Micro Tellers Network v Cheng Yi Han: Deceit Claim over Misappropriated Funds
The Singapore International Commercial Court heard Suit 5 and Suit 8 together, involving The Micro Tellers Network Limited, Michael Lin Daoji, Rio Lim Yong Chee, and Wong Zhi Kang, Clement as plaintiffs in Suit 5, and Providence Asset Management and 5 and 2 Pte Ltd as plaintiffs in Suit 8, against Cheng Yi Han, Ling Hui Andrew, Providence Asset Management, Then Feng, and Lee Moon Young as defendants. The suits concerned similar causes of action based on overlapping facts, including claims of deceit, unjust enrichment, and partnership. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs in Suit 8, determining that Then Feng was liable for deceit based on misrepresentations regarding an escrow account and the purchase price of a bank. The court ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages, with the quantum to be determined in further submissions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judgment in favor of plaintiffs for deceit claim regarding misappropriated funds. The defendant misrepresented control over escrow account.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providence Asset Management | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Then Feng | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | |
| 5 And 2 Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Thorley | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Then Feng represented to Ling Hui Andrew that Walkers could provide escrow services.
- Then Feng represented that Walkers Professional Services (WPS) was owned and controlled by Walkers.
- Plaintiffs transferred US$5,268,000 and S$1,223,000 to WPS bank account.
- Then Feng represented that Freelance Bank was purchased for US$4 million.
- Then Feng admitted WPS was his personal vehicle and not affiliated with Walkers.
- The WPS account was nearly empty shortly after the funds were transferred.
- Ling Hui Andrew signed a Statutory Declaration stating he knew WPS was Then Feng's personal vehicle, but later claimed it was false.
5. Formal Citations
- The Micro Tellers Network Ltd and others v Cheng Yi Han and others and another suit, , [2021] SGHC(I) 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit 5 and Suit 8 filed | |
| Action against Lee Moon Young discontinued | |
| Trial commenced | |
| Settlement reached between Plaintiffs in Suit 5 and Cheng Yi Han | |
| Trial of Suit 8 resumed | |
| Then Feng submitted no case to answer | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Deceit
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of deceit against Mr. Then.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation
- Reliance on representation
- Damages suffered as a result of reliance
- Knowledge of falsity
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR (R) 435
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court declined to decide the claim in unjust enrichment.
- Category: Substantive
- Partnership
- Outcome: The court found that the relationship between the Plaintiffs and Mr. Then did not constitute a partnership.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Existence of partnership
- Breach of fiduciary duties
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 3 SLR(R) 177
- No Case to Answer
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case on each of the essential elements of their claim, and Mr. Then's submission of no case to answer therefore failed.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Prima facie case
- Evidential burden
- Balance of probabilities
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004
- [2002] 1 SLR(R) 22
- [2003] 2 SLR(R) 33
- [2008] SGHC 207
- [2018] SGCA 33
- [2015] 1 SLR 581
- [2017] SGHC 73
- [2021] 1 SLR 304
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Return of misappropriated funds
9. Cause of Actions
- Deceit
- Unjust Enrichment
- Breach of Partnership Agreement
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judge would sustain a plea of no case to answer if the plaintiff’s case has no basis or is ‘so unsatisfactory or unreliable that the court is able to find that the burden of proof on the plaintiff has not been discharged’. |
| Central Bank of India v Hemant Govindprasad Bansal | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 22 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judge would sustain a plea of no case to answer if the plaintiff’s case has no basis or is ‘so unsatisfactory or unreliable that the court is able to find that the burden of proof on the plaintiff has not been discharged’. |
| Hemant Govindprasad Bansal v Central Bank of India | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 33 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the authorities on 'No case to answer'. |
| Sukhpreet Kaur Bajaj d/o Manjit Singh v Paramjit Singh Bajaj | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 207 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the authorities on 'No case to answer'. |
| Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd and other appeals and other matters | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale underlying the requirement that a defendant who makes a ‘no case to answer’ submission must undertake not to call evidence. |
| Lena Leowardi v Yeap Cheen Soo | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 581 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a submission of no case to answer by a defendant will only succeed if the plaintiff’s evidence, at face value, does not establish a case in law or is so unsatisfactory or unreliable that the plaintiff has not discharged its burden of proof. |
| Sakae Holdings Ltd v Gryphon Real Estate Investment Corp Pte Ltd and others (Foo Peow Yong Douglas, third party) and another suit | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 73 | Singapore | Cited to confirm the proposition that a submission of no case to answer by a defendant will only succeed if the plaintiff’s evidence, at face value, does not establish a case in law or is so unsatisfactory or unreliable that the plaintiff has not discharged its burden of proof. |
| Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 304 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable test upon a submission of no case to answer by a defendant. |
| The Micro Tellers Network Ltd and others v Cheng Yi Han and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 130 | Singapore | Referred to in relation to a Mareva injunction application in Suit 5 and questioning the veracity of some of Mr Ling’s evidence. |
| Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 277 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR (R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the essential elements of the cause of action in deceit. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 | Singapore | Cited for the correct legal approach to measure of damages for deceit. |
| Miller Freeman Exhibitions Pte Ltd v Singapore Industrial Automation Association and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 177 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the question of whether a partnership exists raises a mixed question of fact and law and all the surrounding circumstances have to be taken into account. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 35 r 4(3) of the Rules of Court |
| O 110 r 3(1) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Escrow services
- Walkers Professional Services
- Walkers
- Freelance Bank
- Royal Eastern Bank
- Misrepresentation
- Statutory Declaration
- No case to answer
- Prima facie case
15.2 Keywords
- deceit
- misrepresentation
- escrow
- funds
- Walkers
- WPS
- bank
- partnership
- Singapore
- SICC
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Fraud and Deceit | 95 |
| Misrepresentation | 60 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Evidence Law | 30 |
| Breach of Contract | 30 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Litigation | 25 |
| Estoppel | 15 |
16. Subjects
- Fraud
- Financial Services
- Banking Law