PARASTATE LABS, INC. v WANG LI & 3 Ors
Outcome
Claim dismissed“The claim is therefore dismissed.”
Source: [2026] SGHC 178, High Court (General Division), decided 1 September 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 31 August–6 September 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Sushil Nair |
| Charges / claim | Tort, Trusts, Equity |
| Outcome | Claim dismissed |
| Counsel | FC Legal Asia LLC, RCLT Law Corporation, Choo Zheng Xi, Chu Hua Yi, Donaven Foo, Goh Jia Jie, Shann Liew Zi Xuan, Stella Ng Yu Xin |
Source: [2026] SGHC 178, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Case Significance
Parastate Labs, Inc v Wang Li and others [2026] SGHC 178 was decided by Sushil Nair JCA in the General Division of the High Court on 1 September 2026, in Originating Claim No 130 of 2022. The claim arose after the collapse of the Babel Group, which has been insolvent to the tune of US$400m from at least June 2022. Parastate, an investor in a cryptocurrency fund managed by the group, sued Wang Li, a founder, for dishonest assistance, fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy, having discontinued its claims against the second to fourth defendants. The issues included whether an express trust or fiduciary relationship existed and whether Wang Li was liable. The court held that neither Babel Asia Asset Management Private Limited nor Babel Holdings Ltd held the assets on an express trust, and dismissed OC 130 in its entirety.
[2026] SGHC 178 explained
PARASTATE LABS, INC. v WANG LI & 3 Ors ([2026] SGHC 178) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 1 September 2026. It is categorised under Tort, Trusts, and Equity. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 [2026] SGHC 178 about?
PARASTATE LABS, INC. v WANG LI & 3 Ors ([2026] SGHC 178) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Conspiracy”, “Trusts — Accessory liability”, “Equity — Dishonest assistance”, and “Trusts — Express trusts — Certainties”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 178 consider?
The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), Companies Act (Cap 50), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 178 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 126, [2025] SGHC 166, and [2024] SGHC 277, and 2 more. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard a claim by Parastate Labs, Inc, an investor in a cryptocurrency fund managed by the Babel Group, against Wang Li, one of the group's founders, after the group's collapse. Parastate sought to hold him personally liable for its invested cryptocurrencies through dishonest assistance, fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy. Sushil Nair JCA found that no express trust or fiduciary relationship was established, that the fraud and conspiracy claims failed, and dismissed the claim in its entirety.
What was Parastate Labs v Wang Li about ([2026] SGHC 178)?
Parastate Labs, Inc v Wang Li and others [2026] SGHC 178 concerned an investor's claim against Babel Group founder Wang Li for dishonest assistance, fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy after the group's collapse. The claim was dismissed.
Why were the fraud and conspiracy claims dismissed in [2026] SGHC 178?
Sushil Nair JCA noted that Chen Jiayi conceded the Babel Group was not lying at the time of the representations, which was fatal to fraud. The conspiracy claim failed because it relied on that fraud and no evidence of a combination was adduced.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (76)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 178)