BP PROJECTS PTE LTD v ONE WIND PTE LTD & 4 Ors
Outcome
Claim allowed in part“I conclude that the claims against D1, D2 and D3 in the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation have been made out and they are to compensate the Claimant in the amount of $1,747,483.65.”
Source: [2026] SGHC 105, High Court (General Division), decided 14 May 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Wong Li Kok, Alex |
| Charges / claim | Tort |
| Outcome | Claim allowed in part |
| Sentence / award | $1,747,483.65 |
| Counsel | Kishan Law Chambers LLC, Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC, Derek Tan Chang Shen, Kishan Pratap, Reuben Tan Wei Jer, Teh Ryan Christopher Wei Jun |
Source: [2026] SGHC 105, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Parties (6)
Case Significance
BP Projects Pte Ltd v One Wind Pte Ltd and others [2026] SGHC 105, decided by Justice Wong Li Kok, Alex of the High Court General Division on 14 May 2026, concerns a claim by BP Projects Pte Ltd (GST-registered since the 1990s) against five defendants — One Wind Pte Ltd, Jueltech Trading Pte Ltd, Ong Kian Meng, Ong Kian Seng, and Adeline Yeo — for losses suffered through an alleged GST missing trader fraud. The claimant alleged that the defendants orchestrated a scheme exploiting the non-payment of GST and the claiming of GST refunds in transactions involving handphones and peripheral equipment. BP Projects brought claims in both fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy. Derek Tan Chang Shen, Reuben Tan Wei Jer, and Teh Ryan Christopher Wei Jun of Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC acted for the claimant; Kishan Pratap of Kishan Law Chambers LLC acted for the defendants. The case, tried on 22–23 October 2025 and 16 January 2026, provides an illustration of how civil claims in misrepresentation and conspiracy can follow from GST fraud allegations.
Summary
BP Projects Pte Ltd sued One Wind Pte Ltd, Jueltech Trading Pte Ltd, and associated individuals for fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy arising from a missing trader GST fraud scheme involving transactions in handphones and telecommunications equipment. The claimant alleged it was induced to participate in transactions that exposed it to GST liability while the defendants profited from non-payment of GST. The court upheld the claims in fraudulent misrepresentation against the first three defendants and ordered them to compensate the claimant S$1,747,483.65, but dismissed the unlawful means conspiracy claim.
What is a missing trader fraud and how did it arise in BP Projects Pte Ltd v One Wind Pte Ltd ([2026] SGHC 105)?
A missing trader fraud involves manipulating the non-payment of GST to generate unlawful refund claims. In [2026] SGHC 105, BP Projects Pte Ltd alleged that One Wind Pte Ltd, Jueltech Trading Pte Ltd, Ong Kian Meng, Ong Kian Seng, and Adeline Yeo orchestrated such a scheme in handphone transactions, causing BP Projects to suffer losses, giving rise to claims in misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy.
Which judge decided the GST fraud civil claim in BP Projects Pte Ltd v One Wind Pte Ltd in 2026 ([2026] SGHC 105)?
Justice Wong Li Kok, Alex of the High Court General Division decided [2026] SGHC 105 on 14 May 2026, after a trial on 22–23 October 2025 and 16 January 2026. The case involved BP Projects Pte Ltd's claims in fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy against five defendants over an alleged GST missing trader fraud.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (8)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 105)