An individual from Singapore lost his entire investment of S$49,500 (approximately US$37,100) in an Australian forex trading platform that was allegedly hacked due to a security flaw on its website. The platform and its website were compromised.
He then filed a lawsuit against the woman who had assisted him in establishing his trading account, alleging that she had been complicit in a fraudulent scheme to deceive unsuspecting investors into believing they were dealing with a legitimate company. On November 30th, the court issued a decision that dismissed the lawsuit.
In early 2020, according to the plaintiff, Mr. Foo Ching Chee, he was acquainted with an individual identified as Mr. Tan Choong Tat, who is alternatively known as Eugene.
As per Mr. Foo’s account, Mr. Tan claimed to be engaged in the sale of investment products on behalf of Equity Advisers. It was stated that Equity Advisers was a Melbourne-based, Australian-licensed forex trading firm.
Mr Tan allegedly advised Mr. Foo that collaborating with him and another woman named Ms. Ang Chew Tee, also known as Amy, could generate substantial profits for Mr. Foo’s investments.
Based on the details Mr. Tan and Ms. Ang provided, Mr. Foo claimed that he transferred S$4,500 to Mr. Tan in April 2020. Mr. Foo subsequently reported receiving additional information regarding the profitability of equity advisers to convince him to invest.
For instance, if he invested more than $10,000 US dollars, he was informed that he would earn profits between 15% and 25% of his investment amount and that any trading loss would not exceed 5% of the investment amount.
Mr. Foo also claims that Ms. Ang stated she was a representative of Equity Advisers in Singapore and an agent of the firm. Mr Foo made an equity adviser investment of S$49,500 in response to the advice provided by Ms. Ang and Mr. Tan.
Mr. Foo was notified on September 29, 2020, that his investments and profits with the organization had ceased. In order to access his trading account balance, he was unable to register. The following day, Equity Advisers issued a notification stating that its website and trading platform had been compromised due to a security flaw.
Upon regaining access to his trading account in October 2020, Mr. Foo observed negative values for both his account balance and profits. It appeared that other investors had encountered comparable circumstances.
In his inquiry to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission regarding the legitimacy of Equity Advisers, he discovered that although another firm bearing the same name provided financial services, it was not the one in which he had made his investment.
Mr. Foo initiated legal proceedings against Ms. Ang, seeking reimbursement of the entire amount he had invested, plus interest and expenses. Originally, he intended to file a lawsuit against Mr. Tan as well, but was unable to do so because Mr. Tan was not served with court papers within the allotted time.
In her defense, Ms. Ang stated that she never informed Mr. Foo that she was neither an agent nor an employee of Equity Advisers. On the contrary, she operated as an ordinary investor who voluntarily facilitated the transfer of funds from others to the organization. Numerous investors, including Ms. Ang, were harmed when it was revealed that the scheme had been a fraud. An acquaintance brought her to a company presentation in February or March 2020, marking her initial encounter with the organization. She stated that she first met Mr. Foo in March 2020 via a WhatsApp group conversation that Mr. Tan established. Ms. Ang asserted that WhatsApp transcripts demonstrated Mr. Foo’s status as an investor before his inclusion in the conversation.
She stated that she had no intention of deceiving or misleading Mr. Foo and sincerely believed that Equity Advisers was a legitimate Australian company that offered a live foreign exchange market trading platform.
Ms. Ang stated that she, along with the other investors, eagerly awaited updates following the disclosure of the hacking incident but was left in the dark without a plausible explanation.
She disclosed that, in addition to losing S$100,000, she was a victim of fraud, which included investment accounts in the names of her family members. Mr. Foo was “in no way responsible” for his losses, she stated.
While Mr. Foo argued that Ms. Ang filed a police report only after he forwarded letters from her attorneys, Ms. Ang explained that she refrained from doing so earlier because she deemed it futile. During the trial, she stated, “In all honesty, filing a police report does not guarantee the return of the money.” “Why would I wish to squander time?”
Nevertheless, she ultimately lodged a police report to apprise the authorities of the occurrence. Magistrate Teo Jing Lu determined that Mr. Foo had not proven his case. As opposed, the evidence suggested that the “much more probable conclusion” was that Ms. Ang was unaware that the investment scheme was, in fact, a ruse. He denied the claim and requested that the parties submit costs and disbursement submissions.
The CNA/ll (zl) source