Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHC 115
- Title: Anpex Pte Ltd v Cheng Yong Sun and another
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of Decision: 20 May 2022
- Judgment Reserved: Yes
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Proceedings: Suit No 415 of 2021
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Anpex Pte Ltd
- Defendants/Respondents: (1) Cheng Yong Sun; (2) Lee Chai Yun, Winnie
- Legal Area: Tort – Conspiracy (unlawful conspiracy to injure)
- Statutes Referenced: None specified in the provided extract
- Cases Cited: [2022] SGHC 115 (no other authorities are identified in the provided extract)
- Judgment Length: 7 pages, 1,680 words
- Representation: Rakesh s/o Pokkan Vasu and Farhan Tyebally (Gomez & Vasu LLC) for the plaintiffs; Ng Boon Gan (VanillaLaw LLC) for the 2nd defendant
Summary
In Anpex Pte Ltd v Cheng Yong Sun and another [2022] SGHC 115, the High Court (Choo Han Teck J) found that the first and second defendants were liable in tort for unlawful conspiracy to injure the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a Singapore logistics and delivery company, alleged that its director/shareholder, Ms Leow, discovered suspicious transfers from the plaintiff’s bank account to the defendants’ bank accounts. The transfers were purportedly made to drivers and subcontractors, but the evidence showed that the monies were diverted to the defendants and other unknown persons.
The court had already obtained default judgment against the first defendant for the sum of $578,347.30. The contested issue was whether the second defendant (Winnie) conspired with the first defendant to cause harm to the plaintiff. The court concluded that the plaintiff proved the existence of an agreement between the defendants to injure the plaintiff. It disbelieved the second defendant’s account that she was an unwitting participant who trusted the first defendant and did not know the funds were stolen. The court therefore ordered that the defendants be jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for $578,347.30.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Anpex Pte Ltd, is a Singapore-incorporated company providing delivery, logistics and transport services. Its director and shareholder, Ms Leow, also held shares and directorships in two related companies: Auto 51 Pte Ltd (“Auto”) and Auto 51 Leasing Pte Ltd (“Auto-Leasing”). These companies operated closely with the plaintiff in day-to-day logistics and transport arrangements, and the defendants’ roles were linked to these operational connections.
The first defendant, Cheng Yong Sun, was employed by Auto on 2 October 2019 as an associate manager. His responsibilities included planning delivery schedules and managing day-to-day operations across Auto and its affiliate companies. Critically, his role also included authorising payments to drivers hired by the plaintiff and sourcing clients for the plaintiff’s delivery services. He further sourced other delivery companies that might require additional support from the plaintiff.
The second defendant, Lee Chai Yun, Winnie (“Winnie”), was a close friend of the first defendant. She was introduced to Ms Leow around April 2020 when Auto faced a shortage of staff. Winnie was subsequently employed by Auto on 15 August 2020 as an administrative executive. Her administrative duties included assisting Auto and affiliate companies, including registering and managing a Grab account for the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could provide courier delivery services to Grab.
In or around December 2020, Ms Leow discovered suspicious payments out of the plaintiff’s account between 24 December 2019 and 29 January 2021. These payments were purportedly made to the plaintiff’s drivers and subcontractors. However, further investigation revealed that the payments were actually made to bank accounts belonging to the first and second defendants and other unknown persons. Ms Leow also discovered that the plaintiff’s subcontractors, Gogovan Pte Ltd (“GGV”) and FattyDaddyFattyMummy Pte Ltd (“FDFM”), were transferring monies directly to the second defendant’s bank account from 2 March 2020 to 17 February 2021 for delivery services rendered by the plaintiff.
As a result, the plaintiff commenced proceedings against both defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the first and second defendants misappropriated and wrongfully took a total sum of $578,347.30 from the plaintiff’s bank account through unauthorised and fraudulent transactions, and by deceiving subcontractors into transferring monies directly to the second defendant’s bank accounts. The plaintiff obtained default judgment against the first defendant for $578,347.30 on 8 June 2021.
Against Winnie, the plaintiff advanced a primary claim in conspiracy. It alleged that Winnie unlawfully conspired with the first defendant to injure the plaintiff. The plaintiff also pleaded alternative causes of action, including unjust enrichment (in the sum of $161,322.50, being the total transferred to Winnie’s bank account) and breach of duties of honesty and loyalty. Winnie’s defence was that she did not know the monies were misappropriated. She claimed that she trusted the first defendant and allowed him to use her bank accounts for his paycheques and withdrawals, and that she believed the transfers were commissions or deductions owed to him by the plaintiff.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff proved the elements of the tort of unlawful conspiracy to injure. In conspiracy claims, the plaintiff must establish more than mere association or opportunity. The court must be satisfied that there was an agreement between the defendants to cause harm to the plaintiff. The agreement may be inferred from conduct, but it must be shown that the defendants acted in concert with the requisite intention.
A second issue concerned the credibility of Winnie’s explanation. While the plaintiff’s evidence showed that monies were transferred from the plaintiff’s account directly into Winnie’s bank accounts, Winnie argued that she was unaware of the true nature of the transactions. The court therefore had to decide whether Winnie’s account was plausible and whether the surrounding circumstances supported an inference of knowledge and participation in the unlawful scheme.
Finally, although the plaintiff also pleaded unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duties, the court indicated that once conspiracy was established, it would not need to address the alternative claims. This raised an issue of judicial economy: whether the court should decide only the conspiracy claim or also determine the alternative causes of action based on the evidence.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court approached the conspiracy claim by focusing on whether an agreement to injure could be inferred from the evidence. The judge noted that it was undisputed that monies were transferred from the plaintiff’s account directly into Winnie’s account. This factual linkage was important because it placed Winnie’s bank accounts at the centre of the diversion of funds. However, the court also recognised that the existence of transfers alone does not automatically prove conspiracy; the plaintiff still had to show that Winnie agreed to cause harm or at least knowingly participated in the scheme.
Winnie’s explanation was that the first defendant lied to her about the nature of the transactions and that she did not know the funds were stolen. The court found that Winnie was unable to account for the monies credited into her accounts. In such circumstances, the court considered whether Winnie’s version could be accepted as a genuine lack of knowledge. The judge emphasised that the only person who could corroborate Winnie’s story and exonerate her from liability was the first defendant. Yet Winnie declined to call the first defendant to testify at trial, despite remaining in contact with him.
When asked by the court why she did not call the first defendant, Winnie’s stated reason was that “the court would not have believed him”. The judge treated this as a significant factor undermining Winnie’s credibility. The court reasoned that if Winnie’s account depended on the first defendant’s testimony, her failure to adduce that evidence—without a persuasive explanation—supported an inference that her account was not reliable. This is consistent with the broader evidential principle that a party’s failure to call a material witness may justify an adverse inference where the witness is available and the testimony would be expected to assist.
The court further fortified its conclusion by examining Winnie’s expenditure patterns. The judge observed that Winnie’s monthly salary was about $1,600, yet her bank statements showed extravagant spending on jewellery, cosmetic products and beauty services during the relevant period (August to December 2020). The court listed multiple purchases from Poh Heng Jewellery and various beauty-related expenditures, amounting to more than $10,535.80 based on the figures identified in the judgment extract. The judge found that such spending did not commensurate with Winnie’s salary.
Winnie attempted to explain this discrepancy by claiming that the first defendant had struck the “4D lottery” several times, and that she could afford the purchases because of that. The court rejected this explanation for lack of evidence. The judge noted that there was no evidence adduced to prove that the first defendant indeed struck the lotteries. Moreover, the first defendant was not called to testify about his alleged winnings. The court therefore disbelieved Winnie’s account that her lifestyle was funded by lottery proceeds rather than misappropriated funds.
On the totality of the evidence, the judge concluded that Winnie most probably knew that the funds came from the plaintiff. The reasoning was both circumstantial and inferential: given the scale of the transfers into her accounts, the mismatch between her salary and her spending, and the absence of credible corroboration, the court found it unlikely that Winnie was “clueless”. The judge also considered that Winnie’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the large sums credited into her accounts, coupled with her extravagant expenditure during the timeframe of misappropriation, suggested knowing participation.
Accordingly, the court found that the first and second defendants conspired to misappropriate funds from the plaintiff and knowingly caused the plaintiff to lose $578,347.30. The judge emphasised that the only witness who could prove Winnie’s innocence was not called, and that Winnie’s conduct and financial behaviour were inconsistent with her claimed lack of knowledge. The court therefore held that both defendants were involved in a conspiracy to injure the plaintiff.
Having found conspiracy, the court indicated that it did not need to address the plaintiff’s alternative claims of unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duties. The judge nonetheless remarked that, on the evidence and the facts as found, the plaintiff would likely have succeeded on those claims as well. This suggests that the evidence supporting conspiracy also overlapped with the factual basis for unjust enrichment and loyalty/honesty duties, even though the court did not formally decide those alternative causes of action.
What Was the Outcome?
The court found that the first and second defendants were jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for $578,347.30. The practical effect of a joint and several liability order is that the plaintiff may recover the full judgment sum from either defendant, leaving the defendants to sort out contribution or indemnity between themselves.
Costs were not immediately determined. The judge stated that parties would be heard on costs at a later date if they could not agree. The substantive liability determination, however, was clear: the plaintiff succeeded on its conspiracy claim and obtained an enforceable monetary judgment for the full misappropriated amount.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is a useful illustration of how Singapore courts approach conspiracy claims in the context of misappropriation and diversion of funds. Conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to cause harm, but direct evidence of agreement is rarely available. Anpex demonstrates that courts will infer agreement from conduct, particularly where there is undisputed transfer of funds into a defendant’s account and where the defendant’s explanations are not credible or are unsupported by evidence that is within the defendant’s power to adduce.
For practitioners, the judgment highlights the evidential importance of credibility and the strategic consequences of not calling a key witness. Winnie’s defence depended on the first defendant’s testimony, yet she did not call him. The court treated this as a factor that undermined her account. In future cases, defendants who rely on a narrative requiring corroboration should consider whether the corroborating witness is available and whether the court is likely to draw an adverse inference from non-production.
The case also underscores the role of circumstantial evidence, including financial behaviour, in establishing knowledge and participation. The court used the mismatch between Winnie’s salary and her spending, together with the absence of evidence for alternative funding sources, to infer that she likely knew the funds were connected to the plaintiff’s misappropriation. This approach is particularly relevant in conspiracy and dishonest assistance-type disputes where the defendant’s state of mind is central and must often be inferred from surrounding facts.
Legislation Referenced
- No specific statutes were identified in the provided judgment extract.
Cases Cited
- [2022] SGHC 115 (the present case)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHC 115 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.