Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet: Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Ponzi Scheme Investment
In Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding a fraudulent misrepresentation claim related to the SureWin4U Ponzi scheme. Chan Pik Sun (Sandra) claimed that Wan Hoe Keet (Ken), Ho Sally, Ho Hao Tian Sebastian, and Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd made fraudulent misrepresentations that induced her to invest in the scheme. The court allowed the appeal in part, finding Ken and Sally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the safety and profitability of the scheme, while dismissing the appeal against Sebastian and Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal allowed in part, finding Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation in the SureWin4U Ponzi scheme.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Debbie Ong Siew Ling | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|
4. Facts
- SureWin4U was a Ponzi scheme promising lucrative returns for investment packages.
- The scheme claimed investors' money funded professional gamblers using sure-win methods.
- Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally were influential figures in the scheme, earning substantial profits.
- Chan Pik Sun invested in the scheme in three tranches, totaling HK$36,587,400.
- The scheme collapsed in September 2014, leading to the arrest of its Taiwanese representative.
- Ken and Sally met with Peter Ong in Macau after the scheme's collapse.
- Ken and Sally failed to produce WeChat messages relevant to the case.
5. Formal Citations
- Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet (Wen Haojie) and others and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 50 of 2023 and 124 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(A) 23
- Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet and others, , [2023] SGHC 96
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| SureWin4U scheme started by Peter Ong and Philip Ong. | |
| Wan Hoe Keet (Ken) and Ho Sally joined the SureWin4U scheme. | |
| Chan Pik Sun (Sandra) was introduced to the SureWin4U scheme. | |
| Sandra purchased two Silver Packages for HK$357,000 (First Tranche). | |
| Sandra attended a conference in Suntec City. | |
| Sandra invested HK$12,092,100 on investment packages (Second Tranche). | |
| Sandra had dinner with Peter, Ken, and Sally in Kowloon. | |
| Seminars in Hong Kong. | |
| Sandra attended a conference in Sri Lanka. | |
| Ken initiated a new WeChat group named “Dream ken Sally”. | |
| Yacht meeting. | |
| Sandra attended a conference in Hong Kong. | |
| Sandra invested HK$24,138,300 on investment packages (Third Tranche). | |
| SureWin4U collapsed with the arrest of its Taiwanese representative. | |
| Ken and Sally lodged a police report against Peter and Philip. | |
| Ken and Sally formed a group of investors to gamble at casinos. | |
| Ken and Sally lodged a second police report against Peter and Philip. | |
| Ken and Sally informed Sandra that the group of investors had dispersed. | |
| Sebastian reestablished contact with Sandra. | |
| Peter surfaced in Macau and was distributing cash from his winnings. | |
| Sandra filed suit against all the respondents. | |
| Judgment in S 806 was delivered by the Judge. | |
| Judge issued a further decision fixing costs of $374,365.22. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally made fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the safety and profitability of the SureWin4U scheme, leading to Chan Pik Sun's investment losses.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation of fact
- Intention to induce reliance
- Actual reliance
- Suffering of damage
- Knowledge of falsity or recklessness
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
- (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court dismissed the claim for unlawful means conspiracy, finding no specific intent to cause damage or injury to Chan Pik Sun.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Combination of two or more persons
- Intention to cause damage or injury
- Unlawful acts
- Acts performed in furtherance of agreement
- Causation of loss
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 1 SLR 860
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court dismissed the claim for negligent misrepresentation, finding no duty of care owed by the respondents to Chan Pik Sun.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Duty of care
- Breach of duty
- Causation
- Damages
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet and others | High Court of Singapore | No | [2023] SGHC(A) 36 | Singapore | Cited for guidance on filing the appeal. |
| Gould v Vaggelas | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1985) 157 CLR 215 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a knave does not escape liability because he is dealing with a fool. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | Yes | (1889) 14 App Cas 337 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of fraud and recklessness in fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation and measurement of damages. |
| Arab Banking Corp (B.S.C.) v Boustead Singapore Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the meaning of recklessness. |
| Regina v Mackinnon and others | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1959] 1 QB 150 | England and Wales | Cited for the evidential burden in proving fraudulent state of mind. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wang Ziyi Able | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 61 | Singapore | Cited for the evidential burden in proving fraudulent state of mind. |
| DBS Bank Ltd v Carrier Singapore (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 261 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a belief destitute of all reasonable foundation suffices to show that it was not really entertained. |
| Le Lievre and Dennes v Gould | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [1893] 1 QB 491 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that gross negligence may amount to fraud if it is incompatible with honesty. |
| Liberty Sky Investments Ltd v Goh Seng Heng and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 335 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of the representation in determining the reasonableness of belief. |
| Peng Ann Realty Pte Ltd v Liu Cho Chit and others | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 682 | Singapore | Cited for drawing an inference of fraud. |
| Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the drawing of adverse inferences. |
| Thio Keng Poon v Thio Syn Pyn and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 143 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the drawing of adverse inferences. |
| Jones v Dunkel | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1959) 101 CLR 298 | Australia | Cited for the rationale for drawing adverse inferences. |
| Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no fixed rule for drawing adverse inferences. |
| Yokogawa Engineering Asia Pte Ltd v– Transtel Engineering Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 532 | Singapore | Cited for the duty to correct a continuing representation. |
| Goldrich Venture Pte Ltd and another v Halcyon Offshore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 990 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a representation is of continuing effect until corrected. |
| Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corpn | House of Lords | Yes | [2003] 1 AC 959 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that if a fraudulent representation is relied upon, it does not matter that the claimant also held some other negligent or irrational belief about another matter. |
| Lim Koon Park and another v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for the inference of inducement based on materiality. |
| St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [1996] 1 All ER 96 | England and Wales | Cited for the inference of inducement based on materiality. |
| Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co and others | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of actual inducement. |
| Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 886 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a statement as to the future can be a statement of fact as to the representor's state of mind. |
| Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 537 | Singapore | Cited for the function of pleadings. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1256 | Singapore | Cited for the function of pleadings. |
| OMG Holdings Pte Ltd v Pos Ad Sdn Bhd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 231 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that evidence can overcome defects in pleadings. |
| 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 unlawful means conspiracy. |
| Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd v Ching Kai Huat and others | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 80 | Singapore | Cited for the mental element of lawful means conspiracy. |
| Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with a finding as to witness credibility unless it is plainly wrong. |
| Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compañia De Navegación Palomar, SA and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 894 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the meaning of a particular representation is tested from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the representee. |
| Zillion Global Ltd and another v Deutsche Bank AG, Singapore Branch | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 425 | Singapore | Cited for the establishment of legal proximity. |
| NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 588 | Singapore | Cited for the considerations in the inquiry of legal proximity. |
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
- Fraudulent misrepresentation
- Investment packages
- Professional gamblers
- Yingbi
- Downlines
- Uplines
- Safe and Profitable Representation
- Share Investment Package
- US Property Package
15.2 Keywords
- fraudulent misrepresentation
- ponzi scheme
- investment fraud
- singapore
- civil appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Ponzi Schemes | 95 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 90 |
| Misrepresentation | 85 |
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 75 |
| Investment Fraud | 70 |
| Commercial Disputes | 30 |
| Breach of Contract | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Torts
- Fraud
- Investments
- Appeals