Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 188
- Title: Astrawati Aluwi v Lo Yew Seng & Anor
- Court: High Court (General Division)
- Originating Claim No: 437 of 2023
- Date of Judgment: 19 September 2025
- Judges: Tan Siong Thye SJ
- Hearing Dates: 8–11 April 2025; 26–28 May 2025; 27 June 2025; 18 July 2025
- Judgment Reserved: Yes
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Astrawati Aluwi (the “Claimant”)
- Defendants/Respondents: (1) Lo Yew Seng (the “Defendant”) (2) Chen Yicheng (“Mr YC Chen”)
- Third Parties: (1) Infinity Capital Group Ltd (2) LC Capital Ltd (3) Infinity Capital Group Japan Development Godo Kaisha
- Legal Areas: Tort (Misrepresentation; Negligent misstatement; Fraud and deceit; Conspiracy by unlawful means)
- Statutes Referenced: Not specified in the provided extract
- Cases Cited: Not specified in the provided extract
- Judgment Length: 87 pages; 25,439 words
Summary
In Astrawati Aluwi v Lo Yew Seng & Anor ([2025] SGHC 188), the High Court found that the first defendant, Mr Lo Yew Seng, was liable in tort for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and for participating in a conspiracy by unlawful means. The claimant, Madam Astrawati Aluwi, had purchased a residential apartment unit in a purported development in Niseko, Japan (“Tellus Hirafu” or the “Development”) after receiving representations from Mr Lo through her property agent. The court accepted that the representations induced the claimant to make substantial progress payments, and that the project was in fact a scam: there was no construction and the developer did not even own the land.
The court held that the claimant had discharged her burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. It was satisfied that Mr Lo made (or caused to be made) key representations with knowledge of falsity or at least in circumstances where he could not honestly believe them to be true, and that the claimant relied on those representations to her detriment. In addition, the court found that Mr Lo owed the claimant a duty of care in relation to the accuracy of the information he provided, breached that duty, and that the breach caused the claimant’s loss. Finally, the court concluded that Mr Lo was involved with Mr YC Chen and another individual in a conspiracy by unlawful means.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The claimant is an Indonesian investor with a history of property investments internationally. Since 1995, she had engaged a property agent, Ms Serene Wan (“Ms Wan”), who managed her property portfolio in Singapore and acted for her in various property transactions. The dispute arose from the claimant’s decision to invest in a Japanese residential development marketed as a high-end project in Niseko, Japan, known as Tellus Hirafu.
Mr Lo Yew Seng, the first defendant, was a director at Capella Capital Pte Ltd. The court described him as having relevant education and experience in financial advisory and corporate roles. The evidence showed that Mr Lo and Ms Wan had long-standing personal connections, including friendship between their families. Around 20 January 2019, Mr Lo informed Ms Wan about the Niseko development and the opportunity it presented. Importantly, the court found that Mr Lo was well aware of Ms Wan’s role as a property agent and that the information was communicated in a manner intended to be passed to the claimant.
On 31 January 2019, the claimant visited Ms Wan in Singapore. Ms Wan explained the Development to the claimant, and then contacted Mr Lo to obtain further details. Mr Lo promptly sent Ms Wan a first investment brochure via WhatsApp. The brochure included a narrative about Niseko’s rise as a tourist destination, artist impressions of the Development, a target completion date of 2021, and a price list and payment schedule for 20 specified units in a VVIP pre-launch sale. Ms Wan forwarded the brochure to the claimant, and the court accepted that the claimant and Ms Wan read it together. In a telephone discussion on the same day, the claimant, Mr Lo, and Ms Wan discussed the claimant’s interest in purchasing a unit.
On 1 February 2019, Mr Lo sent a second, more detailed investment brochure (31 pages) via WhatsApp. This second brochure contained specific unit layout plans and further project details. Ms Wan forwarded it to the claimant the same day. Between 1 February 2019 and 28 April 2019, Ms Wan negotiated with Mr Lo on behalf of the claimant regarding the purchase price and the unit. When the price was agreed and the claimant was ready to enter into the sale and purchase documentation, Mr Lo referred Ms Wan to Mr YC Chen and Mr Jonathan Cheng to finalise the deal. Draft contract and commitment agreement documents were exchanged and amended, and the claimant ultimately signed the finalised versions in late May 2019.
The transaction was structured through multiple entities. The contract for sale was between the claimant as buyer and Infinity Capital Group Japan Development Godo Kaisha as seller, with Infinity Capital Group Ltd as the “execution partner” and Mr Jonathan Cheng as the “execution director”. The unit purchased was a 136 m² freehold apartment unit (Unit 301) in the Development, with a scheduled completion date of December 2021. Under the contract, the claimant made six progress payments between 31 May 2019 and 19 May 2021, totalling US$1.786 million.
Parallel to the claimant’s purchase, the court examined the structure and roles of the “Infinity Group” and the defendants’ connections to it. The group comprised LC Capital Ltd (incorporated in Hong Kong), Infinity Capital Group Ltd (incorporated in the Cayman Islands and wholly owned by LC Capital), and Infinity Capital Group Japan Development Godo Kaisha (incorporated in Japan and also wholly owned by LC Capital). The court found that LC Capital received the claimant’s payments. Infinity Capital was represented as the developer in the investment brochures, while Infinity Japan was reflected as the developer under the contract for sale. The group was largely controlled by Mr Jonathan Cheng, with Mr YC Chen handling day-to-day management and holding multiple roles across the group.
Crucially, the court found that Mr Lo was “inextricably linked” to the Infinity Group through substantial investments and loans. The extract shows that Mr Lo had entered into loan arrangements with LC Capital and Infinity Capital, including a loan agreement to LC Capital and a bond certificate arrangement with Infinity Capital. These financial links were relevant to the court’s assessment of Mr Lo’s knowledge, involvement, and credibility. The court ultimately accepted the claimant’s account that the project was not merely delayed or underperforming, but that there was no construction and the developer never owned the land. The claimant discovered the fraud and then instituted proceedings against the defendants and other entities.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The case raised three main tortious issues. First, the court had to determine whether Mr Lo was liable for fraudulent misrepresentation. This required the court to consider whether the representations were made, whether they were fraudulent (including whether Mr Lo knew they were false), whether the claimant was induced by them and relied on them, and whether the claimant suffered damage as a result.
Within fraudulent misrepresentation, the court focused on specific categories of representations. The extract indicates that the court examined (i) an “ownership representation” and (ii) a “construction representation”. The ownership representation concerned the developer’s land ownership, while the construction representation concerned the existence or progress of construction at the Development. The court also considered Mr Lo’s role in the Infinity Group’s management and his knowledge of documents that allegedly proved the group’s lack of land ownership. The court further examined Mr Lo’s conduct after the claimant discovered the fraud, which was relevant to whether he acted with fraudulent intent.
Second, the court had to determine liability for negligent misstatement. This involved multiple sub-issues: whether the claimant’s pleadings were deficient, whether Mr Lo owed a duty of care to the claimant, whether he breached that duty, whether the breach caused the claimant’s loss, and whether the claimant was contributorily negligent.
Third, the court had to determine whether there was conspiracy by unlawful means. This required the court to assess whether Mr Lo and the other participants agreed to pursue an unlawful course of conduct, and whether the unlawful means were used in furtherance of the conspiracy. The extract also indicates that the court considered the demeanour of witnesses, which often plays a significant role in conspiracy cases where intent and coordination are central.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court’s analysis began with credibility and the evidential burden. Although the extract does not reproduce the full evidential discussion, it states that, after hearing the evidence, the judge found the claimant’s version of events more credible and that she discharged her burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. This finding was foundational: in misrepresentation and conspiracy claims, the court must be satisfied on the facts that the defendant made the relevant statements, that they were false, and that the defendant’s state of mind and the claimant’s reliance were established.
On fraudulent misrepresentation, the court analysed the representations in two key dimensions: ownership and construction. The court accepted that the claimant was induced to invest by representations that the developer owned the land and that construction would proceed as marketed. The court then addressed the element of knowledge or recklessness as to falsity. The extract indicates that the court considered Mr Lo’s role in the Infinity Group’s management and his knowledge of documents that allegedly showed the group did not own the land. The court also considered Mr Lo’s conduct following the discovery of fraud. Such post-discovery conduct can be relevant to whether a defendant was acting in good faith or attempting to conceal wrongdoing, and it can inform the court’s inference about fraudulent intent.
In addition, the court addressed inducement and reliance. The claimant’s evidence, as reflected in the extract, showed a clear chain: Mr Lo provided investment brochures to Ms Wan; Ms Wan forwarded them to the claimant; the claimant and Ms Wan discussed the brochures; and the claimant made progress payments after negotiations and documentation were finalised. The court was satisfied that the claimant relied on the representations when deciding to enter into the contract and make payments. The court also found that the claimant suffered damage, quantified as the progress payments made (US$1.786 million), with interest.
On negligent misstatement, the court considered the structure of the claim and the adequacy of pleadings. It then turned to the duty of care. In Singapore law, negligent misstatement typically requires a duty arising from the defendant’s assumption of responsibility or from circumstances where it is foreseeable that the claimant will rely on the information and where it is reasonable for the claimant to do so. The extract indicates that the court found Mr Lo owed the claimant a duty of care and breached it. Given the court’s acceptance that the project was a scam and that key representations were false, the breach analysis likely focused on the failure to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the information provided to induce investment. The court also addressed causation and damage, concluding that the breach caused the claimant’s loss.
The court further considered contributory negligence. While the extract does not detail the reasoning, the court’s ultimate finding of liability implies that it did not accept that the claimant’s conduct materially contributed to her loss in a way that would reduce damages. In investment fraud cases, contributory negligence arguments often fail where the claimant’s reliance is reasonable and the defendant’s misstatements are central and deceptive.
Finally, on conspiracy by unlawful means, the court found that Mr Lo was involved with Mr YC Chen and Mr Jonathan Cheng in a conspiracy. Conspiracy by unlawful means requires proof of an agreement (or concerted action) and the use of unlawful means in furtherance of the agreement. The extract indicates that the court considered witness demeanour and the overall factual matrix, including Mr Lo’s links to the Infinity Group and his role in the transaction process. The court’s finding of conspiracy is consistent with its findings on fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misstatement: where the court is satisfied that the representations were fraudulent and that the defendants coordinated to induce investment, it is more likely to infer concerted action for unlawful ends.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered Mr Lo to pay the claimant damages of US$1,786,000, representing the total progress payments made toward the purchase price. It also awarded interest at 5.33% per annum from the commencement date of the suit and ordered costs. The extract indicates that the second defendant, Mr YC Chen, did not appear and default judgment was entered against him; however, the court’s detailed findings of liability in the extract are directed to the first defendant.
In practical terms, the decision provides a direct monetary remedy for an investor who was induced by fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations into paying funds for a non-existent or fraudulent development. The award of interest and costs further reflects the court’s view that the claimant’s loss was not merely contractual non-performance but tortious wrongdoing.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case matters for practitioners because it illustrates how the High Court approaches multi-layered investment fraud claims involving representations transmitted through intermediaries (here, a property agent). The court’s reasoning shows that defendants cannot avoid liability by pointing to the intermediary channel when the evidence demonstrates that the defendant supplied the information intended to induce investment and that the claimant relied on it.
Substantively, the decision is useful for tort practitioners because it demonstrates the interplay between fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misstatement, and conspiracy by unlawful means. Where the court finds fraudulent intent and reliance on key representations (such as land ownership and construction), it can support not only damages for misrepresentation but also conspiracy findings where coordination and unlawful means are established on the evidence.
For claimants and their counsel, the case underscores the importance of evidential coherence: brochures, payment schedules, contractual documentation, and the factual narrative of reliance can collectively satisfy the balance of probabilities standard. For defendants, it highlights the evidential risk of being closely connected to the project’s management or finances, particularly where documents exist that contradict the representations made to investors.
Legislation Referenced
- No specific statutes were identified in the provided extract.
Cases Cited
- No specific cases were identified in the provided extract.
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.