SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Jansen Chow and Ang Leong Hao, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
In particular, Section 128(2) of the Evidence Act 1893 expressly provides that legal advice privilege will not apply to “any communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose” or to “any fact observed by any advocate or solici- tor in the course of his [or her] employment as such showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his [or her] employment” . The Singapore courts have held that litigation privilege is also subject to the same fraud exception. The party seeking to lift privilege must at least show some prima facie evidence that the privi - leged communications were made as part of an ongoing fraud. When determining whether the “fraud exception” applies, the court will conduct a balancing exercise between the protection of privilege and the importance of preventing the commission of such fraudulent and/or criminal acts. Generally, the Singapore courts have not been willing to award punitive damages in contract law, as the purpose of damages in contract law is to compensate the claimant for their loss, rath - er than to punish the wrongdoer. Even where fraud is established, the courts are reluctant to award punitive damages and depart from the general rule that punitive damages cannot be awarded for breach of contract. Punitive damages may, however, be awarded for claims in tort, where the totality of the defend - ant’s conduct is so outrageous that it warrants punishment, deterrence and condemnation. The courts will also consider whether the defendant 7. Special Rules and Laws 7.1 Rules for Claiming Punitive or Exemplary Damages
has already been punished by criminal law or through the imposition of a disciplinary sanction when deciding whether to award punitive dam - ages. The overarching principle is that the courts will not make a punitive award when there is no need to do so. 7.2 Laws to Protect “Banking Secrecy” Under Section 47(1) of the Banking Act 1970, the bank is not allowed to disclose customer information to any other persons. However, the Banking Act 1970 also provides exceptions where disclosure is allowed – for instance, where the disclosure is necessary for complying with a court order, or for complying with a request made pursuant to written law to furnish infor - mation for the purposes of an investigation or prosecution of a suspected offence. As such, there are recognised exceptions to the banking secrecy laws such as a Bankers Trust order (see 2.3 Obtaining Disclosure of Docu- ments and Evidence From Third Parties ). The customer’s information can also be provided to a police officer or public officer who is duly author - ised to carry out the investigation or prosecution. 7.3 Crypto-Assets The Singapore High Court has held that crypto - currencies are property and, when stolen, can be subject to proprietary injunction. The Court also granted a worldwide freezing injunction against defendants who allegedly stole cryptocurrencies even though their identities were unknown, and disclosure orders against the relevant cryptocur - rency exchanges to help in the tracing of the stolen assets. This decision should have implications for cryp - tocurrency exchanges operating in Singapore as they may now be served with disclosure orders to disclose information relating to user accounts
312 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook