August 13, 2024
SINGAPORE – Two influential figures in a Ponzi scheme that promised lucrative returns from using “sure-win” methods to gamble against casinos have been ordered by the court to return HK$36.6 million (S$6.2 million) to an investor.
Mr Wan Hoe Keet, also known as Ken, and his wife Sally Ho – both Singaporeans – had been sued by Ms Chan Pik Sun, a Hong Konger who said she invested in the SureWin4U scheme as a result of their false representations.
Ms Chan’s lawsuit was initially dismissed in April 2023. She won the case on appeal in a 2-1 split decision on Aug 7.
The SureWin4U scheme was founded by Malaysian brothers Peter and Philip Ong in July 2012. It collapsed in September 2014.
The scheme purported to use investors’ money to fund professional gamblers, who then generated profits from playing baccarat at casinos using two so-called winning formulas.
In truth, the “profits” were largely derived from the money put in by new investors. For existing investors to continue profiting from the scheme, they had to recruit new investors known as downlines.
Mr Wan and Ms Ho joined the scheme in October 2012 with an initial outlay of $77,452. They earned between $7 million and $10 million before the scheme collapsed.
They were responsible for 70 per cent of the scheme’s revenue from packages sold to downline investors, and other investors referred to the husband and wife as “Teacher Ken” and “Teacher Sally”.
Ms Chan, also known as Sandra, said she was introduced to the couple in March 2014 when she attended a seminar in Hong Kong to learn about the scheme.
She was then in her early 50s and worked as a manager in an insurance company
Ms Chan said the couple told her, among other things, that the scheme was safe and profitable.
She eventually spent HK$36.6 million on investment packages between April 2014 and August 2014.
After the scheme collapsed, Ms Chan sent messages asking Mr Wan and Ms Ho for a solution, but they said they had none.
In October 2014, Mr Wan and Ms Ho gave $148,000 to a group of 10 investors, including Ms Chan, with the aim of recouping their investments by gambling at casinos using the winning formula.
The group lost a substantial amount of that sum.
Mr Wan and Ms Ho also lodged police reports against the Ong brothers, claiming that they feared they had become victims of an elaborate scam.
In June 2018, a Macau newspaper reported that Mr Peter Ong had surfaced there and was distributing winnings from a new scheme.
Photographs emerged of a meeting in Macau where Mr Wan and Ms Ho were pictured with others alongside Mr Peter Ong, holding wads of cash.
On Aug 15, 2018, Ms Chan filed a suit in the Singapore High Court, claiming for conspiracy and misrepresentation.
The suit was filed against Mr Wan, Ms Ho, a firm named Strategic Wealth Consultancy that held the couple’s assets, and Ms Ho’s brother Sebastian.
The judge who heard the case dismissed all her claims in April 2023, and ordered her to pay more than $374,000 in legal costs to the defendants.
Ms Chan, who was represented by Senior Counsel Lok Vi Ming and a team from LVM Law Chambers, then appealed to the appellate division of the High Court.
On Aug 7, the majority of the appellate court allowed her appeal in respect of her fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Mr Wan and Ms Ho.
The majority, comprising justices Steven Chong and Debbie Ong, also reversed the costs decision, and ordered Mr Wan and Ms Ho to pay $350,000 in legal costs to Ms Chan.
The majority’s judgment noted that while the premise of some schemes seems incredulous, it was not uncommon for fraudsters to succeed in selling such schemes to investors who probably should have known better.
The current case was a quintessential example, and the law should not exonerate such fraudsters because they were dealing with the gullible and possibly greedy, said the majority.
The majority said it inferred from the evidence that Mr Wan and Ms Ho were “bedfellows” in the scheme with its founders, and knew that the scheme was false when they first told Ms Chan it was safe and profitable.
The majority said it was “troubling” that Mr Wan and Ms Ho could not produce text messages which would have shed light on their relationship with the scheme’s founders and whether they knew the scheme was fraudulent.
The majority did not buy the couple’s explanation that they had changed their phones and did not keep messages concerning the scheme.
The majority added that the meeting in Macau was evidence that Mr Wan and Ms Ho must have known that the scheme was fraudulent, as they were part of the inner circle of the scheme’s founders.
The dissenting judge, Justice Woo Bih Li, said the evidence fell far short of establishing that Mr Wan and Ms Ho actually knew that the scheme was fraudulent.
Justice Woo said the Macau meeting was “not unequivocal evidence of their complicity”.
He added that various conclusions could be drawn from the missing messages, and the court should not make the most damning inference against the couple.