UOB v Lippo Marina: Unlawful Means Conspiracy & Deceit in Property Sale

United Overseas Bank Limited (UOB) appealed against the High Court's decision to dismiss its claims against Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd (Lippo) for unlawful means conspiracy and deceit. The claims arose from housing loans disbursed by UOB to purchasers of 38 units in Marina Collection, a condominium developed by Lippo. UOB alleged that Lippo conspired with property agents to grant undisclosed "Furniture Rebates" (FR) to purchasers, leading UOB to breach MAS regulations. The Appellate Division of the High Court allowed the appeal in part, finding Lippo liable for unlawful means conspiracy but not deceit.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

UOB sues Lippo for conspiracy and deceit related to inflated property sales. The court found Lippo liable for conspiracy but not deceit.

1.7 Decision Date

27 October 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
United Overseas Bank Limited	Appellant, Plaintiff	Corporation	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping, Leong Qianyu, Natalie Ng Hai Qi
Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd	Respondent, Defendant	Corporation	Appeal allowed in part	Lost	Siraj Omar, See Chern Yang, Teng Po Yew, Audie Wong Cheng Siew, Hendroff Fitzgerald L
Goh Buck Lim	Defendant	Individual	No appeal by either of the two property agents	Neutral
Aurellia Adrianus Ho also known as Filly Ho	Defendant	Individual	No appeal by either of the two property agents	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge of the Appellate Division	No
Woo Bih Li	Judge of the Appellate Division	Yes
Quentin Loh	Judge of the Appellate Division	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ng Ka Luon Eddee	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Leong Qianyu	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Natalie Ng Hai Qi	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Siraj Omar	Drew & Napier LLC
See Chern Yang	Drew & Napier LLC
Teng Po Yew	Drew & Napier LLC
Audie Wong Cheng Siew	Drew & Napier LLC
Hendroff Fitzgerald L	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

UOB disbursed housing loans to purchasers of 38 units in Marina Collection.
Lippo granted "Furniture Rebates" (FR) to purchasers referred by property agents.
The FR was not disclosed by the purchasers to UOB.
UOB alleged the FR caused a breach of Monetary Authority of Singapore Notice 632.
UOB claimed Lippo conspired with property agents to obtain financing in breach of MAS regulations.
Lippo issued Options to Purchase (OTP) stating a purchase price that did not reflect the FR.
Purchasers declared they had read, understood and agreed to be bound by UOB’s Standard Terms and Conditions Governing Credit Facilities.

5. Formal Citations

United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 67 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 38

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-12-01	Marina Collection launched for sale.
2007-10-26	Government introduced measures to cool the property market.
2010-02-01	Government announced lowering of the LTV Limit for housing loans from 90% to 80%.
2010-08-30	Government announced further lowering of the LTV Limit from 80% to 70%.
2011-01-13	MAS imposed the 80% LTV Limit.
2011-01-14	Government further lowered the LTV Limit for certain buyers from 70% to 60%.
2011-12-01	Mr Goh raised difficulties in getting buyers for the Marina Collection.
2011-12-08	Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty introduced.
2011-12-01	Mr Goh and Ms Woo formulated a plan to award certain rebates to purchasers.
2011-12-01	Sales of 38 Units were brokered by the property agents.
2013-12-01	37 out of the 38 purchasers had defaulted on the loans.
2014-01-01	UOB commenced Suit No 1250 of 2014 against various persons.
2015-04-01	All 38 purchasers had defaulted.
2021-01-01	Civil Appeal No 67 of 2021 filed.
2022-04-29	Judgment reserved.
2022-10-28	Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Unlawful Means Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found Lippo liable for the tort of unlawful means conspiracy.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 1 SLR 860
Deceit
- Outcome: The court did not find Lippo liable for the tort of deceit.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Conspiracy
Deceit

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Banking Litigation
Property Litigation

11. Industries

Banking
Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 860	Singapore	Cited for the elements of the tort of conspiracy to cause injury by unlawful means.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG	N/A	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 452	Singapore	Cited regarding the element of unlawfulness in unlawful means conspiracy.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 283	Singapore	The Judge’s decision in the court below.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and others	N/A	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 597	Singapore	Cited for the determination of a question of law on whether the plaintiff, being a victim of a fraud or a conspiracy to commit fraud (ie, UOB bank), may be attributed with the knowledge or actions of a fraudulent employee (ie, Ms Ong) so as to preclude it from alleging certain misrepresentations and acts of deceit.
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others	N/A	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 1256	Singapore	Cited for the principle that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation must be pleaded with utmost particularity.
Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 304	Singapore	Cited for the underlying purpose for pleadings, which is “to ensure that each party was aware of the respective arguments against it and that neither was therefore taken by surprise”
SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others	N/A	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 118	Singapore	Cited for the principle that procedure is the handmaiden of justice, not its master.
Bank Gesellescharft Berlin International SA v Zihnali and others	N/A	Yes	[2001] All ER (D) 192	N/A	Cited for the principle that the risk of loss is sufficient to sustain a claim for conspiracy.
IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd v Saimee bin Jumaat and anor appeal	N/A	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 272	Singapore	Case dealt with the question of when a cause of action arose for the purpose of limitation.
Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another	N/A	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435	Singapore	Cited for the elements of the tort of deceit.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Furniture Rebates
Loan-to-Value Limit
Option to Purchase
Standard Terms and Conditions
Adjusted Purchase Price
Balance Purchase Price
Open Market Valuation
Completion Fee
Exercise Fee
Housing Loan Application Forms

15.2 Keywords

conspiracy
deceit
property
housing loan
rebate
MAS Notice 632
LTV Limit
Singapore

16. Subjects

Torts
Conspiracy
Misrepresentation
Banking
Property Law

17. Areas of Law

Tort
Conspiracy
Misrepresentation
Fraud
Deceit
Banking Law
Property Law