Singapore

The principal civil causes of action available in cases of fraud are the tort of deceit (or fraudulent misrepresentation), tort of conversion, and unjust enrichment. The claimant may, depending on the circumstances, also bring a claim for breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duties. If the perpetrator was assisted by an accomplice, that accomplice may be joined as defendant and a claim may be brought against them in dishonest assistance and/or knowing receipt. A claim in conspiracy may also be brought against all the defendants in that event.

Specific statutory regimes that deal with such activities are:

• the Penal Code 1871, which deals with, for example, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, and cheating;
• the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992, which deals with money laundering offences;
• the Securities and Futures Act 2001, which deals with securities-related offences such as false trading, market manipulation, and insider trading;
• the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960, which deals with corruption and bribery; and
• the Companies Act 1967, which deals with, for example, the statutory duties of a company’s directors and officers.

The Singapore courts will accept jurisdiction over international fraud claims where the claimant can establish the court’s in personam jurisdiction over the defendant. This may be done by:

• serving the defendant within Singapore;
• obtaining court approval to serve outside Singapore under Order 8, rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC); or
• the defendant’s submission to jurisdiction.

Where the defendant is outside Singapore, unless service out of Singapore is allowed under a contract between the parties, the claimant must obtain leave from the court to serve outside the jurisdiction. The claimant bears the burden of showing that the following three requirements are satisfied:

• there is a good arguable case that there is sufficient nexus to Singapore, with reference to the non-exhaustive list of factors under paragraph 63(3) of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 (SCPD);
• Singapore is the forum conveniens; and
• there is a serious question to be tried on the merits of the claim.

Alternatively, where the defendant has been served within the jurisdiction (or where jurisdiction has otherwise been established), the defendant may apply for a stay of the Singapore proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens.

In assessing whether Singapore is the forum conveniens, the court considers five broad categories of connecting factors:

• personal connections of the parties and witnesses;
• connections to relevant events and transactions;
• the applicable law to the dispute;
• the existence of proceedings elsewhere; and
• the shape of the litigation.

It is the quality (rather than quantity) of the connecting factors that is crucial in this analysis, and the search is for those connections that have the most relevant and substantial associations with the dispute.

If the defendant applies for a stay of the proceedings, the court will have reference to the two-stage test set out in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, which is endorsed in Singapore. In stage one, the legal burden is on the defendant to demonstrate, by reference to the above connecting factors, that there is another clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum than Singapore. If the court concludes in this stage that there is no other available forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, it will ordinarily refuse a stay.

If, however, the court concludes that there is some other available forum which prima facie is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, it will ordinarily grant a stay, and parties then move to stage two of the test. Under this stage, the legal burden shifts to the claimant to show that a stay should nonetheless be refused as substantial justice cannot be obtained in that foreign forum.

The way that the Singapore courts approach conflicts of law differs based on the nature of the claim. Where the claim is based on contract, the court will determine the proper law of the dispute based on whether parties had made an express or implied choice of law. If neither is found, the court will apply the law with the closest and most real connection with the contract (Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v. S Y Technology Inc and another appeal [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491). Where the claim is based in tort, the double actionability rule applies: which requires the alleged wrong to be actionable under both Singapore law and the law of the place where the wrong was, in fact, committed (Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v. Nicolai Baron von Uexkull [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377).

It should also be noted that where a tortious claim arises out of a contractual relationship between the parties, the court may apply the governing law of the contract to the tortious claim. That may in turn point to that jurisdiction as the forum with the closest and most real connection with the dispute (see Rappo, Tania v. Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal [2017] 2 SLR 265).

Both physical and intangible assets can be traced. The Singapore courts recognise two categories of personal property: a “chose in possession” (i.e. tangible or physical assets); and a “chose in action” (i.e. intangible proprietary rights enforceable by action). The Singapore courts have also recently affirmed that cryptoassets are choses in action capable of being held on trust and being subject to tracing orders (see Question 13.1, below).

Yes, tracing through mixed funds is possible through equitable tracing, provided the property has passed through the hands of a fiduciary in breach of duty. Because of the difficulty a claimant faces in proving that a particular asset was purchased with trust money rather than the wrongdoer’s own money, the courts may apply evidential presumptions that the fiduciary intended to preserve the claimant’s contribution to the mixed fund at the expense of their own.

Yes, there are two categories of proprietary claims in fraud cases: fraudulent taking; and fraudulently induced transfers.

In cases of fraudulent taking (i.e. the outright taking of a person’s property without their consent) an institutional constructive trust arises by operation of law in favour of the victim. The victim has a proprietary claim over the property (or its traceable substitutes) and may recover it in priority to the wrongdoer’s unsecured creditors.

In cases of fraudulently induced transfers (i.e. where a contract is induced by fraudulent misrepresentation), the contract is voidable, not void. Upon the victim’s election to rescind, the beneficial interest in the property transferred is treated as having remained vested in the victim throughout, providing a proprietary base from which to trace and recover the property or its substitutes.

The Singapore courts recognise that tracing is the process by which a claimant identifies a new asset as the substitute for the original and thereby demonstrates that their proprietary rights in the original asset have been converted into proprietary rights in the substituted property.

Where there has been a “clean substitution” (i.e. the original asset has been exchanged for a new asset without being mixed with other funds), the claimant can assert proprietary rights over the new asset. The plaintiff must show how their proprietary rights in the original asset have been converted into proprietary rights in the substituted property. If this link cannot be established — for example, where there is no evidence that the new asset came from the sale or dealing with the original property — the proprietary claim will fail.

Importantly, for a tracing order to operate, the assets from which the tracing process is to begin must be identified. However, where property has gone into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the breach, the tracing must end, and no proprietary claim may be made against that purchaser (see Question 10.3, below).

The party seeking to preserve assets for enforcement can primarily apply for a freezing (also known as Mareva) injunction or a proprietary injunction.

A domestic freezing injunction restrains the defendant from dealing with assets that are subject to the injunction. It is primarily granted where the plaintiff can demonstrate a real risk that the assets may be dissipated.

The court may also exceptionally grant an extraterritorial freezing injunction restraining the party from dealing with assets held outside of Singapore. In addition to satisfying the conditions relating to the grant of a domestic freezing injunction, it must be shown that the defendant has assets outside the court’s jurisdiction and the defendant’s assets within the court’s jurisdiction are insufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim.

A proprietary injunction is sought to preserve property in which the plaintiff has a legitimate proprietary interest. This enables the plaintiff to reclaim the property if the court finds in favour of it. A proprietary injunction will be granted where the plaintiff can establish that there is a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction. Unlike a freezing injunction, there is no need to demonstrate a real risk that the assets may be dissipated.

The court can also grant these injunctions in support of foreign proceedings pursuant to section 4(10A) of the Civil Law Act 1909 (CLA).

Order 11, rule 11 of the ROC enables courts to order the disclosure of documents and information for three purposes: to identify possible parties to any proceedings; to enable a party to trace property; and for any other lawful purpose in the interests of justice (a catch-all provision). However, the court can only order the disclosure of documents that may be lawfully disclosed in the first place. For example, privileged documents can be protected from disclosure.

The statutory rules expanded common law disclosure orders while retaining the overarching rationale of saving judicial time and costs. In the context of a Norwich Pharmacal order which traditionally compels an innocent party — who possesses information on the wrongdoers — to disclose documents identifying wrongdoers, the statutory rules now extend such orders to also cover information that may not take the form of documents. This expansion also applies to Bankers Trust orders, which traditionally compels a financial institution to disclose banking documents (primarily for the purposes of asset tracing). Further, the statutory rules also make clear that Norwich Pharmacal and Bankers Trust orders can be sought against non-parties to the substantive proceedings (or intended substantive proceedings).

An order for a freezing injunction is usually accompanied by asset disclosure obligations to allow the claimant to ascertain the assets that are subject to the freezing injunction. For a proprietary injunction, if the original asset has been converted to other forms (such as the sale of a property), disclosure obligations may be imposed to ascertain the present form of assets which the plaintiff’s proprietary interest may be traced into.

Further, in insolvency cases, the judicial manager or liquidator has wide-ranging powers to conduct investigations into the affairs of the company to, amongst other things, ascertain the assets of the company. For example, in the insolvency proceedings of the company Three Arrows Capital Ltd, the liquidators obtained, pursuant to section 244 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA), orders summoning a former director to disclose information relating to the assets of the company and to appear before the Singapore court for the purposes of allowing the liquidators’ counsel to examine them on such information.

Yes. Order 11, rule 11 of the ROC explicitly allows for disclosure before the commencement of proceedings through pre-action interrogatories or pre-action discovery. Pre-action disclosure is regarded as quintessentially intrusive in nature. While it must be demonstrated that the information sought is necessary for the purposes of outlining the cause(s) of action and commencing proceedings, it must also be shown that the intended cause(s) of action are not merely speculative in nature (i.e. there is some existing evidence to underpin the intended cause(s) of action). The information sought should also be described in sufficient detail and with a substantial degree of precision.

It should also be noted that in insolvency cases, the judicial manager or liquidator, as part of their wide-ranging powers to conduct investigations into the affairs of the company, may utilise such powers to uncover possible claims that may be brought by the company (e.g. breach of fiduciary duties by directors, clawback claims, etc). However, these powers cannot be abused; for example, if the judicial manager or liquidator has already formed an intention to commence proceedings against a director, the judicial manager or liquidator should not utilise the power to summon the director to court for the purposes of examining the director and obtaining a preview of their potential defence to the intended proceedings.

Yes, as mentioned in Question 4.1, above, the Singapore courts can grant freezing injunctions and proprietary injunctions in support of foreign proceedings pursuant to section 4(10A) of the CLA. Other than the usual domestic requirements that must be established (e.g. risk of dissipation of assets in relation to a freezing injunction sought), the Singapore court would typically have to be satisfied as to why the interim relief is sought in Singapore instead of or in addition to the jurisdiction where the proceedings are commenced.

For example, in Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others v. Davies, Kyle Livingston and another [2024] SGHC 164, the Singapore court granted a domestic freezing injunction (in addition to a world-wide freezing injunction granted by the BVI court) in consideration of the fact that the known assets of the defendants were primarily in Singapore, and the fact that the defendants were Singapore citizens.

In the insolvency context, Singapore has ratified the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law of Cross-Border Insolvency (“Model Law”). The Model Law allows a foreign insolvency office holder to apply to the Singapore courts for recognition of their appointment, the foreign insolvency proceedings, or seek relief in aid of the foreign insolvency proceedings. This allows the foreign insolvency office holder to be vested with the powers applicable to a judicial manager or liquidator in Singapore, including the investigative powers described in Question 5.1, above. The Singapore courts have also adopted the Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters (“JIN Guidelines”) which allows for coordination between the Singapore courts and foreign courts to promote, amongst other things, the maximisation of value of the debtor company’s assets.

Outside of the insolvency context, cooperation with foreign courts is generally limited to section 4(10A) of the CLA. Within the insolvency context, cooperation is enhanced where the other foreign court is also an adopter of the JIN Guidelines, as this allows for direct communications between the Singapore court and the foreign court pertaining to matters relating to the administration of the foreign insolvency proceedings.

That aside, foreign regulators and law enforcement do not generally approach the Singapore courts for assistance, save in the case of extraditions, which is subject to the Extradition Act 1968.

Outside of the context of the enforcement of foreign judgments and orders (see Question 7.1, below), and outside of the context of insolvency matters, Singapore is not a party to any treaties or international conventions pertaining to cooperation and judicial assistance by the Singapore courts in relation to foreign courts.

In the context of foreign insolvency proceedings, the relevant instruments would be the Model Law and JIN Guidelines.

Under common law, a foreign judgment is enforceable if:

• it has been obtained from a court of law of competent jurisdiction in civil proceedings;
• it has been decided on the merits of the case;
• it has final and conclusive effect on the parties according to the law under which it was granted;
• the foreign court had transactional or international jurisdiction over the party sought to be bound at the time of the commencement of the foreign proceedings;
• there are no applicable defences to its recognition;
• it is a judgment for a fixed or ascertainable sum of money; and
• it does not involve the enforcement of foreign penal, revenue or public laws.

Under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 (REFJA), foreign judgments can be recognised and enforced if they are judgments from Hong Kong or specified courts from a gazetted country pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (United Kingdom and the Commonwealth) Order 2023 (“UK and Commonwealth Order”). Judgments that can be enforced under the REFJA include judicial settlements, interlocutory judgments, and final judgments. While the enforcement of non-money judgments is allowed under REFJA, this is limited to Hong Kong judgments only.

The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements can also be relied on to recognise and enforce foreign judgments and is incorporated into Singapore law through the Choice of Courts Agreements Act 2016. The Hague Convention allows for foreign judgments to be enforced locally where, subject to exceptions in sections 9, 10, and 22, the foreign judgment is from a court from a contracting state to the Hague Convention, is effective and enforceable in its state of origin, and is a final decision on the merits, a consent judgment, or a default judgment.

Foreign arbitral awards can be recognised and enforced in Singapore given that Singapore is a signatory to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (“New York Convention”). Part III of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act 1994 gives effect to the New York Convention, allowing arbitral awards made pursuant to an arbitration agreement in the territory of a New York Convention country to be enforced in Singapore.

Amendments to the REFJA allow for foreign interlocutory orders that are obtained in foreign gazetted territories to be enforced in Singapore. Currently, this only applies to judgments from the Superior Courts of Hong Kong.

Where REFJA does not apply, a party will instead have to obtain an interim interlocutory injunction from the Singapore courts in aid of foreign proceedings pursuant to section 4(10A) of the CLA as described in Questions 4.1 and 6.1, above.

Under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2000, confiscation orders from the US and UK (being the only prescribed foreign countries) can be registered and enforced by the Singapore courts.

Insolvency law is interlinked with fraud and asset recovery claims. It provides tools that assist in such claims, from information gathering to uncovering fraud and trace assets, to clawback powers enabling the unwinding of fraudulent actions.

As described in Question 5.1, above, the insolvency office holder may apply to court requesting for the court to summon relevant persons for examination and disclose their dealings with the insolvent company.

Similarly in a personal bankruptcy context, the bankruptcy trustee may summon any relevant person to be examined on oath in relation to the bankrupt’s affairs and be required to produce any relevant document.

As will be elaborated on below, substantive claims can also be brought by insolvency office holders on behalf of the company or the bankrupt’s estate to recover assets related to fraud.

Yes, they can. Insolvency office holders are equipped with clawback powers allowing them to unwind fraudulent actions. In a corporate context, the office holder may apply to court to set aside or vary transactions made at an undervalue (section 224, IRDA), unfair preferences benefiting others (section 225 IRDA), transactions defrauding creditors (section 438, IRDA), extortionate credit transactions (section 228 IRDA), and floating charges (section 229, IRDA). Claims may also be brought against former directors for breaches of fiduciary duties and wrongful or fraudulent trading (sections 238 and 239, IRDA) (related to incurring debts when there is no reasonable prospect of the company repaying such debts).

Yes. The aforementioned clawback powers enable insolvency office holders to recover assets dissipated through fraud. For example, in the liquidation of the Envy group of companies which were involved in perpetuating a Ponzi scheme, the liquidators successfully recovered profits made by an investor in excess of his principal investment on the basis that the payments of such profits were transactions at an undervalue and/or transactions defrauding creditors.

Yes, criminal proceedings and civil recovery can run in parallel, although they are not necessarily coordinated. For example, in the insolvency of Hodlnaut Pte Ltd (“Hodlnaut”), a Singapore-based cryptocurrency lending and borrowing platform, criminal investigations into the former directors ran in parallel to the insolvency proceedings where the insolvency office holders sought to maximise recovery for creditors.

Similarly, in the insolvency of the Envy group of companies, the liquidators brought claims against the former directors while one of them was subject to criminal prosecution on account of being the mastermind behind the Ponzi scheme. These proceedings ran in parallel but were independent of each other. The civil proceedings concluded first before the criminal prosecution, with the Singapore court allowing the civil claims brought against the former director.

It should also be noted that the differing standards of proof for civil proceedings (balance of probabilities) and criminal proceedings (beyond reasonable doubt) means that the outcome of the two may differ. Evidence collected in one can be utilised in the other. In the case involving the Envy group of companies, witness statements given to the Singapore police were utilised in the civil recovery proceedings.

In rare instances, an accused person may seek to stay the continuation of parallel civil proceedings if they can demonstrate that the balance of justice so requires; in particular, that there is a real danger that the continuance of the civil action will result in injustice in the criminal proceedings. It is insufficient for the accused person to simply point to their right of silence which they enjoy in the criminal proceedings.

Generally, Singapore does not have a civil confiscation or non-conviction-based forfeiture regime outside of the criminal context. However, there are certain avenues for the state to confiscate ill-gotten benefits of crime even where no conviction has been obtained, although such confiscated property would be forfeited to the state.

Under section 29 read with section 30 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992, benefits of a person’s criminal conduct may be confiscated without a conviction where the person has absconded.

Section 53 of the Organised Crime Act 2015 also allows for the confiscation of proceeds resulting from organised crime in the absence of a conviction. However, this is subject to the prosecution proving on a balance of probabilities that the person has carried out organised crime activity.

Victims may participate in criminal confiscation, although this primarily depends on the relevant law enforcement agency that confiscated the assets and the discretion of the Singapore court. For example, the law enforcement agency might apply for the property to be forfeited to the state instead. On the other hand, section 370(2)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) expressly vests in the Singapore courts the discretion to order the assets to be delivered to the person(s) entitled to possession of the assets.

Where the court is inclined to make an order delivering the confiscated property to the person(s) entitled to possession of the property, a disposal inquiry might be held to determine how the seized properties should be removed from the criminal system. For example, we have acted for the insolvency office holders of Hodlnaut in a court inquiry relating to how the cryptocurrencies seized by the police from an account held by Samtrade Custodian Ltd with Hodlnaut should be disposed (including by distribution to Hodlnaut).

Separately, if there are no known person(s) at the point where the Singapore court makes an order to deliver the assets to person(s) entitled to possession, the Singapore court may, pursuant to section 372(1) of the CPC, direct law enforcement to issue a public notice inviting person(s) claiming to be entitled to such assets to make and establish a claim before the Singapore court within six months of such notice.

Under section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1959 (LA), all fraud claims based on a contract or tort must be brought within six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. However, if the fraud claim is based on a breach of trust, there is no limitation period (section 22(1), LA).

Yes, section 29(1) of the LA provides for the postponement of the limitation period in three situations:

• where the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant or their agent (section 29(1)(a));
• where the right of action is concealed by the fraud of any such person (section 29(1)(b)); or
• where the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake (section 29(1)(c)).

In these situations, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has discovered the fraud or mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

Defendants in fraud cases commonly raise the defence that:

• the claim is time barred;
• the respondent is a bona fide purchaser who paid valuable consideration for the asset and had no notice of the claimant’s equitable interest in the property; and
• where unjust enrichment is pleaded as a cause of action, the respondent has changed their position bona fide, and that it would be inequitable to require them to make restitution or to make restitution in full.

Two broad categories of remedies are available: personal remedies and proprietary remedies. Personal remedies are enforced against the defendant personally and take the form of damages (for tort or breach of contract), equitable compensation or an account of profits (for breach of fiduciary duty), or restitution of the value of the enrichment (for unjust enrichment). Where alternative remedies are available, the claimant must elect between them.

Proprietary remedies are directed at specific property and allow the claimant to assert a claim over that property (or its traceable proceeds) in priority to the defendant’s unsecured creditors.

Yes. Where a claimant successfully traces their property into a substituted asset, they may elect between two proprietary remedies: claiming the entire beneficial ownership of the substituted asset under a constructive trust; or enforcing an equitable lien against the substituted asset for the value of the original asset applied to acquire it.

A constructive trust confers full proprietary rights over the substituted asset, entitling the claimant to any increase in its value and affording priority over the wrongdoer’s unsecured creditors. An equitable lien, by contrast, secures a charge over the asset limited to the value of the original property, without conferring beneficial ownership of the asset itself. The election between the two will depend on the circumstances: a constructive trust is advantageous where the substituted asset has appreciated in value, whereas an equitable lien may be preferred where the substituted asset has depreciated or where a constructive trust is unavailable (e.g. due to statutory restrictions).

Where a claimant successfully establishes a proprietary claim over traced assets, the court may order the delivery up or transfer of the asset in specie. For example, in Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar and another v. Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri and others [2023] SGHC 47, the court ordered the trustee to cause or procure the delivery up, transfer of possession or title or ownership of all trust assets, interests, and traceable proceeds to the beneficiary.

If the traced asset is no longer available in specie, the claimant may instead seek substitutive compensation: a monetary award requiring the trustee or fiduciary to reconstitute the trust fund. To facilitate the identification of traceable assets, the court may also make disclosure orders requiring the defendant to disclose their assets in aid of tracing and recovery.

If there are mixed funds and/or the recovered assets are insufficient to satisfy the claims of multiple claimants, distribution of the assets can be carried out on the “first in, first out” approach, the pari passu approach, or the rolling charge approach.

The court has a broad discretion under section 12(1) of the CLA to award pre-judgment interest on any debt or damages recovered, at such rate as it thinks fit, for the whole or any part of the period between the date the cause of action arose and the date of judgment. The default rate applied by the Singapore courts is 5.33% per annum.

As for post-judgment interest, under Order 17, rule 5 of the ROC, where money is payable under an order, it carries interest as agreed between the parties or, if there is no agreement, simple interest at 5.33% per year, calculated from the date the order is made until the date of payment.

A successful claimant is generally entitled to recover the costs of proceedings from the unsuccessful party. In exercising its power to fix or assess costs, the court will have regard to the factors set out in Order 21, rule 2(2) of the ROC/Order 22, rule 3(2) of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) Rules 2021, which include the complexity of the case, urgency and importance of the action to the parties and the principle of proportionality. For proceedings administered in the General Division of the Singapore High Court (and appeals therefrom), the court will also have regard to the guidelines for party-and-party costs set out in Appendix G of the SCPD.

Singapore offers a claimant-friendly environment for fraud and asset recovery litigation. As discussed in the other Questions, the combination of accessible interim relief (particularly where fraud is alleged), comprehensive disclosure mechanisms, well-developed proprietary remedies, and a sophisticated commercial judiciary makes it an attractive forum. The progressive expansion of the courts’ toolkit to accommodate digital assets and proceedings against unknown defendants further reinforces Singapore’s position as a leading jurisdiction for cross-border asset recovery.

Under Order 13, rule 1(2) of the ROC, a claimant may apply for an injunction or a search order before the originating process is even issued in an urgent case. In practice, the Singapore Supreme Court operates a Duty Registrar system that facilitates the scheduling of urgent hearings. Applications for urgent injunctive relief are heard by a Duty Registrar or Duty Judge, and in cases of extreme urgency, hearings have been accommodated on the same day the application is filed. For example, in BWN v. BWO [2019] 5 SLR 215, the court acceded to a request to hear an urgent injunction application in the evening of the same day it was filed.

Litigation costs comprise solicitors’ professional fees and disbursements.

Since 4 May 2022, lawyers in Singapore are permitted to enter into conditional fee agreements (CFAs) under section 115A of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA), read with the Legal Profession (Conditional Fee Agreement) Regulations 2022. Under a CFA, a solicitor may agree to receive an uplift fee (over and above his normal fees) in the event of a successful outcome. CFAs are currently permitted only for prescribed proceedings, which include:

• arbitration proceedings (domestic and international);
• court proceedings arising from or connected with arbitration;
• proceedings commenced in the SICC;
• appeals from SICC decisions; and
• related me

Outside the scope of prescribed proceedings, contingency fee agreements — under which a lawyer’s remuneration is dependent on the outcome of litigation — remain prohibited under section 107 of the LPA.

Under section 5B of the CLA, third-party funding is permitted for:

• all arbitration proceedings (domestic and international);
• court proceedings arising from or connected with arbitration;
• proceedings for enforcement of arbitral awards;
• proceedings commenced in the SICC; appeals from SICC decisions; and
• related mediations.

In ex parte applications, it is important for a claimant to adhere to its duty of full and frank disclosure, as material non-disclosures, particularly those which have a bearing either on the requirements for the grant of a freezing injunction or the claimant’s ability to honour its undertaking as to damages, may lead to the injunction being discharged. The duty to disclose applies not only to material facts known to the applicant but also such additional facts that they would have known if they had made proper inquiries.

A claimant should also take care to comply with the prescribed forms and undertakings in the SCPD when seeking freezing injunctions. A failure to comply and to explain one’s non-compliance may result in the court increasing the fortification sum (i.e. the sum required to fortify the claimant’s undertaking to compensate the defendant if it was later found that loss was suffered as result of the injunction), as was the case in Parastate Labs Inc v. Wang Li [2023] 2 SLR 376.

Where service of the originating process on the defendant outside Singapore is necessary, a claimant should ensure that service complies with the laws of the relevant foreign jurisdiction and may wish to obtain advice from local counsel for that purpose, to avoid service being subsequently challenged and/or found defective.

The area of cryptocurrency has seen significant judicial development in recent years.

In ByBit Fintech Ltd v. Ho Kai Xin and others [2023] SGHC 199, the Singapore High Court held that cryptocurrency (specifically USDT) constitutes a chose in action capable of being held on trust and declared an institutional constructive trust over fraudulently misappropriated cryptoassets. The court granted both a declaration of constructive trust and a tracing order in respect of the cryptoassets and their traceable proceeds, confirming that equitable tracing principles apply to digital assets in the same way as they do to traditional property. The court also noted that constructive trust principles operate even where cryptocurrency has been mixed with other cryptocurrency in custodial wallets, analogous to the mixing of funds in a bank account.

In Cheong Jun Yoong v. Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 21, the High Court addressed the situs of cryptoassets and found that a cryptoasset is best located where it is controlled (i.e. the residence of the person who controls the private key). This has practical implications for tracing claims with a cross-border element, as it provides a basis for the Singapore courts to assert jurisdiction over cryptoassets controlled from Singapore.

Most recently, in DVA and another v. DVC [2026] SGHC(I) 4, the SICC granted a proprietary injunction over Bitcoin and USD Coin that had been mistakenly transferred and subsequently dealt with by the defendant, including transfers to unhosted wallets. The SICC also granted ancillary orders for the disclosure of the whereabouts of or means of accessing the subject digital assets and any assets into which their proceeds may have flowed, demonstrating the courts’ willingness to adapt traditional tracing remedies to the digital asset context.

Separately, in the recent decision of VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company v. FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Limited [2026] SGHC(A) 11, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore provided important guidance on the legal framework governing substituted service out of Singapore under the ROC. The court affirmed that to obtain a substituted service order, the sole criterion is that personal service is impractical (for example, because the defendant is deliberately evading service); there is no additional requirement to demonstrate that prior efforts at service were valid.

On the legislative front, several reforms have strengthened Singapore’s cross-border asset recovery framework.

As mentioned in the Questions above, section 4(10A) of the CLA was introduced in 2022 to enable the General Division of the Singapore High Court to grant any type of interim relief (as long as it also has the power to grant such relief in proceedings within its own jurisdiction) in aid of foreign court proceedings if it is just and convenient to do so, even if there are no substantive proceedings in Singapore.

The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Amendment) and Other Matters Act 2024, which came into operation on 28 March 2025, enhances Singapore’s framework for cross-border cooperation in criminal matters, including the enforcement of foreign confiscation orders.

The overall trend in Singapore is one of principled expansion, with the courts progressively adapting traditional tracing and recovery tools to address modern challenges, most notably in the digital asset space. In addition to the cases mentioned in Question 13.1, above, the Singapore courts have also confirmed its jurisdiction to grant interim orders against persons unknown, provided the description is sufficiently certain to identify who is and is not included (see CLM v. CLN and ors [2022] SGHC 46 and Janesh s/o Rajkumar v. Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”) [2022] SGHC 264). This is a significant development for tracing claims involving anonymous wrongdoers, which are common in the digital asset context.

At the same time, the courts have flagged practical challenges with the valuation of cryptocurrency for the purposes of compensatory damages. In Fantom Foundation Ltd v. Multichain Foundation Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 173, the court observed that the volatility of digital assets makes the choice of valuation date particularly consequential and that existing common law valuation methods may not translate well to the cryptocurrency context, thus signalling a cautious approach to expansion.

With Singapore’s position as a major financial and digital asset centre, Singapore increasingly attracts international fraud litigation. In support of this, the courts are increasingly demonstrating a willingness to grant freezing injunctions in aid of foreign court proceedings as well as foreign-seated arbitrations.

For example, in Novo Nordisk A/S v. KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd and another [2025] SGHC(I) 3, the SICC granted a worldwide freezing injunction (also known as a worldwide Mareva injunction) in support of a New York-seated arbitration, noting that it was “desirable in cases of potential international fraud, to be supportive of the processes of the primary adjudicator”.

At the same time, the courts adhere to comity and finality in international litigation. The Singapore courts have in recent years embraced the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel as a tool for preventing re-litigation of issues already decided by foreign courts, thus demonstrating its commitment to the finality of foreign court decisions (particularly those of the court of the seat of the arbitration) and the enforceability of foreign arbitral awards in cross-border fraud and investment disputes (see The Republic of India v. Deutsche Telekom AG [2024] 1 SLR 56, Sacofa Sdn Bhd v. Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd and another [2025] 3 SLR 209 and Hulley Enterprises Ltd and others v. The Russian Federation [2025] SGHC(I) 19).