Wang Fumin v Citibank: Negligence, Misrepresentation & Banking Advice

Wang Fumin, a 69-year-old citizen of the People’s Republic of China, sued Citibank Singapore Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging misrepresentations and breaches of duty that led to investment losses. Wang claimed that Citibank employees misrepresented the profitability of his investments and failed to disclose losses. The court, presided over by Justice Kwek Mean Luck, dismissed Wang's claims, finding that Wang was a sophisticated businessman capable of understanding his investment risks and account statements.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claims dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Wang Fumin sues Citibank for investment losses, alleging misrepresentation and breach of duty. The court dismissed the claims, finding Wang a sophisticated investor.

1.7 Decision Date

11 May 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Wang Fumin	Plaintiff	Individual	Claims dismissed	Lost	Aqbal Singh s/o Kuldip Singh of Pinnacle Law LLC Wong Yiping of Pinnacle Law LLC Cheng Cui Wen of Pinnacle Law LLC
Citibank Singapore Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Claims dismissed	Won	Gary Leonard Low of Drew & Napier LLC Tan Wee Kio Terence of Drew & Napier LLC Tong Yi Keat Zachary of Drew & Napier LLC Lin Qingxun of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kwek Mean Luck	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Aqbal Singh s/o Kuldip Singh	Pinnacle Law LLC
Wong Yiping	Pinnacle Law LLC
Cheng Cui Wen	Pinnacle Law LLC
Gary Leonard Low	Drew & Napier LLC
Tan Wee Kio Terence	Drew & Napier LLC
Tong Yi Keat Zachary	Drew & Napier LLC
Lin Qingxun	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff claimed defendant misrepresented profits and concealed losses.
Plaintiff signed risk profile forms indicating a very aggressive investor profile.
Plaintiff received monthly statements in English and Mandarin.
Plaintiff claimed he could not understand the monthly statements.
Plaintiff had a loan facility with the defendant.
Plaintiff closed his accounts and commenced proceedings in 2019.
Plaintiff was the Chairman of Fuerda, a Chinese company.

5. Formal Citations

Wang Fumin v Citibank Singapore Ltd, Suit No 1148 of 2019, [2022] SGHC 106

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-10-14	Plaintiff met with Ms. Chiu at Citigold Private Client Centre.
2012-03-01	Plaintiff engaged in various transactions and investments.
2019-03-01	Plaintiff engaged in various transactions and investments.
2012-07-17	Plaintiff signed Investment Risk Profile and other documents.
2012-08-28	Plaintiff signed a facility letter for a loan of up to US$10m.
2013-08-20	Plaintiff signed a second facility letter increasing the loan to US$15m.
2019-03-28	Plaintiff raised complaints with the defendant regarding his accounts.
2019-09-01	Plaintiff closed his accounts with the defendant.
2019-10-01	Plaintiff closed his accounts with the defendant.
2019-11-06	Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant.
2022-01-05	Trial began.
2022-01-06	Trial.
2022-01-07	Trial.
2022-01-11	Trial.
2022-01-12	Trial.
2022-01-13	Trial.
2022-01-14	Trial.
2022-01-17	Trial.
2022-01-18	Trial.
2022-01-20	Trial.
2022-01-21	Trial.
2022-01-24	Trial.
2022-01-25	Trial.
2022-01-26	Trial.
2022-01-27	Trial.
2022-04-27	Judgment reserved.
2022-05-12	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found no evidential basis for the plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Fraudulent misrepresentation
  - Negligent misrepresentation
  - Omission of material facts
Breach of Duty
- Outcome: The court found that even if the alleged duties existed, they were not breached by the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Duty to provide accurate updates
  - Duty to correct misunderstandings
  - Duty to inform of losses
  - Churning of accounts
Negligence
- Outcome: The court found no breach of duty of care on the part of the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Duty of care
  - Breach of duty of care
  - Causation of damages

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Misrepresentation
Breach of Contract
Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Banking Litigation
Financial Services Litigation

11. Industries

Banking
Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff (administrator of the estates of Shaikah Fitom bte Ghalib bin Omar Al-Bakri and others) and others v Harun bin Syed Hussain Aljunied and others and other suits	High Court	Yes	[2017] 3 SLR 386	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation.
Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation.
Ma Hongjin v Sim Eng Tong	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 84	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for a claim in negligent misrepresentation.
Broadley Construction Pte Ltd v Alacran Design Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 110	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that silence can amount to a representation in appropriate circumstances.
R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 521	Singapore	Cited regarding silence as acceptance of terms in a contract.
Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 317	Singapore	Cited regarding silence as waiver of rights.
Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 801	Singapore	Cited regarding misrepresentation by silence.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Frankel Motor Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 623	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party is bound by their signature on a contract.
Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 295	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party is bound by the terms of a contract they sign, even if they did not read or understand those terms.
Lee Siew Chun v Sourgrapes Packaging Products Trading Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 855	Singapore	Cited regarding the doctrine of non est factum.
Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 559	Singapore	Cited for the implied contractual duty to exercise reasonable skill and care.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Misrepresentation
Breach of Duty
Investment Losses
Risk Profile
Monthly Statements
Loan Facility
Churning
Net Asset Position

15.2 Keywords

misrepresentation
negligence
banking
investment
losses
Citibank
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Misrepresentation	90
Contract Law	80
Banking Law	75
Negligence	70
Breach of Duty of Care	65
Contractual terms	60
Breach of Contract	60
Implied Terms	50
Torts	40
Commercial Law	30

16. Subjects

Banking
Finance
Investments
Financial Services