GEORGIOS BAIZANIS v SNAP INNOVATIONS PTE. LTD. & Anor

[2024] SGHC 200 High Court (General Division) 2 August 2024 • HC/S 296/2021 • 152 min read
31 cases cited (28 SG, 3 foreign)

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (10)

Parties (3)

Case Significance

Baizanis, Georgios v Snap Innovations Pte Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 200 was a decision of the General Division of the High Court delivered by Christopher Tan JC on 2 August 2024, in Suit No 296 of 2021, following hearings between November 2023 and February 2024. It concerned breach of contract, an agent's implied authority, a principal's tortious liability to third parties, and questions of admissibility and onus of proof. The plaintiff, Georgios Baizanis, was represented by David Ong & Co.; the first defendant, Snap Innovations Pte Ltd, by Lee & Lee; and the second defendant, Bernard Ong (Ong Hock Fong), by Sanders Law LLC.

The judgment recorded that the plaintiff was a cryptocurrency investor and that the first defendant was a company providing information technology and computer-related services focused on solutions for brokers and traders, whose sole shareholder was Dr Ting Shang Ping. The second defendant, Bernard Ong, was reflected on the first defendant's website as a director although he was not registered as such with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA). The case arose from the plaintiff's investment in a scheme known as "Cryptotrage", involving arbitrage trading in cryptocurrencies on the Binance Exchange, which the plaintiff said the first defendant operated through its employees in Vietnam, into whose Binance accounts he said he deposited cryptocurrencies.

Summary

Georgios Baizanis, a cryptocurrency investor, sued Snap Innovations Pte Ltd and Bernard Ong to recover the value of cryptocurrencies lost after one Wu Zhongyi allegedly misappropriated investor funds in an arbitrage scheme known as Cryptotrage, relying on a Service Agreement said to provide a corporate guarantee indemnifying him against fraud; the defendants disputed the company's responsibility for the scheme and the authority to sign the agreement, and the second defendant claimed his signature was forged. The General Division of the High Court found, among other things, that any indemnity obligation under the agreement was not triggered because the plaintiff failed to show internal fraud or that the cryptocurrencies had been stolen by fraud as contemplated by the clause, that the claim for breach of a duty to supervise lacked merit, and that the plaintiff failed to properly quantify his loss. The court indicated it would hear the parties on costs.

What was Baizanis v Snap Innovations [2024] SGHC 200 about?

Baizanis, Georgios v Snap Innovations Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 200, decided by Christopher Tan JC on 2 August 2024, arose from a cryptocurrency investor's investment in the "Cryptotrage" arbitrage scheme on the Binance Exchange, raising issues of breach of contract, an agent's implied authority, and tortious liability.

Who were the defendants in [2024] SGHC 200?

The first defendant was Snap Innovations Pte Ltd, an IT services company whose sole shareholder was Dr Ting Shang Ping. The second defendant was Bernard Ong, shown as a director on the company's website though not registered as such with ACRA.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (31)

SG (6)
[2010] SGHC 163 [2014] SGHC 160 [2017] SGHC 73 [2017] SGHC 8 [2018] SGHC 192 [2024] SGHC(A) 17
SLR (22)
[1993] 3 SLR(R) 226 [1996] 2 SLR(R) 774 [1997] 1 SLR(R) 751 [2001] 3 SLR(R) 726 [2004] 3 SLR(R) 543 [2004] 4 SLR(R) 162 [2005] 4 SLR(R) 417 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 [2007] 4 SLR(R) 513 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 105 [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788 [2011] 3 SLR 540 [2013] 4 SLR 308 [2014] 4 SLR 375 [2015] 4 SLR 283 [2016] 3 SLR 887 [2017] 1 SLR 141 [2018] 2 SLR 481 [2021] 1 SLR 1217 [2021] 3 SLR 1360 [2021] 4 SLR 883
UK (2)
[1964] 2 QB 480 [1968] 1 QB 549
AU (1)
[2007] NSWSC 1438

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 200)