Background
Ser Kang Wei and Lucent Trading Ltd sued Carlos Luis Salas Porras, Mark Yong Khong Yoong, and Emily Hwang Mei Chen for alleged misrepresentation, conspiracy, joint tortfeasorship and unjust enrichment arising from cryptocurrency investments. In July 2025, the High Court granted a worldwide Mareva injunction freezing the defendants’ assets up to US$38.6 million and requiring asset disclosure.
Emily’s earlier attempt, with Mark, to set aside the injunction had failed. In these applications, Emily sought to set aside both the injunction and a later order permitting its enforcement in Mauritius. She alleged that the claimants had failed to make full and frank disclosure about a purported transfer of a US$8.3 million investment to Absolute Digital Technology, cryptocurrency transfers made to Coinful Capital rather than Master Dragon, and the value and ownership of shares in a Mauritian company, ACF Organisation Ltd.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court dismissed both applications. It found that the claimants had not breached their duty of full and frank disclosure concerning the purported transfer to Absolute Digital Technology: they were unaware of it when seeking the injunction, and the authenticity of the transfer document was a matter for trial. The alleged discrepancy over whether certain cryptocurrency transfers went to Coinful Capital or Master Dragon likewise did not establish deliberate or material non-disclosure.
Even if there had been non-disclosure about the wallet addresses, the court would still have granted the injunction. Its earlier finding of a good arguable case against Emily and Mark rested on wider evidence of their alleged involvement in the schemes, business relationships, corporate dealings, and asset concealment. The court also upheld enforcement in Mauritius because Emily was the ultimate beneficial owner of the ACF shares through intermediary companies; the precise realisable value of those shares was not determinative. The two-hour notice requirement for without-notice injunction applications did not apply to an application to enforce an existing injunction.
Key Takeaways
- Material non-disclosure does not automatically require a Mareva injunction to be set aside.
- A set-aside application cannot be used as a back-door appeal or to relitigate findings supporting an existing injunction.
- A Mareva order may reach assets indirectly and beneficially owned by a defendant, including through corporate structures.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that courts assess alleged non-disclosure in context, including what the applicant knew or reasonably should have investigated at the time of the without-notice hearing. Factual disputes that require trial will not ordinarily undo interim asset-preservation relief.
It also illustrates the practical cross-border reach of a worldwide Mareva injunction: permission to enforce abroad may be justified by evidence of indirectly held assets, even where their ultimate value or recoverability remains uncertain.