CHAN PIK SUN v WAN HOE KEET (WEN HAOJIE) & 3 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 96 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 96 High Court (General Division) 14 April 2023 HC/S 806/2018 66 min read

11 cases cited Cited by 3 cases

Outcome

Claim dismissed

I dismiss the claim for innocent misrepresentation.

Source: [2023] SGHC 96, High Court (General Division), decided 14 April 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	14 April 2023
Judge	Andre Maniam
Charges / claim	Tort
Outcome	Claim dismissed
Counsel	Advocatus Law LLP, LVM Law Chambers LLC, Christopher Anand Daniel, Clara Lim, Eileen Yeo, Harjean Kaur, Jonathan Muk, Joseph Lee, Lim Yi Zheng, Lok Vi Ming, Saadhvika Jayanth, Tanya Tan

Source: [2023] SGHC 96, High Court (General Division), decided 14 April 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Tort — Conspiracy — Lawful means conspiracy Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit Tort — Conspiracy — Unlawful means conspiracy Tort — Misrepresentation — Innocent misrepresentation Tort — Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation

Practice Areas

Tort

Judges (1)

Andre Maniam Delivered

Counsel (12)

Advocatus Law LLP Firm LVM Law Chambers LLC Firm Christopher Anand Daniel Counsel Defendant Clara Lim Counsel Plaintiff Eileen Yeo Counsel Defendant Harjean Kaur Counsel Defendant Jonathan Muk Counsel Plaintiff Joseph Lee Counsel Plaintiff Lim Yi Zheng Counsel Defendant Lok Vi Ming Counsel Plaintiff Saadhvika Jayanth Counsel Defendant Tanya Tan Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (5)

Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd (formerly known as SW4U Consultancy Pte Ltd) Defendant Chan Pik Sun Plaintiff Ho Hao Tian Sebastian Defendant Ho Sally Defendant Wan Hoe Keet Defendant

Case Significance

CHAN PIK SUN v WAN HOE KEET (WEN HAOJIE) & 3 Ors [2023] SGHC 96 was decided by Andre Maniam J in the General Division of the High Court on 14 April 2023 in Suit No 806 of 2018. The plaintiff, Chan Pik Sun, lost millions of dollars participating in a scheme called SureWin4U, which sold packages promising lucrative returns from the winnings of professional gamblers playing baccarat at casinos, and which the court described as a Ponzi and pyramid scheme sustained by an ever-increasing inflow of money from new participants. Her claims against Wan Hoe Keet, Ho Sally, Ho Hao Tian Sebastian and Strategic Wealth Consultancy Pte Ltd raised issues of unlawful and lawful means conspiracy and of fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation.

[2023] SGHC 96 explained

CHAN PIK SUN v WAN HOE KEET (WEN HAOJIE) & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHC 96) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 14 April 2023. It is categorised under Tort. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 3 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 96 about?

CHAN PIK SUN v WAN HOE KEET (WEN HAOJIE) & 3 Ors ([2023] SGHC 96) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Conspiracy — Lawful means conspiracy”, “Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit”, “Tort — Conspiracy — Unlawful means conspiracy”, and “Tort — Misrepresentation — Innocent misrepresentation”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 96 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2023] SGHC 96?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 96 has been cited by 3 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Chan Pik Sun sued four defendants after losing millions of dollars in the SureWin4U scheme, which the court described as a Ponzi and pyramid scheme, bringing claims in unlawful and lawful means conspiracy and in fraudulent, negligent and innocent misrepresentation. The General Division of the High Court found she was not induced to invest by false representations and had not proved any conspiracy to injure her, dismissed all of her claims, and awarded the defendants costs.

What was Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet [2023] SGHC 96 about?

In Suit No 806 of 2018 before Andre Maniam J, Chan Pik Sun sought recovery after losing millions in SureWin4U, a scheme the court described as a Ponzi and pyramid scheme, advancing conspiracy and misrepresentation claims against four defendants.

What was the SureWin4U scheme in Chan Pik Sun v Wan Hoe Keet ([2023] SGHC 96)?

SureWin4U sold packages promising lucrative returns from the winnings of professional gamblers playing baccarat at casinos. The court described it as an unsustainable Ponzi and pyramid scheme where participants' returns came from money paid in by themselves and other participants.