Riady Tjandra v Cheng Yi Han: Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Cryptocurrency Bank Investment
In [2024] SGHC 59, Riady Tjandra sued Cheng Yi Han in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for US$500,000, the remaining balance of an investment made by Tjandra in Royal Eastern Bank. Tjandra claimed breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent misrepresentation. Hri Kumar Nair J found that Tjandra had entered into a contract with Cheng and two other shareholders, Andrew Ling and Then Feng, to purchase a 20% shareholding in Star Dust Developments Limited, the sole owner of Royal Eastern Bank, for US$4 million. The court found that Cheng breached the agreement by failing to transfer the shares. The court also found Cheng liable for unjust enrichment. The fraudulent misrepresentation claim was dismissed. The court entered judgment in favor of Tjandra for US$500,000.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tjandra sues Cheng for US$500,000 over a failed Royal Eastern Bank investment. The court found breach of contract and unjust enrichment, awarding Tjandra damages.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riady Tjandra | Claimant | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Cheng Yi Han | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hri Kumar Nair | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Koh Junxiang | CLASIS LLC |
| Ng Pi Wei | CLASIS LLC |
| Lim Tong Chuan | Excelsior Law Chambers LLC |
4. Facts
- Tjandra agreed to purchase 20% of Star Dust shares for US$4 million.
- Tjandra paid US$3.2 million to the Original Shareholders, including US$1.36 million to Cheng.
- The Star Dust shares were never transferred to Tjandra.
- Cheng repaid US$860,000 to Tjandra.
- Royal Eastern Bank never became operational.
- Star Dust was struck off the BVI registry due to non-payment of fees.
5. Formal Citations
- Riady Tjandra v Cheng Yi Han, Suit No 557 of 2021, [2024] SGHC 59
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Cheng, Ling, and Feng decided to purchase Royal Eastern Bank. | |
| Feng spoke with Tjandra about investing in Royal Eastern Bank. | |
| Cheng, Ling, and Feng met with Tjandra at his office. | |
| Tjandra, Feng, and Ling met in Jakarta. | |
| Tjandra was added to the REBB WhatsApp Chat. | |
| Feng and Ling met Tjandra to sign share transfer forms. | |
| Tjandra met with Ling and Feng in his office. | |
| Tjandra paid US$1.36m to Ling. | |
| Tjandra paid US$1.36m to Cheng and US$480,000 to Feng. | |
| Cheng received disturbing information about the Royal Eastern Bank investment. | |
| Cheng warned Tjandra not to make the second tranche of payment. | |
| Cheng made payments to Tjandra amounting to US$860,000. | |
| Cheng delivered two paintings to Tjandra. | |
| Action commenced by Tjandra. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Cheng breached the agreement by failing to transfer the shares to Tjandra.
- Category: Substantive
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that Cheng was unjustly enriched at the expense of Tjandra.
- Category: Substantive
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court rejected Tjandra’s claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against Cheng.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Unjust Enrichment
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
- Cryptocurrency
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1422 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings, but the court may depart from this rule in limited circumstances where no prejudice is caused. |
| iVenture Card Ltd and others v Big Bus Singapore City Sightseeing Pte Ltd and others | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 302 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the Court of Appeal granted relief even though the plaintiffs did not identify the correct parties to the agreement, as the defendant was not prejudiced. |
| Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the court's ability to draw an adverse inference from a party's failure to call a witness. |
| Elcarim Science Pte Ltd v Zhang Yongtai | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2023] SGHC 211 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the party who might reasonably have been expected to call the witness is not necessarily the party who bears the legal burden of proving its case. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito | Singapore Court of Appeal | No | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of subsidiarity in unjust enrichment claims, where courts generally do not permit such claims where there is a subsisting contract. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the four elements required to establish a claim in unjust enrichment. |
| Zaiton bte Adom v Nafsiah bte Wagiman and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2023] 3 SLR 533 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the first two elements of unjust enrichment were clearly established. |
| Max Media FZ LLC v Nimbus Media Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 677 | Singapore | Cited for the exception to the subsidiarity principle where there is a total failure of consideration. |
| Carlsberg South Asia Pte Ltd v Pawan Kumar Jagetia | Singapore High Court (Appellate Division) | Yes | [2023] SGHC(A) 29 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the exception to the subsidiarity principle where there is a total failure of consideration. |
| Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 239 | Singapore | Cited for the two-part inquiry for total failure of consideration and the objective approach in determining the basis of a transfer. |
| Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd v Jiacipto Jiaravanon | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited for the objective approach in determining the basis of a transfer in unjust enrichment claims. |
| Just Gems Limited v Shirley Ooi Ching Ling and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2002] SGHC 19 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a total failure of consideration where shares were not transferred to the rightful entity as promised. |
| Ooi Ching Ling v Just Gems Inc | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 14 | Singapore | Cited for upholding the decision in Just Gems Limited v Shirley Ooi Ching Ling and another, regarding total failure of consideration. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 418 | Singapore | Cited for the four elements required to establish the defence of change of position. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the elements to make out the defence of change of position. |
| Seagate Technology Pte Ltd and another v Goh Han Kim | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 836 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a defendant's knowledge of the facts entitling the plaintiff to restitution would bring the defendant's bona fides into question and disentitle him from relying on the defence of change of position. |
| Broadley Construction Pte Ltd v Alacran Design Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 110 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Fuji Xerox Singapore Pte Ltd v Mazzy Creations Pte Ltd and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 193 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Government of the City of Buenos Aires v HN Singapore Pte Ltd and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 139 | Singapore | Cited for the high standard of proof required to establish fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 246 | Singapore | Cited for the high standard of proof required to establish fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Ong Keh Choo v Paul Huntington Bernardo | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 69 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of materiality in fraudulent misrepresentation claims. |
| Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd (No 2) | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 283 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once reliance is proven in a misrepresentation claim, it does not matter that the representee may have been negligent in failing to verify the same. |
| The Micro Tellers Network Ltd and others v Cheng Yi Han and others | Singapore High Court | No | [2021] 5 SLR 328 | Singapore | Cited for the finding that Royal Eastern Bank was only acquired for €130,000, not US$4m. |
| Henry J. B. Kendall v Peter Hamilton | House of Lords | Yes | (1879) 4 App. Cas. 504 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a case should not be defeated by reason of misjoinder or nonjoinder of any party. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2014 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Royal Eastern Bank
- Star Dust Shares
- Original Shareholders
- Cryptocurrency-friendly bank
- Share Transfer Forms
- REBB WhatsApp Chat
- Total failure of consideration
- Change of position
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- unjust enrichment
- misrepresentation
- cryptocurrency
- bank
- investment
- shares
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 95 |
| Breach of Contract | 90 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 80 |
| Total failure of consideration | 75 |
| Misrepresentation | 70 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 65 |
| Formation of contract | 60 |
| Damages | 60 |
| Change of position | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Unjust Enrichment
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Investment Law