Epoch Minerals v Raffles Asset Management: Conspiracy, Dishonest Assistance, and Misrepresentation in US$10M Loan Agreement

In Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd v Raffles Asset Management (S) Pte Ltd and others, the High Court of Singapore heard a case involving Epoch Minerals' claim against Raffles Asset Management (RAM), AKS Consultants Pte Ltd, Kamil bin Jumat, and Gangadhara Brhmendra Srikanth Maroju for conspiracy, dishonest assistance, and misrepresentation related to a failed US$10 million loan agreement. The court found the second, third, and fourth defendants liable for conspiracy to injure and providing dishonest assistance in aid of the breach of trust by AKS, ordering them to pay US$700,000 to the plaintiff.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment against the second, third, and fourth defendants for a total of US$700,000.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Epoch Minerals sues Raffles Asset Management for conspiracy and misrepresentation related to a failed US$10M loan, alleging fraudulent inducement and breach of trust.

1.7 Decision Date

16 December 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Jeremy Gan Eng Tong, Kevin Tan Eu Shan, Glenna Liew Min Yi
Raffles Asset Management (S) Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Action not pursued	Neutral
AKS Consultants Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Goh Kim Thong Andrew
Kamil bin Jumat	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Derek Kang Yu Hsien, Ashok Kumar Rai
Gangadhara Brhmendra Srikanth Maroju	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Christopher Chong Chi Chuin, Tan Lee Jane, Calvin Lee Boon Hui, Josh Tan

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Choo Han Teck	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jeremy Gan Eng Tong	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Kevin Tan Eu Shan	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Glenna Liew Min Yi	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Goh Kim Thong Andrew	De Souza Lim & Goh LLP
Derek Kang Yu Hsien	Cairnhill Law LLC
Ashok Kumar Rai	Cairnhill Law LLC
Christopher Chong Chi Chuin	Drew & Napier LLC
Tan Lee Jane	Drew & Napier LLC
Calvin Lee Boon Hui	Drew & Napier LLC
Josh Tan	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

Mr. Maroju told Mr. Sharma that RAM could invest US$5m in Lotus Group's coal mining business.
Epoch Minerals was incorporated at the suggestion of Mr. Maroju for receiving the loan.
Mr. Maroju represented that the investor was willing to increase the loan to US$10m.
Mr. Sharma had to pay US$100,000 as commission and US$500,000 as a deposit of good faith.
The payments amounting to US$700,000 were made between 4 October 2016 and 3 November 2016.
Mr. Kamil visited Lotus Indonesia’s offices in Jakarta on the pretext of conducting due diligence.
The margin money was transferred from Schiff to Schaffer around January 2017 without the plaintiff's knowledge.

5. Formal Citations

Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd v Raffles Asset Management (S) Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 79 of 2018, [2021] SGHC 288

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2016-06-01	Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore.
2016-10-04	Payments amounting to US$700,000 made to RAM and Mr Maroju.
2016-11-03	Payments amounting to US$700,000 made to RAM and Mr Maroju.
2016-11-04	AKS signed off on the Humanitarian Contract on behalf of AKS.
2016-11-09	Monies transferred from ASK to Schiff.
2016-12-01	Mr Maroju told Mr Sharma that he was unable to obtain the US$10m by the end of the year.
2016-12-16	Mr Sharma wrote to Mr Maroju telling him to find a confirmed loan by 19 December.
2017-01-02	Term Sheet dated.
2017-01-13	Mr Amarpreet signed the Term Sheet.
2017-01-26	Mr Kamil visited Lotus Indonesia’s offices in Jakarta.
2017-01-27	Mr Kamil visited Lotus Indonesia’s offices in Jakarta.
2017-03-01	Mr Sharma asked Mr Maroju to cancel the purported funding promised under the Term Sheet and demanded for a refund of the margin money.
2017-03-17	Mr Kamil informed Mr Amarpreet that they were unable to proceed with the investment.
2017-04-04	Mr Kamil claimed that the principal was an iron ore mining company operating in Switzerland.
2018-01-01	Suit No 79 of 2018 filed.
2021-10-04	Trial began.
2021-10-05	Trial.
2021-10-06	Trial.
2021-10-07	Trial.
2021-11-18	Trial.
2021-12-17	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Conspiracy to defraud
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants conspired to induce the plaintiff to transfer a total sum of US$700,000.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 1 SLR 860
Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The court found that AKS acted in breach of trust.
- Category: Substantive
Dishonest Assistance
- Outcome: The court found the defendants provided dishonest assistance in aid of the breach of trust by AKS.
- Category: Substantive
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that a fraud had been committed.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Conspiracy to defraud
Fraudulent misrepresentations
Breach of trust
Dishonest assistance

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Finance
Mining

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 860	Singapore	Cited for the elements required to prove a conspiracy to defraud.

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

Margin money
Term Sheet
Due diligence
Escrow agent
Humanitarian Project Program
Investment Agreement

15.2 Keywords

Conspiracy
Fraud
Breach of Trust
Loan Agreement
Singapore
High Court

16. Subjects

Conspiracy
Fraud
Breach of Trust
Financial Transactions

17. Areas of Law

Tort
Conspiracy
Dishonest assistance
Misrepresentation
Fraud and deceit