SINGAPORE – An elderly scam victim’s $500,000 claim against UOB was thrown out by the High Court after the court found that she had deliberately concealed evidence that was unfavourable to her.
Assistant Registrar (AR) Ramu Miyapan said the woman’s conduct amounted to an abuse of the court process, as she had presented a version of events that was materially different from what she had stated in a police report.
The court struck out the claim even though the assistant registrar acknowledged that the claimant was an elderly woman who did not speak English and had already lost a significant amount of money in what appeared to be a scam.
In grounds of decision released on Aug 18, AR Ramu said the case was not about whether the woman’s underlying claim against UOB had merit, but about her conduct in the court proceedings.
The claimant, Lao Iok Sim, also known as Liu Yuchan, opened a UOB savings account at the bank’s People’s Park Complex branch on June 9, 2022, and applied for personal internet banking that same day.
On June 14, she set up a digital token on UOB’s mobile banking app using a one-time PIN sent by SMS, her card number and her account PIN.
Between June 17 and June 20, she made three deposits of $200,000 each into the account.
During the same period, 10 transfers totalling $500,000 were made out of the account through the UOB app. The transfers were authorised using her digital token.
UOB sent an SMS alert after each transaction, stating that fund transfers had been made or scheduled and telling her to call the bank if they were unauthorised.
She did not contact UOB despite receiving all 10 alerts.
The bank tried to contact her twice on June 20, at 9.19pm and 10.13pm, to clarify the transactions. It was unable to reach her and blocked the account.
Lao later sued UOB, arguing that a reasonably prudent banker would not have allowed the transfers despite the authorisations made through the app.
But in her statement of claim, she did not say she had been a scam victim.
UOB then asked her to produce a police report which she had referred to in her statement of claim.
She initially resisted producing the report and, after the court ordered her to do so, provided a redacted version.
The unredacted report eventually revealed a substantially different account of what had happened.
According to the police report, Lao had been instructed by a person claiming to be a Chinese police officer to open a UOB savings account with internet banking.
She had provided the person with her internet banking username and password, and was told not to access or check her bank accounts.
She realised she had been scammed only after Singapore Police Force officers contacted her.
Her statement of claim, however, said she had not required or been issued internet banking facilities, had not activated the mobile banking application, had not intended to transfer money from the account and had no knowledge of or consented to the setting up of internet banking or the withdrawals.
AR Ramu said the differences were not minor.
“Put simply, there are basically two versions of events,” he said. One was that she was an unsuspecting scam victim. The other was that she had knowingly set up internet banking herself and then handed her credentials to a third party whom she believed was a police officer.
“On these two accounts, there can be no middle ground,” he said.
UOB argued that Lao had deliberately left out the damaging facts from her statement of claim because they would weaken her case.
She countered that the bank had already received a copy of the police report in June 2022 and therefore knew what had happened.
But AR Ramu rejected this argument.
“The mere fact that material information and documents were already in the defendant’s possession, power and custody does not mean that the claimant is entitled to suppress such material information and documents,” he said.
He said the issue was not whether UOB had been deprived of evidence it did not already possess, but whether Lao’s conduct as a whole justified striking out her claim.
He was troubled by her handling of the police report.
When she eventually produced it on May 25, 2026, it was selectively redacted. Despite repeated requests from UOB, she did not explain why particular portions had been removed.
She also failed to explain the redactions in an affidavit filed in response to UOB’s application to strike out her claim.
“The claimant’s silence on this critical issue, in the circumstances, permits only one inference: that no such explanation exists to be given,” AR Ramu said.
He found that Lao’s conduct amounted to a deliberate suppression of material evidence and an abuse of process.
He said it was “difficult to fathom” how her statement of claim could have omitted the most damaging facts when she was represented by lawyers who would have been aware of the contents of the police report.
“In my judgment, this was not an oversight, but a deliberate attempt by the claimant to present to the court only the most favourable version of events,” he said.
He acknowledged that striking out a claim without a trial should not be taken lightly. He was also mindful that Lao was an elderly Chinese woman who did not speak English and had already suffered a significant financial loss in what appeared to be a scam.
But he concluded that her vulnerability did not outweigh the seriousness of her conduct.
“The claimant’s conduct depicted a constant pattern of behaviour that was designed to keep the truth from rearing its head in court,” he said.
The assistant registrar said such conduct undermined the integrity of the legal process and could not be treated as an ordinary procedural mistake.
He concluded that allowing the case to continue would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.
“The interests of justice cannot be served by permitting a claim to proceed where the claimant has demonstrated a propensity to present a version of events inconsistent with her own contemporaneous account, and has actively sought to withhold material evidence from the defendant and the court,” he said.
AR Ramu ordered Lao’s originating claim and statement of claim to be struck out.
He also ordered her to pay UOB a total of $12,500 in costs.
Lao was represented by lawyer Ho Junjie from Phoenix Law Corporation, while UOB was represented by lawyers Sherman Ho Wei Liang and Leong Kit Weng from Shook Lin & Bok.
She has appealed the High Court decision.
