Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet: Conspiracy, Misrepresentation in Ponzi Scheme
In Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore dismissed all claims brought by Plaintiff Chan Pik Sun against Defendants Wan Hoe Keet, Ho Sally, Ho Hao Tian Sebastian, and Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd. The case concerned losses incurred by the Plaintiff from the SureWin4U scheme, which was found to be a Ponzi scheme. The Plaintiff alleged fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation. The court, presided over by Andre Maniam J, found that the Plaintiff failed to prove reliance on the alleged misrepresentations and conspiracy, dismissing all claims with costs to the Defendants.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
All claims dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ponzi scheme case involving SureWin4U. Court dismissed claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy against earlier participants.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Pik Sun | Plaintiff | Individual | Claims Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ho Sally | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Ho Hao Tian Sebastian | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Wan Hoe Keet | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andre Maniam | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Sandra invested HK$36,765,900 in SureWin4U, a scheme promising lucrative returns from baccarat winnings.
- SureWin4U was a Ponzi scheme, paying returns from new participants' investments.
- The scheme collapsed in September 2014 after its Taiwanese representative was arrested.
- Sandra sued earlier participants Ken, Sally, Sebastian, and their company Strategic Wealth to recover her losses.
- Sandra claimed fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation.
- Ken and Sally used Strategic Wealth to hold earnings from SureWin4U and a yacht purchased with money from Peter Ong.
- The 99.8% formula involved increasing bets after each loss, but the court found it to be a zero-sum game.
- The 100% formula also did not guarantee a win rate, as there was still a risk of losing multiple hands in a row.
5. Formal Citations
- Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet and others, Suit No 806 of 2018, [2023] SGHC 96
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Surewin4U scheme started | |
| Sandra became a participant in SureWin4U | |
| Sandra first invested in SureWin4U | |
| Suntec Conference held | |
| Sandra made second tranche of investments into SureWin4U | |
| 1st Presidential Suite Meeting | |
| Sandra spoke at a SureWin4U event | |
| Sandra told her downline Yuan Jun about the 99.8% winning chances | |
| Sandra learned 100% formula | |
| Sandra exchanged messages with Sebastian | |
| Sandra made third tranche of investments into SureWin4U | |
| SureWin4U scheme collapsed | |
| Sandra exchanged messages with Mr Zhou Jing Hua | |
| Sandra exchanged messages with Sally | |
| Sandra stayed at Ken and Sally’s home in Singapore | |
| Sandra had an exchange with Yuan Jun | |
| Ken and Sally were sued by another SureWin4U investor | |
| Suit against Ken and Sally was settled | |
| Suit against Ken and Sally was discontinued | |
| Peter Ong asked former top investors in SureWin4U to meet him in Macau | |
| Sandra found out about the Prince Sun City Scheme | |
| Sandra sued the defendants | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial continued | |
| Trial continued | |
| Trial continued | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not rely on the alleged representations to invest in SureWin4U.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not prove reliance on the representations and failed to prove the requisite agreement between the alleged conspirators.
- Category: Substantive
- Lawful Means Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to show that the predominant intent of the defendants was to injure the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 253
- [1996] 3 SLR(R) 637
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not rely on the alleged representations and that the defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGHC 123
- [2016] SGHCR 6
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
- Innocent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court dismissed the claim for innocent misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Innocent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the basic principles applicable to a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Kong Chee Chui v Soh Ghee Hong | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 8 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish statements of fact from statements as to future intention, predictions, statements of opinion or belief, sales puffs, exaggerations and statements of law. |
| Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1310 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish statements of fact from statements as to future intention, predictions, statements of opinion or belief, sales puffs, exaggerations and statements of law. |
| Tradewaves Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 893 | Singapore | Cited to show that the plaintiffs’ understanding of the representation that Fairfield Sentry ‘was a safe and stable investment with consistent good returns and low volatility’ had nothing to do with the risk of loss due to managerial fraud. |
| Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407 | Singapore | Cited regarding adverse inference under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act 1893. |
| Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited regarding adverse inference under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act 1893. |
| Dynasty Line Ltd (in liquidation) v Sia Sukamto | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 253 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the alleged conspirators’ actions serve their own commercial purpose, the infliction of loss on the plaintiff will not be the predominant purpose. |
| Quah Kay Tee v Ong and Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 637 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the alleged conspirators’ actions serve their own commercial purpose, the infliction of loss on the plaintiff will not be the predominant purpose. |
| IM Skaugen SE and another v MAN Diesel & Turbo SE and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 123 | Singapore | Cited for the elements necessary to make out negligent misrepresentation. |
| IM Skaugen SE and another v MAN Diesel & Turbo SE and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHCR 6 | Singapore | Cited for the elements necessary to make out negligent misrepresentation. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the framework to determine the existence of a duty of care. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- SureWin4U
- Ponzi scheme
- Pyramid scheme
- Baccarat
- 99.8% formula
- 100% formula
- Yingbi
- Investment Packages
- Share Investment Packages
- US Property Packages
- Uplines
- Downlines
15.2 Keywords
- Ponzi scheme
- Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy
- Investment fraud
- Singapore
- Civil litigation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Ponzi Schemes | 90 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 75 |
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 70 |
| Misrepresentation | 65 |
| Pyramid Schemes | 60 |
| Torts | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Torts
- Fraud
- Investments
- Financial Schemes