Court dismisses woman’s suit to recover $6m loss from ‘sure-win’ scheme against casinos
The scheme sold packages promising lucrative returns from the winnings of professional gamblers playing baccarat at casinos. PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: PEXELS
Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent
UPDATED
1 HOUR AGO
SINGAPORE - A Hong Kong woman who lost millions in a Ponzi scheme that promised investors they would win money gambling against casinos, has failed in her lawsuit to recover her losses from a Singapore couple who got her to invest.
Ms Chan Pik Sun, also known as Sandra, alleged that she invested in the SureWin4U scheme because she relied on false and fraudulent representations that induced her to spend HK$36.8 million (S$6.2 million) buying various packages.
The scheme, which started in July 2012, collapsed in September 2014, and its two founders, Malaysian brothers Peter and Philip Ong, became uncontactable.
Ms Chan joined the scheme in March 2014.
She sued Mr Wan Hoe Keet and his wife Sally Ho, alleging that they told her it was “safe and profitable” to invest in SureWin4U, which sold packages promising lucrative returns from the winnings of professional gamblers playing baccarat at casinos.
She also sued Ms Ho’s brother Sebastian and the couple’s company Strategic Wealth Consultancy, which was used to hold their earnings from SureWin4U, as well as a yacht purchased with money from Peter Ong.
She alleged that, like the couple, Mr Sebastian Ho frequently encouraged her to increase her investments and sales to other investors and told her that she was a rising star.
In his judgment issued last Friday, High Court Judge Andre Maniam found that SureWin4U was a Ponzi scheme.
Justice Maniam said: “It did not have a way of consistently winning money through gambling, let alone a ‘sure win’ way. As such, participants’ returns essentially came from the money that they and fellow participants put into the scheme.”
He also found that it was a pyramid scheme: Participants known as “uplines” received referral bonuses for bringing in new participants known as “downlines”, with the uplines getting further bonuses if their downlines bought more packages themselves or brought in others.
In dismissing Ms Chan’s case, the judge said: “It is tragic that Sandra lost millions of dollars by investing in SureWin4U, but she has no recourse against the defendants for that.”
He said the evidence did not show that she invested in SureWin4U because of any false representations made by the defendants.
Instead, the picture that emerged is that Ms Chan was attracted by the lucrative returns promised, which she had started receiving on her initial packages.
Justice Maniam found that Ms Chan believed in SureWin4U’s gambling methods, but also knew there was a risk of loss.
He noted that a few days after the collapse of the scheme, Ms Chan said in a message to an upline investor: “It’s OK, I knew the risk, I will face it.”
He added that in getting her “downlines” to invest, Ms Chan never told them about any representations made by the defendants; she told them about the returns promised by SureWin4U, its gambling methods, and her belief in the scheme.
The judge said Mr Wan and Ms Ho must bear some responsibility for exaggerated statements made in SureWin4U’s promotional booklet and brochure, as well as at a conference, that the couple’s earnings amounted to HK$201 million.
However, he found that if the earnings had been accurately represented by SureWin4U, it would have made no difference to Ms Chan’s investment decisions.
Participants in the scheme who bought packages had their money converted into a virtual currency called “yingbi”, or “winning currency” in Mandarin.
Returns were given in terms of yingbi, which they could convert into cash and withdraw, leave to their credit in the system, or use to buy more packages.
Depending on the packages bought, participants were entitled to attend classes which purportedly demonstrated a 99.8 per cent or a 100 per cent win rate.
Ms Chan said she attended a demonstration in a Macau casino which apparently proved that the 100 per cent winning formula worked.
The result of the demonstration was that out of eight teams of gamblers, seven teams won but one lost.
Justice Maniam said: “Whatever that demonstration proved, it did not prove that that 100 per cent formula gave SureWin4U a 100 per cent win rate.”
Last edited:
