SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Jansen Chow and Ang Leong Hao, Rajah & Tann Singapore
directions require that, except in cases of extreme urgency or with the court’s permission, the applicant must provide at least two hours’ notice to the other party before the hearing. In an ex parte application, the applicant must make full and frank disclosure to the court of all facts within their knowledge which are material to the exercise of the court’s discretion whether to grant the relief, even if they are prejudicial to the applicant’s claim. 2.5 Criminal Redress Generally, the victims of fraud would seek redress concurrently through criminal and civil proceedings. Criminal prosecution and civil proceedings may pro - ceed in parallel. In less serious fraud cases, however, criminal prosecution may take place only after the conclusion of the civil claim. Singapore has various statutory provisions that would capture different fraudulent acts. For example, the Penal Code 1871 provides for: • dishonest misappropriation of property (Section 403); • criminal breach of trust (Section 405); • dishonest receipt of stolen property (Section 411); • cheating (Section 415); • dishonest or fraudulent disposition of property (Section 421); • forgery (Section 463); and • falsification of accounts (Section 477A). The Companies Act 1967 also sets out the following conduct which, if a person is found guilty thereof, may amount to an offence: • breach of directors’ duties (Section 157); • false and misleading statement (Section 401); • false statements or reports (Section 402); and
In cases where it is clear that the defence is wholly unmeritorious, the claimant may seek summary judg - ment without trial. Generally, summary judgment is argued on affidavit evidence and granted where there are no triable issues. 2.7 Rules for Pleading Fraud The Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 provide that a legal practitioner must not draft any originating process, pleadings, affidavit, witness statement or notice or grounds of appeal containing any allegations of fraud unless the legal practitioner has clear instructions to make such an allegation and has before the legal practitioner reasonably credible material which establishes a prima facie case of fraud (Rule 9 (2)(h)(iii)). In terms of the standard of proof for a fraud claim, the burden remains the same as in other civil cas - es – that is, the civil standard (ie, on the balance of probabilities). However, the Singapore courts have observed that the more serious the allegation (as in a fraud claim), the stronger or more cogent the evidence required for the claimant to discharge their burden. 2.8 Claims Against “Unknown” Fraudsters The Singapore courts have taken a pragmatic approach and have allowed claims to be brought against unknown fraudsters. In a recent Singapore High Court decision, CLM v CLN [2022] 5 SLR 273; [2022] SGHC 46, it was held for the first time in Sin - gapore that the Singapore court has jurisdiction to grant interim orders against unknown persons where the description of the unknown persons is sufficiently certain as to identify those who are included and those who are not. 2.9 Compelling Witnesses to Give Evidence A party can apply to the court to issue an order for a witness to attend court to testify, or an order to pro - duce documents. In determining whether to grant the order, the court considers whether the witnesses are in a position to give oral and/or documentary evidence relevant to the issues raised in the case. An order to attend court or an order to produce docu - ments should not be used to fish for evidence, or to embarrass or inconvenience the witness. Such an
• fraud by officers (Section 406). 2.6 Judgment Without Trial
A default judgment may be obtained where a defend - ant fails to enter a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim, or fails to file a defence within the stipulated timelines.
309 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook