Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 188
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-09-19
- Judges: Tan Siong Thye SJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Astrawati Aluwi
- Defendant/Respondent: Lo Yew Seng and another (Infinity Capital Group Ltd and others, third parties)
- Legal Areas: Tort — Misrepresentation ; Tort — Conspiracy
- Statutes Referenced: None specified
- Cases Cited: [2021] SGHC 193, [2021] SGHC 84, [2022] SGHC 207, [2025] SGHC 188, [2025] SGHC 86
- Judgment Length: 87 pages, 25,439 words
Summary
This case involves a wealthy Indonesian investor, Madam Astrawati Aluwi, who purchased a residential apartment unit in a purported development in Niseko, Japan called Tellus Hirafu. The purchase was made based on representations given to her by the first defendant, Mr. Lo Yew Seng. However, it was later discovered that there was no actual construction at the development site and the developer never even owned the land. The Claimant is now seeking a full refund of the $1.786 million she paid towards the purchase. The court found the Defendant liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and conspiracy by unlawful means, and ordered him to pay the Claimant damages with interest.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The Claimant, Madam Astrawati Aluwi, is a wealthy Indonesian who has made several property investments around the world. She has engaged Ms. Serene Wan as her property agent since 1995 to manage her property portfolio in Singapore. In January 2019, Ms. Wan informed the Claimant about a luxurious residential development project in Niseko, Japan called Tellus Hirafu, which was brought to her attention by the first Defendant, Mr. Lo Yew Seng.
The Defendant, who is a director at Capella Capital Pte Ltd, provided Ms. Wan with investment brochures for the Tellus Hirafu development. The brochures contained details about the project, including the target completion date of 2021 and the pricing and payment schedule for the 20 VVIP pre-launch units. After reviewing the brochures, the Claimant expressed interest in purchasing one of the units.
Between February and April 2019, the Claimant, through Ms. Wan, negotiated with the Defendant regarding the purchase of a 136 m² freehold apartment unit in the development for $1.88 million. On 28 and 29 May 2019, the Claimant signed the commitment agreement and contract for sale, respectively, with the developer entities Infinity Capital Group Japan Development Godo Kaisha and Infinity Capital Group Ltd. Over the next two years, the Claimant made a total of six progress payments amounting to $1.786 million towards the purchase of the unit.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
1. Whether the Defendant is liable for fraudulent misrepresentation for the representations he made to the Claimant about the Tellus Hirafu development.
2. Whether the Defendant is liable for negligent misstatement for the representations he made to the Claimant.
3. Whether the Defendant was involved in a conspiracy by unlawful means with the other defendants to defraud the Claimant.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the issue of fraudulent misrepresentation, the court examined whether the Defendant made representations about the ownership of the land and the status of construction at the development, whether the Claimant relied on those representations, and whether the Defendant knew the representations were false. The court found that the Defendant was aware that the Infinity Group did not actually own the land and that there was no construction, but he still made these representations to induce the Claimant to invest.
Regarding negligent misstatement, the court considered whether the Defendant owed the Claimant a duty of care, whether he breached that duty, and whether the breach caused damage to the Claimant. The court determined that the Defendant, as an experienced financial advisor, owed the Claimant a duty of care in providing information about the investment, and that he breached this duty by making negligent statements.
On the issue of conspiracy, the court examined the Defendant's involvement with the other defendants, Mr. Chen Yicheng and Mr. Jonathan Cheng, in the Infinity Group and their actions to defraud the Claimant. The court found that the Defendant was part of a conspiracy to use unlawful means, namely the fraudulent misrepresentations, to cause damage to the Claimant.
What Was the Outcome?
The court found the Defendant liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and conspiracy by unlawful means. The court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant damages in the sum of $1,786,000, with interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum from the commencement date of the suit, as well as costs.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons. First, it demonstrates the importance of due diligence and the need for investors to carefully scrutinize investment opportunities, even those presented by seemingly reputable individuals or entities. The Claimant, a sophisticated investor, was still deceived by the elaborate scam orchestrated by the Defendant and his co-conspirators.
Second, the case highlights the legal consequences that can arise from making fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations to induce investment. The court's findings of liability for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and conspiracy by unlawful means serve as a warning to those who may be tempted to engage in such unethical practices.
Finally, the case underscores the court's willingness to hold individuals accountable for their actions, even when they claim to be victims themselves. The Defendant's attempts to distance himself from the scam were ultimately rejected by the court, which found him culpable for his role in the fraudulent scheme.
Legislation Referenced
- None specified
Cases Cited
- [2021] SGHC 193
- [2021] SGHC 84
- [2022] SGHC 207
- [2025] SGHC 188
- [2025] SGHC 86
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 188 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.