UOB v Lippo Marina: Deceit & Conspiracy in Housing Loans for Marina Collection Units

United Overseas Bank Limited (UOB) sued Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd, Goh Buck Lim, and Aurellia Adrianus Ho in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging deceit and unlawful means conspiracy related to housing loans for units in the Marina Collection condominium. The court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, dismissed UOB's claims against Lippo Marina entirely but found Goh Buck Lim and Aurellia Adrianus Ho liable for deceit. The case involved a Furniture Rebate Plan and allegations of misrepresentation regarding purchase prices, identities of purchasers, and financial standing.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff against the second and third defendants; claims against the first defendant dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

UOB sues Lippo Marina, Goh Buck Lim, and Aurellia Ho for deceit and conspiracy related to housing loans. The claim against Lippo Marina was dismissed, but succeeded against Goh and Ho.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
United Overseas Bank LimitedPlaintiffCorporationClaims against the first defendant dismissed; claims against the second and third defendants succeed.Partial
Lippo Marina Collection Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaims DismissedDismissed
Goh Buck LimDefendantIndividualClaims in deceit succeedLost
Aurellia Adrianus Ho also known as Filly HoDefendantIndividualClaims in deceit succeedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ng Ka Luon EddeeTan Kok Quan Partnership
Leong QianyuTan Kok Quan Partnership
Alcina Lynn Chew AipingTan Kok Quan Partnership
Chan Yi ZhangTan Kok Quan Partnership
Bertrice HsuTan Kok Quan Partnership
Thaddaeus TanTan Kok Quan Partnership
Siraj Omar SCDrew & Napier LLC
See Chern YangDrew & Napier LLC
Audie Wong Cheng SiewDrew & Napier LLC
Teng Po YewDrew & Napier LLC
Fitzgerald HendroffDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. United Overseas Bank (UOB) extended housing loans to purchasers of 38 units in Marina Collection.
  2. The development was developed by Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd.
  3. Goh Buck Lim and Aurellia Adrianus Ho were the property agents involved in the purchase of the units.
  4. A Furniture Rebate Plan was entered into between Goh Buck Lim and Ms. Woo Pui Lim of Lippo Marina Collection.
  5. The Furniture Rebate Plan provided discounts to purchasers introduced by Goh Buck Lim.
  6. The purchasers did not declare the Furniture Rebates in the Housing Loan Application Forms.
  7. 32 purchasers were acting as nominees for various investors.
  8. Purchasers circumvented UOB's requirement for assets under management through inter-account transfers.
  9. TSMP Law Corporation, Lippo Marina's solicitors, sent letters to PKWA Law Practice LLC suggesting payment of the 15% Completion Fee had been made.

5. Formal Citations

  1. United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 1250 of 2014, [2021] SGHC 283

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Development launched for sale.
Monetary Authority of Singapore Notice 632 in operation.
Furniture Rebate Plan entered into between the second defendant and Ms Woo.
Second defendant brokered the sale of 38 Units in the Development.
37 out of the 38 Purchasers had defaulted on the Housing Loans.
Suit No 1250 of 2014 filed.
All 38 Purchasers had defaulted on the Housing Loans.
Hearing began.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Plaintiff's Further Submissions dated.
Defendant's Further Submissions dated.
Hearing date.
Judgment Date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Tort of Unlawful Means Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The claim in conspiracy by the defendants to cause injury to the plaintiff by using unlawful means failed as the elements were not made out.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 1 SLR 860
  2. Tort of Deceit
    • Outcome: The claims in deceit succeed against the second and third defendants, but fail against the first defendant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
  3. Breach of Monetary Authority of Singapore Notice 632
    • Outcome: The court found that any contravention of MAS Notice 632 would have to be by the plaintiff bank, and not the defendants.
    • Category: Regulatory

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Tort of Unlawful Means Conspiracy
  • Tort of Deceit

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2014] 1 SLR 860SingaporeCited for the elements of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy.
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 1254SingaporeCited to explain that a defendant who knows that unlawful acts were being committed by others, and yet does nothing to stop those acts, is not necessarily a co-conspirator.
OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another v Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 142SingaporeCited to explain that the surrounding circumstances, as well as the alleged conspirator’s conduct and state of knowledge, must still be capable of supporting an inference that that party had combined with the other co-conspirators to pursue a particular course of conduct involving unlawful acts.
New Ping Ping Pauline v Eng’s Noodles House Pte Ltd and othersUnknownYes[2021] 4 SLR 1317SingaporeCited to explain that it is unnecessary to prove that such an agreement was express, or for all the alleged conspirators to have joined at the same time or know what the others have agreed to do.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and othersUnknownYes[2016] 2 SLR 597SingaporeCited to explain that Ms Ong’s knowledge of any fraud could not be imputed to the plaintiff so as to defeat the plaintiff’s claim of conspiracy against the defendants.
Chew Kong Huat and others v Ricwil (Singapore) Pte LtdUnknownYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 1167SingaporeCited to explain that the first appellant-defendant, Mr Chew, was a major shareholder and managing director of the respondent-plaintiff, Ricwil. Mr Chew was the managing director of the third appellant-defendant, Sintalow. In breach of his fiduciary duties, Mr Chew procured Sintalow to supply to another company the very goods that were to be supplied by Ricwil, and in doing so, arranged the contracts such that the burden was borne by Ricwil while the benefit was received by Sintalow.
Lonrho plc v FayedUnknownYes[1990] 2 QB 479EnglandCited to explain that the requisite intent (for the tort of causing loss by unlawful means) would be satisfied if the defendant fully appreciated that a course of conduct that he was embarking upon would have a particular consequence to a claimant but nonetheless decided to pursue that course of conduct; or if the defendant deliberately embarked upon a course of conduct while appreciating the probable consequences to the claimant.
Lonrho plc v FayedUnknownYes[1992] 1 AC 448EnglandCited to explain that when faced with a claim in unlawful means conspiracy, a defendant cannot evade liability simply because its primary motive was to further or protect their own interests, where it has been shown that the conspirators intentionally injured the claimant.
Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Ltd and Ors (No. 2)Court of AppealYes[1980] 1 All ER 393EnglandCited to explain that the plaintiff company provided financial assistance to one Mr Grosscurth, one of the defendants, to acquire the plaintiff company’s own share capital. This was in contravention of s 54 of the Companies Act 1948 (c 38) (UK) (the “UK Companies Act”), which contains the prohibition against financial assistance.
Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and anotherUnknownYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435SingaporeCited for the elements of the tort of deceit.
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch)UnknownYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 901SingaporeCited to explain that direct evidence of such a combination is not necessary.
Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company v VeitchUnknownYes[1942] AC 435UnknownCited to explain that the phrase “combination to effect an unlawful purpose” referred to a combination with an intention to injure.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008) s 415Singapore
Banking Act (Cap 19, 2008 Rev Ed) s 55Singapore
Banking Act (Cap 19, 2008 Rev Ed) s 71Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 76(1A)Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 76(5)Singapore
Companies Act 1948 (c 38) (UK) s 54United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Housing Loans
  • Furniture Rebate Plan
  • 80% Loan-to-Value Limit
  • Stated Purchase Price
  • Actual Purchase Price
  • Nominee Purchasers
  • Inter-Account Transfers
  • TSMP Letters
  • Payment Misrepresentations
  • Purchase Price Misrepresentations
  • Identity Misrepresentations
  • Financial Standing Fraud

15.2 Keywords

  • Housing Loans
  • Marina Collection
  • Deceit
  • Conspiracy
  • Furniture Rebate
  • Property Agents
  • Singapore
  • UOB
  • Lippo Marina

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fraud and Deceit90
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means85
Torts70
Housing Loans60
Furniture Rebate Plan50
Property Law40
Contract Law30
Banking and Finance25
Personal Injury10

16. Subjects

  • Banking
  • Real Estate
  • Fraud
  • Conspiracy
  • Civil Litigation