ILC CO., LTD. v SAITAMA HIROSHI & 3 Ors

[2023] SGHC 280 High Court (General Division) 4 October 2023 HC/OA 652/2023 ( HC/SUM 2452/2023 )

1 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	4 October 2023
Judge	Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim	Contempt of court
Counsel	Focus Law Asia LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Ang Leong Hao, Edward N. Ong, Faith Hwang, Jansen Chow, Mark Tan, Zeng Hanyi

Source: [2023] SGHC 280, High Court (General Division), decided 4 October 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Contempt of court — Civil contempt — Breach of disclosure order under Mareva injunction

Practice Areas

Contempt of court

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (8)

Focus Law Asia LLC Firm Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Firm Ang Leong Hao Counsel for the applicant

Edward N. Ong Counsel for the respondent

Faith Hwang Counsel for the applicant

Jansen Chow Counsel for the applicant

Mark Tan Counsel for the respondent

Zeng Hanyi Counsel for the respondent

Parties (5)

Asia Capital Management Pte Ltd Respondent

ILC Co, Ltd Applicant

Hora Yohei Respondent

Oshima Yumiko Respondent

Saitama Hiroshi Respondent

Case Significance

ILC Co, Ltd v Saitama Hiroshi and others [2023] SGHC 280 is a grounds of decision of Choo Han Teck J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 4 October 2023 in Originating Application No 652 of 2023 (Summons No 2452 of 2023). The applicant, ILC Co, Ltd, brought committal proceedings against the third and fourth respondents, Asia Capital Management Pte Ltd and Oshima Yumiko, for civil contempt through breach of a disclosure order under a Mareva injunction, pursuant to leave granted in [2023] SGHC 206. The first and second respondents were enjoined up to US$6,718,925.11 and the third and fourth respondents to US$194,031.23; the applicant's counsel contended that the respondents' partial disclosure breached the injunction and that they were assisting the first respondent to conceal his assets.

Summary

ILC Co, Ltd applied to commit the third and fourth respondents for civil contempt, alleging they breached a disclosure order under a Mareva injunction by only partially disclosing assets. Those respondents had secured the full US$194,031.23 claim against them in a separate DBS account and argued the disclosure obligation was being used for the extraneous purpose of pursuing the first respondent's assets. The High Court agreed and dismissed the committal application, awarding $4,000 in costs to each respondent.

What was ILC Co, Ltd v Saitama Hiroshi [2023] SGHC 280 about?

It was a committal application before Choo Han Teck J, decided on 4 October 2023, alleging civil contempt by the third and fourth respondents through breach of a disclosure order under a Mareva injunction obtained by ILC Co, Ltd.

What were the sums covered by the Mareva injunction in [2023] SGHC 280?

The Mareva injunction enjoined the first and second respondents up to US$6,718,925.11 and the third and fourth respondents up to US$194,031.23, the latter having set aside the full claim sum against them in a separate DBS bank account.