Astrawati Aluwi v Lo Yew Seng and another (Infinity Capital Group Ltd and others, third parties) [2025] SGHC 188

Case Details

• Citation: [2025] SGHC 188
• Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
• Decision Date: 19 September 2025
• Coram: Tan Siong Thye SJ
• Case Number: Originating Claim No 437 of 2023
• Hearing Date(s): 8–11 April, 26–28 May, 27 June, 18 July 2025
• Claimant: Astrawati Aluwi
• Defendants: Lo Yew Seng (First Defendant); Chen Yicheng (Second Defendant)
• Third Parties: Infinity Capital Group Ltd; Infinity Capital Group Japan Development Godo Kaisha; Jonathan Cheng
• Counsel for Claimant: Not recorded in extracted metadata
• Counsel for Defendants: Not recorded in extracted metadata
• Practice Areas: Tort; Misrepresentation; Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Negligent Misstatement; Conspiracy

Summary

The judgment in Astrawati Aluwi v Lo Yew Seng and another [2025] SGHC 188 represents a significant judicial examination of the personal liability of intermediaries and "conduits" in the context of high-value international real estate fraud. The dispute arose from the failed "Tellus Hirafu" development in Niseko, Japan, where the Claimant, a sophisticated Indonesian investor, was induced to pay US$1.786 million for a luxury residential unit that was never built. The core of the legal battle concerned whether the First Defendant, Mr. Lo Yew Seng, who acted as the primary point of contact and intermediary for the developer, could be held personally liable for the representations contained in marketing materials and his own verbal assurances.

The High Court, presided over by Tan Siong Thye SJ, ultimately found the First Defendant liable across three distinct heads of tortious liability: fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and conspiracy by unlawful means. The court's decision is particularly noteworthy for its refusal to allow the First Defendant to hide behind the corporate veil of the developer or his own advisory firm, Capella Capital Pte Ltd. The judgment clarifies that an intermediary who adopts and vouches for the accuracy of third-party information—especially when they possess superior knowledge of the underlying falsity—cannot escape liability by claiming they were a mere "conduit" of information.

Doctrinally, the case reinforces the high standard of "cogent evidence" required to prove fraud in Singapore, while simultaneously demonstrating that this threshold can be met through a combination of documentary inconsistencies and the drawing of adverse inferences under the Evidence Act 1893. The court meticulously deconstructed the First Defendant's defense, noting that his continued promotion of the project, despite knowing that the developer did not own the land and that construction had not commenced, constituted at least a reckless indifference to the truth, which is sufficient to ground a claim in deceit under the classic Derry v Peek formulation.

The broader significance of this case lies in its protective stance toward investors targeted by "VVIP" pre-launch schemes. It signals that the Singapore courts will scrutinize the conduct of financial advisors and property intermediaries who leverage their professional reputation to sell speculative overseas projects. By awarding the full sum of US$1,786,000 plus interest at the default rate of 5.33% per annum, the court provided a complete restitutionary remedy, affirming that the loss of the entire investment was the direct and foreseeable consequence of the First Defendant's tortious conduct.

Timeline of Events

1. 6 June 2016: Incorporation of relevant entities or initial project conceptualization (contextual background).
2. 1 March 2017: Early stages of the Tellus Hirafu project planning.
3. 9 January 2018: Further development of the project's marketing strategy.
4. 1 February 2018: Key date in the administrative history of the developer entities.
5. 9 April 2018: Communication regarding the "VVIP" pre-launch units.
6. 20 January 2019: Ms. Serene Wan (the Claimant's agent) is first informed about the Tellus Hirafu development by the First Defendant.
7. 31 January 2019: The First Defendant provides investment brochures and marketing materials to Ms. Wan for the Claimant's review.
8. February – April 2019: Active negotiations take place between the Claimant (via Ms. Wan) and the First Defendant regarding the purchase of a 136 m² unit.
9. 18 April 2019: Specific representations made regarding the construction status and land ownership.
10. 28 May 2019: The Claimant signs the Commitment Agreement for the purchase of the unit.
11. 29 May 2019: The Claimant signs the Contract for Sale with Infinity Capital Group Japan Development Godo Kaisha and Infinity Capital Group Ltd.
12. May 2019 – May 2021: The Claimant makes six progress payments totaling US$1,786,000.
13. 31 March 2020: Target date for certain construction milestones that were not met.
14. 19 May 2021: The final progress payment is made by the Claimant.
15. 29 July 2022: The Claimant begins to realize the project is a sham; formal demands for information are made.
16. 12 June 2023: Commencement of the legal action via Originating Claim No 437 of 2023.
17. 8 April – 18 July 2025: Substantive trial hearings conducted before Tan Siong Thye SJ.
18. 19 September 2025: Judgment delivered, finding the First Defendant liable.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The Claimant, Madam Astrawati Aluwi, is a high-net-worth Indonesian investor with a history of property investments in Singapore and internationally. Since 1995, she has relied on Ms. Serene Wan as her trusted property agent. The First Defendant, Mr. Lo Yew Seng, was a director at Capella Capital Pte Ltd and presented himself as a sophisticated financial intermediary with close ties to the "Infinity Group," a developer purportedly led by Mr. Jonathan Cheng.

In early 2019, the First Defendant introduced Ms. Wan to a project called "Tellus Hirafu," described as a luxury residential development in the Niseko region of Japan. The marketing materials provided by the First Defendant depicted a high-end condominium project with a target completion date of 2021. Crucially, the brochures and the First Defendant's verbal communications indicated that the project was in a "VVIP pre-launch" phase, suggesting that the development was well underway and that the developer, Infinity Capital Group, had secured the necessary land and permissions.

The Claimant was interested in a specific 136 m² freehold apartment unit priced at approximately US$1.88 million. Throughout the negotiations from February to April 2019, the First Defendant made two critical categories of representations, which the court later termed the "Land Representation" and the "Construction Representation." Specifically, he represented that the developer owned the land on which Tellus Hirafu was to be built and that construction had already commenced or was imminent. These representations were reinforced by "construction updates" and photos sent to the Claimant via WhatsApp and email.

Relying on these assurances, the Claimant entered into a Commitment Agreement on 28 May 2019 and a Contract for Sale on 29 May 2019. The counterparty to these contracts was Infinity Capital Group Japan Development Godo Kaisha. Between 2019 and 2021, the Claimant dutifully paid six installments of the purchase price, totaling US$1,786,000. These payments were made into bank accounts designated by the First Defendant and the developer.

The deception began to unravel when the promised completion date of 2021 passed without any sign of the building. Investigations eventually revealed a shocking reality: the developer never owned the land for the Tellus Hirafu project. The land was owned by a third party, and the "purchase" by the Infinity Group had never been completed due to a lack of funds. Furthermore, no construction had ever taken place at the site; the photos provided to the Claimant were either of a different site or were misleadingly staged. The entire project was, in essence, a "paper" development used to solicit funds from investors.

The First Defendant's defense was centered on the claim that he was merely a "conduit." He argued that he had no personal knowledge of the fraud and was simply passing on information provided to him by Jonathan Cheng and the Infinity Group. He claimed that he, too, was a victim of Cheng's deception. However, the evidence showed that the First Defendant was deeply involved in the management of the Infinity Group's finances and had access to bank statements showing that the funds meant for the land purchase had been diverted for other purposes. Despite this knowledge, he continued to solicit payments from the Claimant and provided false updates on the project's progress.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The court was tasked with resolving several complex issues centered on the intersection of agency, corporate personality, and tortious liability. The primary issues were:

• Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Did the First Defendant make false representations of fact (specifically regarding land ownership and construction progress) with the knowledge that they were false or with reckless indifference to their truth, intending for the Claimant to act upon them?
• Negligent Misstatement: Even if fraud could not be proven, did the First Defendant owe a duty of care to the Claimant under the Spandeck framework, and did he breach that duty by failing to verify the information he provided?
• Unlawful Means Conspiracy: Was there a combination between the First Defendant, Jonathan Cheng, and others to use unlawful means (the misrepresentations) to cause financial injury to the Claimant?
• The "Conduit" Defense: Can an intermediary escape personal liability by asserting they were merely a messenger for a third party's information?
• Contributory Negligence: Should the Claimant's damages be reduced because she, as a sophisticated investor, failed to conduct independent due diligence on a Japanese property development?

Each of these issues required the court to apply established doctrinal tests to a dense factual matrix involving cross-border transactions and complex corporate structures. The issue of fraudulent misrepresentation was particularly critical, as it carried the highest evidentiary burden and would preclude any defense of contributory negligence.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation

The court applied the five-element test for fraudulent misrepresentation established in Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 (at [34]). The elements are: (a) a false representation of fact; (b) made with knowledge of its falsity or recklessly; (c) with the intent that the representee should act on it; (d) the representee acted in reliance; and (e) suffered damage.

Regarding the Land Representation, the court found that the First Defendant had explicitly stated the developer owned the land. The First Defendant's argument that he was merely passing on brochures was rejected. The court noted that he had "vouched" for the project's legitimacy. Crucially, the court found that the First Defendant had access to the developer's bank accounts and knew that the funds required to complete the land purchase had been depleted. By continuing to represent that the land was owned by the developer, he acted with at least reckless indifference.

Regarding the Construction Representation, the court found the First Defendant's conduct even more egregious. He had sent "updates" and photos to the Claimant's agent, Ms. Wan, which suggested construction was progressing. In reality, the site remained a vacant lot. The court held that a representation is of "continuing effect" until corrected (citing Goldrich Venture Pte Ltd and another v Halcyon Offshore Pte Ltd [2015] 3 SLR 990 at [59]). The First Defendant never corrected the false impression he created.

"If it can be shown that the maker of the statement had neither honest belief in the truth of the representation nor was he indifferent to its truth, the element of fraud is satisfied." (at [54])

The court also drew an adverse inference against the First Defendant under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act 1893 for his failure to call Jonathan Cheng or other key employees of the Infinity Group to testify. The court reasoned that if the First Defendant truly believed he was a victim of Cheng's fraud, he would have sought to compel Cheng's testimony to corroborate his lack of knowledge.

2. Negligent Misstatement

The court applied the two-stage Spandeck test to determine the existence of a duty of care. First, the court found factual foreseeability: it was clearly foreseeable that the Claimant would suffer financial loss if the information provided by the First Defendant about the investment was inaccurate. Second, the court found proximity. There was "circumstantial proximity" because the First Defendant held himself out as an expert advisor and knew the Claimant was relying on his specific expertise to evaluate the Japanese project. The court distinguished this from a "casual social inquiry," noting the commercial nature of the relationship.

The court rejected the "conduit" argument, citing Lam Wing Yee Jane v Realstar Premier Group Pte Ltd [2024] 5 SLR 51. The First Defendant did not merely pass on a brochure; he provided a "gloss" of professional approval. He breached this duty by failing to take even basic steps to verify the developer's claims, such as asking for a title deed or a construction permit, despite his close involvement with the developer's management.

3. Unlawful Means Conspiracy

The court followed the elements in Tjong Very Sumito v Chan Sing En [2012] SGHC 125: (a) a combination of two or more persons; (b) an agreement to perform certain acts; (c) an intention to injure the claimant; (d) the use of unlawful means; and (e) resulting damage. The "unlawful means" here were the fraudulent misrepresentations. The court found that the First Defendant and Jonathan Cheng acted in concert to keep the Claimant "on the hook" for progress payments by providing false updates, thereby satisfying the requirement for a conspiracy.

4. Contributory Negligence

The First Defendant argued that the Claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to conduct her own due diligence. The court dismissed this defense. Under Singapore law, contributory negligence is generally not a defense to a claim in fraud. Even for the negligence claim, the court held that the Claimant was entitled to rely on the representations of a professional intermediary. The standard of care for a representee is not to be "extraordinarily suspicious" but to act reasonably (citing Asnah Bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] 2 SLR 944).

What Was the Outcome?

The court found in favor of the Claimant on all primary heads of claim. The First Defendant was held personally liable for the losses sustained by the Claimant. The court's orders were as follows:

• Damages: The First Defendant is ordered to pay the Claimant the sum of US$1,786,000, representing the total amount of the progress payments made by the Claimant in reliance on the misrepresentations.
• Interest: Interest is awarded on the sum of US$1,786,000 at the rate of 5.33% per annum, calculated from the date of the commencement of the suit (12 June 2023) until the date of full payment.
• Costs: The Claimant, as the successful party, is entitled to costs. The court ordered that costs be agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, be taxed by the court.

The court's final disposition was unequivocal in its rejection of the First Defendant's attempts to shift blame to the developer entities. The operative paragraph regarding costs and the finality of the decision states:

"the Claimant, having succeeded, is entitled to costs to be agreed or taxed." (at [180])

The court also dismissed the First Defendant's third-party claims against the Infinity Group entities for indemnity, largely because the First Defendant's own fraud and negligence were primary and personal, rather than merely derivative of the developer's conduct. The judgment effectively places the entire financial burden of the US$1.786 million loss on the First Defendant personally.

Why Does This Case Matter?

This judgment is a landmark for practitioners dealing with "conduit" liability in misrepresentation cases. It provides a clear roadmap for when an intermediary's conduct crosses the line from merely passing on information to adopting that information as their own. The court's analysis suggests that the more an intermediary uses their professional status to "vouch" for a project, the less likely they are to succeed with a "conduit" defense. This has profound implications for real estate agents, financial advisors, and placement agents who market overseas investments to Singaporean or Singapore-based investors.

Secondly, the case clarifies the application of the Spandeck test to pure economic loss in the context of investment advice. By finding proximity between the First Defendant and the Claimant—despite the lack of a direct contract—the court has expanded the potential for tortious claims in failed investment schemes. It emphasizes that "circumstantial proximity" can be established through the intermediary's knowledge of the investor's reliance, even if the intermediary is technically an agent of the developer.

Thirdly, the decision reinforces the potency of adverse inferences in fraud litigation. Proving a defendant's "state of mind" is notoriously difficult in deceit cases. By utilizing s 116(g) of the Evidence Act 1893, the court showed that a defendant's failure to call witnesses who could have cleared their name can be the "cogent evidence" required to tip the scales toward a finding of fraud. This is a vital tactical lesson for litigators: the absence of evidence can be as damning as the presence of it.

Finally, the case serves as a stern warning regarding "VVIP" and "pre-launch" property schemes. The court's refusal to find contributory negligence on the part of the investor—even a sophisticated one—indicates that the primary duty of honesty and care lies with the representor. This protects investors from being blamed for not uncovering a fraud that was actively concealed by the person they trusted to provide accurate information. In the Singapore legal landscape, this judgment strengthens the position of victims of complex financial and property scams.

Practice Pointers

• For Intermediaries: Avoid using definitive language such as "the developer owns the land" or "construction has started" unless you have personally verified these facts through independent documentation (e.g., land registry searches or architect certificates).
• The "Conduit" Disclaimer: If you are merely passing on information, use clear, prominent disclaimers stating that the information is provided by a third party, that you have not verified it, and that you take no responsibility for its accuracy. However, be aware that disclaimers may be ineffective if you have actual knowledge of the information's falsity.
• Due Diligence Records: Maintain a robust paper trail of the due diligence performed on any project you market. If a project fails, your ability to show that you asked the right questions (even if you were lied to) can be the difference between a finding of negligence and a finding of fraud.
• Pleading Strategy: Always plead fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and unlawful means conspiracy in the alternative. As this case shows, even if the high bar for fraud is not met, the negligence and conspiracy heads provide robust fallback positions.
• Witness Preparation: In fraud cases, the decision of which witnesses to call is critical. If a key witness is available but not called, be prepared to explain why, or face a devastating adverse inference under the Evidence Act 1893.
• Sophisticated Investors: Do not assume that a claimant's sophistication will automatically lead to a finding of contributory negligence. The court focuses on the reasonableness of the reliance in the specific context of the relationship, not just the claimant's net worth.

Subsequent Treatment

As this is a very recent judgment (September 2025), there is no recorded subsequent treatment in higher courts or other High Court decisions yet. However, given its detailed analysis of "conduit" liability and the application of the Spandeck test to property intermediaries, it is highly likely to be cited in future cases involving failed overseas property developments and the personal liability of agents. It follows the trajectory of cases like Lam Wing Yee Jane and Crystal Beauty in narrowing the defenses available to intermediaries who facilitate fraudulent schemes.

Legislation Referenced

• Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed), s 116(g)
• Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed), s 3(1)

Cases Cited

• Applied / Followed:
  • Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
  • Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
  • Tjong Very Sumito v Chan Sing En [2012] SGHC 125
  • Asnah Bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] 2 SLR 944
• Considered / Referred to:
  • Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd v Xu Jasmine and another [2025] SGHC 86
  • Fuji Xerox Singapore Pte Ltd v Mazzy Creations Pte Ltd and others [2021] SGHC 193
  • Low Eng Chai and another v Ishak bin Mohamed Basheere and another [2022] SGHC 207
  • Ma Hongjin v Sim Eng Tong [2021] SGHC 84
  • Asia-Euro Capital SPV I LLP v Regulus Advisors Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 279
  • Ho Soo Tong and others v Ho Soo Fong and others [2023] SGHC 90
  • Straits Advisors Pte Ltd v Michael Deeb (alias Magdi Salah El-Deeb) and others [2014] SGHC 94
  • Lim Bee Lan v Lee Juan Loong and another [2021] SGHC 234
  • Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim & Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another [2014] SGHC 159
  • Nagarajan Murugesan v Grand Rich Electrical & Engineering Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 36
  • BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another [2023] SGCA(I) 1
  • Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
  • Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465

Source Documents

• Original Judgment PDF (eLitigation)
• eLitigation Case Summary