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chooi Jing Yen | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Joel Wong En Jie | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Jimmy Yap | Jimmy Yap & Co |
4. Facts
- Lyu Yan wanted to remit money from her China bank accounts to her Singapore bank accounts.
- Lyu Yan engaged Joseph to help with the remittance.
- Lyu Yan transferred money to China bank accounts nominated by Joseph, Jonathan, and Derek.
- Jonathan and Derek transferred the money away, and the money disappeared.
- Jonathan and Derek claimed that they had passed Lyu Yan’s money to Allan, who had absconded.
- Lyu Yan commenced proceedings against Joseph, Jonathan, and Derek.
- The High Court allowed Lyu Yan’s claims against Jonathan and Derek in conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment.
5. Formal Citations
- Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan and another v Lyu Yan, Civil Appeal No 128 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 12
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lyu Yan instructed Joseph to transfer the equivalent of US$3m in RMB from her Chinese bank account to her Singapore bank account with Credit Suisse. | |
| Lyu Yan agreed to engage Joseph’s services to convert RMB21,075,000 to US$3m at an exchange rate of USD1 = RMB7.025, and to remit the funds in USD from her China bank account with China Merchant Bank to her Singapore bank account with BNP. | |
| Lyu Yan transferred money from her China bank accounts to various China bank accounts nominated by Joseph. | |
| Jonathan and Derek transferred all the money away. | |
| Jonathan and Derek transferred all the money away. | |
| Derek told Joseph that his counterparty was one “Allan”, and added Joseph to a WhatsApp group chat called “Fast Remittance” with himself, Allan and Jonathan. | |
| Allan stopped replying on WhatsApp group chat. | |
| Lyu Yan commenced proceedings against Joseph, Jonathan and Derek in HC/Suit No 1109 of 2018. | |
| The High Court Judge allowed Lyu Yan’s claims against Jonathan and Derek in conspiracy, negligence and unjust enrichment (see Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang [2020] SGHC 145). | |
| Jonathan and Derek appealed. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court upheld the claim in conspiracy, finding that Jonathan and Derek made misrepresentations to Joseph, which they knew would be conveyed to Lyu Yan, and that they transferred Lyu Yan’s money elsewhere.
- Category: Substantive
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court upheld the claim in unjust enrichment, finding that the basis of Lyu Yan’s transfer of money to Jonathan and Derek failed because Allan was non-existent.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court expressed doubts about whether the Judge was correct to allow the claim in negligence, given that the other claims were founded on intentional lies.
- Category: Substantive
- Illegality of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the rule in Foster v Driscoll was not engaged because Lyu Yan did not know, let alone intend, that the Second Transaction violated Chinese law.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1929] 1 KB 470
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy
- Negligence
- Unjust Enrichment
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foster v Driscoll | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1929] 1 KB 470 | England and Wales | Cited for the rule that an agreement is void if it violates the law of a foreign country. |
| SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 71 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that he who asserts must prove. |
| Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 145 | Singapore | The High Court decision that was appealed in this case. |
| Ochroid Trading Ltd and another Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another | N/A | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 363 | Singapore | Cited for the framework dealing with contractual illegality. |
| Lilly Icos LLC v 8PM Chemists Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [2010] FSR 4 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the rule in Foster v Driscoll can only be used to defeat a claim in contract, and is not applicable in relation to non-contractual claims. |
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
- Remittance
- Second Transaction
- Foster v Driscoll
- Allan
- Illegality
- Cross-border transaction
15.2 Keywords
- remittance
- illegality
- contract
- conspiracy
- unjust enrichment
- Singapore
- cross-border
- transfer
- China
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Banking Law
- Financial Regulations
- Cross-Border Transactions
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Conflict of Laws
- Torts
- Unjust Enrichment