CHAN PIK SUN v WAN HOE KEET (WEN HAOJIE) & 3 Ors

[2024] SGHC(A) 23 High Court (Appellate Division) 7 August 2024 • AD/CA 50/2023|AD/CA 124/2023 • 120 min read

34 cases cited (30 SG, 4 foreign)

Outcome

Appeal allowed

We therefore allow the appeal in respect of Sandra’s claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against Ken and Sally based on the Safe and Profitable Representation and the Share Investment Representation and order Ken and Sally to be jointly and severally liable to Sandra in the aggregate sum of HK$36,587,400. We uphold the Judge’s conclusions on the remainder of her claims.

Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 23, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 7 August 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	7 August 2024
Judges	Debbie Ong Siew Ling, Steven Chong, Woo Bih Li
Charges / claim	Tort
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Sentence / award	$36,587,400
Counsel	Advocatus Law LLP, LVM Law Chambers LLC, Christopher Anand s/o Daniel, Clara Lim Ai Ling, Harjean Kaur, Lee Sien Liang Joseph, Lok Vi Ming, Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan, Qabir Singh Sandhu, Saadhvika Jayanth, Yeo Yi Ling Eileen

Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 23, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 7 August 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Tort — Conspiracy — Lawful means conspiracy Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit Tort — Conspiracy — Unlawful means conspiracy Tort — Misrepresentation — Innocent misrepresentation Tort — Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation

Practice Areas

Tort

Judges (3)

Debbie Ong Siew Ling Coram Steven Chong Delivered Woo Bih Li Coram

Counsel (11)

Advocatus Law LLP Firm LVM Law Chambers LLC Firm Christopher Anand s/o Daniel Counsel Respondent Clara Lim Ai Ling Counsel Appellant Harjean Kaur Counsel Respondent Lee Sien Liang Joseph Counsel Appellant Lok Vi Ming Counsel Appellant Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan Counsel Appellant Qabir Singh Sandhu Counsel Appellant Saadhvika Jayanth Counsel Respondent Yeo Yi Ling Eileen Counsel Respondent

Parties (5)

Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd Respondent Chan Pik Sun Appellant Ho Hao Tian Sebastian Respondent Ho Sally Respondent Wan Hoe Keet (Wen Haojie) Respondent

Case Significance

Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet (Wen Haojie) and others and another appeal [2024] SGHC(A) 23 was a judgment of the Appellate Division of the High Court delivered on 7 August 2024, comprising Civil Appeals Nos 50 of 2023 and 124 of 2023, both arising from Suit No 806 of 2018. Steven Chong JCA delivered the judgment of the majority comprising Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD and himself, with Woo Bih Li JAD also on the coram. The appellant, Chan Pik Sun, had invested millions in a scheme named "SureWin4U", which promised lucrative returns in exchange for the purchase of what were represented as investment packages and which turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The respondents were Wan Hoe Keet (Wen Haojie), Ho Sally, Ho Hao Tian Sebastian and Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd.

The catchwords identified claims in the torts of unlawful means conspiracy, lawful means conspiracy, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation, with the Evidence Act among the legislation engaged. The appellant was represented by counsel from LVM Law Chambers LLC including Lok Vi Ming, Lee Sien Liang Joseph, Clara Lim Ai Ling, Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan and Qabir Singh Sandhu, while the respondents were represented by Christopher Anand s/o Daniel, Harjean Kaur, Saadhvika Jayanth and Yeo Yi Ling Eileen of Advocatus Law LLP.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

7 August 2024

Case summary

Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet and others and another appeal [2024] SGHC(A) 23

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the majority of the Appellate Division of the High Court comprising Steven Chong JCA and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD (delivered by Steven Chong JCA):

Outcome: The majority of the Appellate Division of the High Court (the “Appellate Division”) allowed an appeal against the decision of the General Division of the High Court (the “High Court”) insofar as the first and second respondents and held that they are liable to the appellant for fraudulent misrepresentation. The appeal insofar as the third and fourth respondents was dismissed. The Appellate Division also allowed the appellant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision on costs, and fixed costs in favour of the appellant in respect of the proceedings below.

Pertinent and significant points of the judgment

• The more significant the representation, the greater is the need for the representor to show that he had an evidential basis, ie, honest belief in making the representation, failing which it is open for a court to find that the representor did not make the statement(s) honestly: at [71].

• In determining whether the representor had the requisite subjective honest belief in the truth of the statement at the material time, the court may consider whether there were grounds on which a reasonable person infused with the attributes of the accused would have believed in the truth of the statement. If the representor was in a position to discover the truth, his alleged belief may be found to be unreasonable: at [72].

• It is open to the court to draw an adverse inference as to any fact which was likely to have had happened, notwithstanding that it might be the most serious or damning inference against the other party: at [126].

Background

1 The appellant, “Sandra”, invested millions in a Ponzi scheme named “SureWin4U” (referred to as “SureWin4U” or the “Scheme”). The first and second respondents were Ken and Sally, who were influential figures in the Scheme. They were respectively referred to as “Teacher Ken” and “Teacher Sally” by the other investors, and were rainmakers for the Scheme, contributing to around 70% of the Scheme’s earnings. They were also held out to be the “Singapore representatives” of the Scheme who had purportedly earned HK$201m from their participation in the Scheme and who had also received a Ferrari and a yacht. It was eventually admitted by Ken that he and Sally earned between $7m and $10m from the Scheme, from an initial capital outlay of $77,452. The third respondent (“Sebastian”) is Sally’s brother. The fourth respondent was a company previously named SW4U Consultancy Pte Ltd, which changed its name to Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd three days after the Scheme’s collapse.

2 SureWin4U was started by Peter Ong and Philip Ong (“Peter” and “Philip” respectively) in or around July 2012, with Peter designated as its Chief Executive Officer. The main selling point of the Scheme to potential investors was that their investments were ostensibly channelled to professional gamblers to gamble at baccarat in casinos employing two methods purportedly devised by Peter to successfully beat the system. The two methods were referred to as the “99.8% method” and the “100% method”, the numbers being supposedly a reflection of their success rate, whereas the professional gamblers were known by a Mandarin phrase which literal translation was “live gambling tables”. After purchasing those investment packages, investors would see periodic returns reflected in their accounts on the Scheme’s website in the form of “Yingbi” credits, Yingbi being the “currency” devised for the Scheme. They then had the option of cashing out on the Yingbi or reinvesting the Yingbi in more investment packages. The purchase of investment packages also entitled the investors to attend classes to learn about the Scheme’s gambling methods. Introductory classes were known as the “99.8% class” and advanced classes, only open to investors who had purchased Gold Packages and above, were known as the “100% class”.

3 It was alleged by Sandra that between March to August 2014, Ken and Sally made several representations to her and that, as a result, she invested in the Scheme in three Tranches. On 1 April 2014, Sandra purchased two “Silver” Packages for HK$357,000 (the “First Tranche”). She raised her investments significantly in May 2014 spending HK$12,092,100 on four “Silver”, three “Platinum” and one “Gold” Packages (the “Second Tranche”). Finally, in August 2014, a month before the Scheme’s collapse, Sandra spent HK$24,138,300 on four “US Property Packages” and three “Share Investment Packages” (the “Third Tranche”).

4 There were four main representations which were alleged. First, permeating all three Tranches was the allegation that Ken and Sally represented to Sandra that the Scheme was safe and profitable (the “Safe and Profitable Representation”). Second, it was alleged that Ken, Sally, and Sebastian represented to Sandra that investors who purchased a US Property Package would receive a title deed to a house in Detroit (the “US Property Representation”). Third, Sandra alleged that it was represented to her by Ken and Sally in relation to the Share Investment Packages that the funds from those packages would be used to buy over a company that was going to be listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange in October 2014 (the “Share Investment Representation”). Fourth, Sandra contended that Ken and Sally represented to her that if Sandra took out four sets each of the US Property Package and the Share Investment Package, she would become a seven-star agent and Hong Kong’s number one salesperson (the “Hong Kong No 1 Representation”).

5 In September 2014, SureWin4U collapsed with the arrest of its Taiwanese representative. Around that time, from 8 to 12 October 2014, Ken and Sally formed a group of ten investors including Sandra with the aim of recouping their investments by going to the casino to gamble using the 100% method and gave the group S$148,000 to do so. However, not only did the group fail to recover their investments, they also lost a substantial amount of that sum.

6 Between October and November 2014, Ken and Sally lodged two police reports against Peter and Philip (the “Police Reports”). In the first police report dated 1 October 2014, Ken and Sally claimed that they feared that they had become victims of an elaborate scam. However, in the Police Reports, Ken and Sally neither mentioned that they had cashed out $7m to $10m from the Scheme by that time nor provided any supporting evidence such as screenshots of their communications with Peter and Philip to establish their allegations against Peter and Philip.

7 In March 2015, Sebastian contacted Sandra telling her about a new potential “business opportunity” but Sandra rejected the offer. After which, Ken, Sally and Sebastian stopped replying to her messages.

8 Things went silent for about three years thereafter. This was until on or about 10 June 2018, when it was reported in the Macao Daily newspaper that Peter had surfaced in Macau and was distributing cash from his winnings. He was reported to be heading a new scheme which translates to “Prince Suncity”. In addition to that, photographs emerged of a meeting in Macau (the “2018 Macau Meeting”) where Ken and Sally were pictured alongside Peter and a group of other people, holding wads of cash.

9 Soon after, on 15 August 2018, Sandra filed HC/S 806/2018 (“S 806”) against all the respondents, claiming for fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy (by unlawful means or lawful means), negligent misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation.

10 Before the trial of S 806, Sandra applied for specific discovery against the respondents seeking, among others, “[a]ll correspondence, whether via WeChat and/or e-mail, with Peter Ong and/or Philip Ong and/or any other SureWin4U members and/or SureWin4U investors”. The fact that these correspondence with Peter, Philip and other investors existed was not in dispute.

11 However, Ken and Sally stated on affidavit that they had changed their phones sometime in February 2015 and did not keep any backup of any WeChat messages in respect of the Scheme (the “Missing Messages”). Ken and Sally also did not preserve any of their messages with Peter and Philip between 2017 and 2018 even though they had by that time filed the Police Reports against Peter and Philip and sought legal advice, and admitted that Peter and Philip had contacted them around the time of the 2018 Macau Meeting with some unpleasant WeChat messages and had asked them to work together on a new scheme that they were launching. At the trial of S 806, Ken, Sally and Sebastian provided various explanations for the Missing Messages. Ken and Sally said, among other things, that they would change their phones annually or biennially, and that they would not make any effort to port over, back up or migrate any existing information, except contact numbers, to their new phones. Sebastian said that he changed “maybe 10 to 20 handphones” in the span of seven years after the Scheme’s collapse. All of them claimed to be unable to recall with specificity what they did with their old phones.

12 In S 806, the High Court judge (the “Judge”) dismissed all the claims against the respondents and fixed costs of $374,365.22 in favour of the respondents. Sandra brought two appeals, one against the Judge’s decision on the respondents’ liability in respect of the claims, and the second on costs.

The majority’s decision

The Safe and Profitable Representation

13 Sandra’s case on the Safe and Profitable Representation related to the legitimacy of the Scheme in that there was in fact a business model where professional gamblers would use investors’ moneys to generate returns for the Scheme using the Scheme’s winning formulas. In this regard, Sandra was not only concerned about whether the gambling methods of the Scheme worked, for if this were so it would be incongruous with the fact that she made repeated investments into the Scheme even after learning the methods: at [76] and [78].

14 Ken and Sally made the Safe and Profitable Representation in relation to all three Tranches: at [95]–[110].

15 Ken and Sally were bedfellows in the Scheme with its founders, Peter and Philip, and knew that the Scheme was false by the time they first made the Safe and Profitable Representation to Sandra, ie, before the First Tranche. It was particularly troubling that Ken and Sally could not produce the Missing Messages which would have shed light on their relationship with the Scheme’s founders and their knowledge of whether the Scheme was fraudulent. Ken and Sally also provided contrived explanations for not producing the Missing Messages. Further, there was independent evidence in the form of the 2018 Macau Meeting and the Police Reports which showed that Ken and Sally knew that the Scheme was fraudulent. In the circumstances, it was appropriate to draw an adverse inference against Ken and Sally that the Missing Messages would not only be against their interest if produced, but that those messages would go towards showing that they were aware of the fraudulent nature of the Scheme. It is open to the court to draw an adverse inference as to any fact which was likely to have had happened, notwithstanding that it might be the most serious or damning inference against the other party: at [112]–[126].

16 Moreover, the possibility that Ken and Sally might have reinvested their profits into the Scheme did not detract from the finding that they knew that the Scheme was false, as they had no skin in the game after they had recouped their initial investment of $77,452. In any event, the reinvestments were not inconsistent with Ken and Sally’s knowledge that the Scheme was fraudulent because those were in fact generating returns from them. No weight was also accorded to S$148,000 that Ken and Sally gave to the group of ten investors for them to gamble at the casino using the 100% method after the Scheme’s collapse. It was obvious that the amount they gave was very likely a façade created to convince the other investors that they too were innocent. This was not how a normal innocent victim of a scam would act, and it was more consistent with the key roles played by Ken and Sally as promoters of the Scheme: at [127] and [129].

17 In any event, Ken and Sally were reckless at the material times when the Safe and Profitable Representation was made, in the sense that they were indifferent to the truth. While the allegation of recklessness might not have been sufficiently particularised in Sandra’s Statement of Claim, this issue was sufficiently ventilated at the trial and much of the cross-examination of Ken and Sally focused on the inquiry of whether they cared about the truth of their representations and, as part of this inquiry, whether they had any basis for repeating the representations they made. In this regard, Ken and Sally’s responses at the trial provided a strong basis for concluding that they were content to parrot whatever statements they were told: at [130]–[140].

18 On the element of reliance, Sandra acted on the Safe and Profitable Representation made by Ken and Sally. In a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, there was no requirement for the representee’s reliance to be reasonable or for the representation to be the sole reason for such reliance so long as it played a real and substantial role in inducing the representee to act: at [141]–[146].

19 Further, Ken and Sally intended for the Safe and Profitable Representation to be acted on. As the Safe and Profitable Representation was the fundamental premise of the Scheme and played a real and substantial part in Sandra’s decision in all three Tranches, Ken and Sally were presumed to have had the intention for the representation to be acted upon. There was also no merit in the respondents’ contention that Sandra had not proven her loss: at [147]–[149].

20 As all the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation had been made out on the basis of the Safe and Profitable Representation, which permeated all three Tranches, the majority allowed the appeal in respect of the entire sum which Sandra claimed and found Ken and Sally jointly and severally liable for that sum: at [150].

The Share Investment Representation and the other claims

21 Sandra’s claim in respect of the Share Investment Representation was an alternative basis for establishing liability in respect of the Third Tranche and was made out. To purchase the Share Investment Packages, one had to also purchase the US Property Packages. Therefore, since Sandra’s claim for fraudulent misrepresentation succeeded on the basis of the Share Investment Representation, it must include the losses she suffered from purchasing the US Property Packages: at [152] and [159].

22 The other claims by Sandra were not made out: at [161]–[174].

23 Sandra also succeeded in her appeal in respect of the costs of the proceedings below: at [175]–[176].

Decision of the minority of the Appellate Division (delivered by Woo Bih Li JAD):

The Safe and Profitable Representation

24 Although Sandra’s case on the Safe and Profitable Representation was advanced on the basis that it referred to the business model of the Scheme in the sense that the Scheme was legitimate, and that moneys from investors would be used by professional gamblers to generate returns using the Scheme’s winning formulas, it was not borne out by the evidence: at [185].

25 Sandra understood the Safe and Profitable Representation to solely mean that the 99.8% and 100% methods worked, and not that there were professional gamblers generating returns for the investors: at [186]–[190].

26 The evidence fell short of establishing actual knowledge by Ken and Sally that the Scheme was false. First, Ken and Sally were not the originators of the Scheme and neither did they hatch the Scheme together with Peter and Philip. They were only used to market the Scheme. Second, the fact that Ken and Sally were featured heavily in the publicity materials did not suggest that they knew that the Scheme was false. Third, while Ken and Sally kept reinvesting in the Scheme, and they had no reason to do so if they knew that the Scheme was a scam. There was also no evidence that Ken and Sally emphasised their continued investments to investors like Sandra and for the purpose of showing that they had skin in the game. Further, the S$148,000 that Ken and Sally gave to a group of ten investors including Sandra might be indicative of their innocence: at [192]–[196].

27 The Police Reports were not unequivocal evidence of complicity by Ken and Sally in the fraud. If the Police Reports were a façade, the reports would have contained more direct and forceful accusations against Peter and Philip. In any event, the first police report did mention that Ken and Sally were victims of an “elaborate scam” and that Peter and Philip had disappeared with their money. It also mentioned that there were over 1,500 people in Singapore who could have signed up for the Scheme. The second police report also mentioned that Ken was hoping to recover his money. Moreover, the omission to provide screenshots of conversations with Peter and Philip in the Police Reports was not material. The involvement of Ken and Sally in the Scheme was not in issue then and there was no evidence that the police asked for more evidence. Ken also mentioned that he dealt directly with Peter and Philip, which he would not have done if he was as cunning as portrayed by Sandra: at [197]–[204].

28 Next, the 2018 Macau Meeting was equivocal at best as to whether Ken and Sally were in on the scam with Peter and Philip. If they were bedfellows with Peter and Philip in the Scheme, there was no reason for them to go to Macau as they would already have known that Peter and Philip would not grant them any relief. In addition, they would have avoided being captured in photographs with Peter holding cash. Ken and Sally were also not the only ones who went to Macau to meet Peter and the presence of those others did not support any suggestion that Ken and Sally were part of a small group of fraudsters: at [205]–[208].

29 As the evidence in favour of Sandra’s case fell far short of establishing actual knowledge on the part of Ken and Sally, an adverse inference should not be drawn to fill an important gap in the evidence. Another difficulty with drawing an adverse inference was determining the point in time at which Ken and Sally allegedly found out that the Scheme was false, which would be relevant to their liability to Sandra in respect of each Tranche: at [209]–[212].

30 In relation to Sandra’s allegation that Ken and Sally were reckless, her failure to particularise that allegation was fatal to her case. While Ken and Sally were asked questions during cross-examination about the Safe and Profitable Representation, they were not asked questions about the specific steps they should have taken to reassure themselves of the legitimacy of the Scheme. In any event, the main feature of the Scheme to Ken and Sally, as well as to Sandra, was whether the Scheme’s purported winning methods worked: at [213]–[216].

The other claims by Sandra

31 Both claims mounted on the US Property Representation and the Share Investment Representation were premised on actual knowledge that the Scheme was false or recklessness as to its legitimacy. As actual knowledge or recklessness was not made out, this finding disposed of those claims. The same could be said for the claims in unlawful and lawful means conspiracy. In any event, the majority correctly found that the claim based on the US Property Representation was insufficiently particularised and that the Hong Kong No 1 Representation was not actionable: at [217].

32 The claim for negligent misrepresentation was also not made out as it was not established that Ken and Sally owed Sandra a duty of care: at [219]–[227].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.

What was Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet [2024] SGHC(A) 23 about?

Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet (Wen Haojie) [2024] SGHC(A) 23 was an Appellate Division decision of 7 August 2024 concerning the appellant's losses from "SureWin4U", a Ponzi scheme, with claims in conspiracy and misrepresentation against four respondents including Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd.

What legal claims were considered in Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet [2024] SGHC(A) 23?

In [2024] SGHC(A) 23, the catchwords identified claims in unlawful means conspiracy, lawful means conspiracy, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation, arising from the appellant's investment in the "SureWin4U" scheme that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme.

Who decided Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet [2024] SGHC(A) 23?

The appeals were heard by the Appellate Division of the High Court, with Steven Chong JCA delivering the majority judgment comprising himself and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD, alongside Woo Bih Li JAD, in Civil Appeals Nos 50 and 124 of 2023 decided on 7 August 2024.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act (Cap 97) Cases on this Act →

s 116 s 116(g)

Cases Cited (34)

SG (2)

[2023] SGHC 96 [2023] SGHC(A) 36

SLR (28)

[1992] 3 SLR(R) 638 [1994] 2 SLR(R) 682 [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407 [2000] 2 SLR(R) 455 [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 [2007] 3 SLR(R) 537 [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 [2008] 1 SLR(R) 80 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 61 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 261 [2009] 2 SLR(R) 532 [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101 [2010] 3 SLR 143 [2012] 4 SLR 231 [2013] 3 SLR 801 [2013] 4 SLR 150 [2013] 4 SLR 886 [2014] 1 SLR 860 [2015] 3 SLR 990 [2016] 3 SLR 557 [2017] 1 SLR 141 [2018] 1 SLR 894 [2018] 2 SLR 588 [2020] 2 SLR 1256 [2020] 3 SLR 335 [2020] 4 SLR 425

UK (4)

[1893] 1 QB 491 [1959] 1 QB 150 [1996] 1 All ER 96 [2003] 1 AC 959