Chen Chun Kang v Zhao Meirong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Ang J
• Judgment Date: 14 December 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 263
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 312 of 2008 (Summons No 1000 of 2011)
• Year: 2011
• Published date: 05 January 2012
• Hearing Date: 06 September 2010,20 April 2010,06 April 2010,30 June 2011,29 July 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: David Chan and Koh Junxiang (Shook Lin & Bok LLP)for the plaintiff
• Defendant Counsel: Sean Say (Keystone Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Judgments and Orders,Enforcement
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 263

Andrew Ang J: Introduction

Summons No 1000 of 2010 (“the Summons”) concerns an application taken out by Chen Chun Kang (“the Plaintiff”) to enforce default judgment obtained against his former mistress, Zhao Meirong (“the Defendant”). The Plaintiff had brought an action against the Defendant, alleging that he had transferred substantial sums of money to her in reliance on her false representations. On 29 July 2011, I ordered that the hearing of the Summons be adjourned to 30 November 2012. This was to allow the Defendant a final opportunity to apply to set aside the Default Judgment as she has been incarcerated in Taiwan since proceedings commenced in Singapore. The Plaintiff has appealed against my decision to adjourn the hearing of the Summons.

Background Facts

The Plaintiff is a wealthy retired businessman, aged 79, and a national of Taiwan. He was formerly a director of General Textile Mill Corporation, a listed company in Taiwan. The Defendant is a national of the People’s Republic of China who resided in Taiwan. The Plaintiff and the Defendant met in Taipei in early 2000 and, in time, entered into an intimate relationship. Over the course of their relationship, the Plaintiff transferred substantial sums of money to the Defendant. The Plaintiff later sought to recover these moneys, arguing that he transferred these moneys in reliance on various false representations made to him by the Defendant, that: (a) she was 23 years of age at the time she first met the Defendant; (b) she was a Singapore citizen; (c) she was studying medicine at the National Taiwan University; (d) she was single; (e) she had been abandoned by her father; (f) her parents were suffering from terminal illnesses and were in urgent need of financial aid for their medical treatment and surgery; (g) her brother was indebted to the National Cheng-Chi University in the sum of New Taiwan Dollars (“NT$”)16 million; (h) she was suffering from leukaemia and required money for medical treatment and bone marrow transplants; and (i) she had given birth to a set of twins fathered by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff subsequently discovered, in August 2007, that the Defendant was in fact 35 years old when he first met her and that she was a Chinese national. She was not a student and had never read medicine. The Defendant was also married to one Fan Li Wei (“Fan”). Her parents were not ill or in need of any medical treatment and she never had a brother. The Defendant was also not suffering from leukaemia. In addition, the child that she presented to the Plaintiff on two separate occasions was her own child with Fan. She had never conceived twins with the Plaintiff. (The Defendant had presented a baby boy to the Plaintiff on the two occasions. However, she brought only one child with her to visit the Defendant each time. She explained that different nannies cared for each twin and it was difficult to bring both to visit the Plaintiff at the same time. This, as it turned out, was in fact untrue.)

Proceedings in Taiwan

The Plaintiff, accompanied by his daughter, Chen Ying Hwa, lodged a complaint against the Defendant with the Taiwan Criminal Investigation Bureau (“the Taiwan CIB”) on 13 November 2007. The Defendant was arrested on 25 December 2007 and was detained pursuant to a Writ of Detention issued by the Taiwan Taipei District Court. The Taipei District Prosecutor’s Office later informed the Plaintiff in January 2008 that the Defendant could be guilty of fraud and other criminal offences, including (peculiarly) money laundering. The Defendant was formally indicted for fraud on 20 February 2008.

The Plaintiff also initiated a Supplementary Civil Action Incidental to Criminal Proceedings with the Taiwan Taipei District Court, Criminal Tribunal on 3 March 2008, as he was advised that a victim of a crime could institute a civil action for compensation under Taiwanese law. The Plaintiff succeeded in his claim in tort and was awarded NT$458,525,966 by the Taiwan Taipei District Court.

The Taiwan Taipei District Court delivered judgment in the criminal proceedings against the Defendant in Taiwan (“the Taiwanese Criminal Proceedings”) on 19 August 2008. She was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The allegations against the Defendant in the Taiwanese Criminal Proceedings included, but were not limited to, the same series of acts that formed the basis of the Plaintiff’s claim in Singapore against the Defendant. On appeal, her sentence was reduced to four years and ten months, and ordered to run from 26 December 2007.

The Defendant is due to be released on 26 October 2012.

Proceedings in Singapore

Suit No 312 of 2008 arose because the Plaintiff wanted to recover moneys and securities transferred to an account he opened in Singapore in the Defendant’s name. The Plaintiff had two banking accounts with Citibank Singapore, NA, Singapore Branch (“the Citibank Singapore Branch”): Account 1 and Account 2 (“Chen’s Citibank Singapore Accounts”). In 2005, the Plaintiff opened Account 3 in the Defendant’s name (“Zhao’s Citibank Singapore Account”) with the Citibank Singapore Branch. He alleged that he had transferred the following sums from Chen’s Citibank Singapore Accounts to Zhao’s Citibank Singapore Account in reliance on the Defendant’s false representations: Pound Sterling (“GBP”) 1,949,622.30; Canadian Dollars (“CAD”) 1,222,080; and Australian Dollars (“AUD”) 4,557,365.

He also transferred certain Ontario government bonds (“the Ontario Bonds”), amounting to an estimated market value of CAD2,584,800, from Account No 2 to Zhao’s Citibank Singapore Account.

The Plaintiff alleged that he had transferred about NT$113,338,960 from his bank accounts in Taiwan to four accounts held by the Defendant and/or her nominees: (a) The Shanghai Branch of the China Merchants Bank (Account 4); (b) The Nan-Shih-Chiao Branch of the Hua Nan Bank (Account 5) (“Zhao’s Hua Nan Account”); (c) The Wai-Tan Sub-Branch of the Shanghai Branch of the China Merchants Bank (Account 6); and (d) The Chung-He Branch of the Chinatrust Commercial Bank (Account 7).

Out of the NT$113.338.960, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant transferred approximately NT$67,150,495 to Zhao’s Citibank Singapore Account from her and/or her nominees’ bank accounts. In particular: An aggregate sum of NT$49,513,810 was transferred from Zhao’s Hua Nan Account to Zhao’s Citibank Singapore Account; and A sum of USD542,667.24 was transferred from Fan’s account with the Nan-Shih-Chiao Branch of the Hua Nan Bank to Zhao’s Citibank Singapore Account.

The Plaintiff alleged that the sum of NT$67,150,495 was in fact moneys that he transferred to the Defendant over the course of their relationship. In all, the Plaintiff claimed (a) GBP1,949,622.30; (b) CAD1,222,080; (c) AUD4,557,365; and (d) NT$67,150,495 (“the Advances”) from the Defendant and also sought an order that the Ontario Bonds be delivered to him, and/or damages.

The Plaintiff obtained an interim injunction on 23 June 2008 pursuant to an ex parte application to prohibit the Defendant from disposing of her assets in Singapore. The Memorandum of Service of the Writ of Summons (which was generally endorsed) was filed on 20 August 2008. The Plaintiff then served the Statement of Claim on the Defendant’s appointed agent for service, one Lu Gwo Shiun (“Lu”) in Taiwan on 24 October 2008. The Defendant did not enter appearance or file her defence.

On 28 November 2008, the Plaintiff applied (in Summons No 5271 of 2008) for judgment in default of Defence (“the Default Judgment”) under O 19 r 7 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“Rules of Court”). The Plaintiff obtained judgment on 17 December 2008 in which it was ordered, inter alia, that: the Defendant [was] to pay the Plaintiff the sums of: (i) GBP1,949,622.30; (ii) CAD1,222,080; (iii) AUD4,557,365; and (iv) NT$67,150,495; the Defendant [was] to deliver the Ontario Bonds to the Plaintiff; the Advances were procured by the Defendant’s exercise of undue influence over the Plaintiff; the Defendant [held] on trust all assets in whole or in part acquired with or representing the Advances and income arising from those assets; all other assets of the Defendant in Singapore [were] subject to an equitable charge or equitable lien to the value of the Advances; the interim injunction granted on 23 June 2008 be discharged; the Plaintiff [was] granted an injunction to restrain the Defendant from removing, disposing, dealing or diminishing the value of her assets in Singapore, including the moneys in Zhao’s Citibank Singapore Account up to the aggregate of the Advances and the Ontario government bonds.

The Plaintiff recovered a significant portion of the Default Judgment debt in a series of enforcement proceedings. Pursuant to garnishee orders granted on 11 May 2009, 19 November 2009 and 10 February 2010, the Citibank Singapore Branch transferred to the Plaintiff the following sums from Zhao’s Citibank Singapore Account: (a) GBP856,039.40 (b) CAD487,725.63 (c) AUD4,913,934.49 (d) EUR1,003,940.21 (e) HKD0.58 (f) USD996.76

However, the Plaintiff found that there was still a shortfall on the Default Judgment debt amounting to approximately S$3,982,023.80. The Plaintiff also discovered that the Defendant had transferred moneys from Zhao’s Citibank Singapore Account to her account with FBO Salomon Smith Barney (“the SSB Account”) pursuant to a Global Managed Portfolios Investment Management Agreement (“the Agreement”) dated 30 May 2006 with the Citibank Singapore Branch.

The Plaintiff therefore took out the Summons and sought the following orders: That the Defendant execute, sign or indorse a written instruction to the Citibank Singapore Branch instructing it to: terminate the Agreement; liquidate all securities and other investments in all investment management accounts established under...