- The High Court of Singapore dismissed a $12 million lawsuit
- Investor accused Snap Innovations and Torque of fraud and misrepresentation concerning investments and asset protection.
The High Court of Singapore has dismissed a $9 million (S$12 million) lawsuit filed by an investor Georgios Baizanis against Snap Innovations and the founder of the now-defunct cryptocurrency platform Torque. Baizanis, a Greek investor, had accused the entities of fraud and misrepresentation related to investments in the startup and the crypto platform. The court’s decision, announced on August 2, found insufficient evidence to support Baizanis’s claims.
In its judgment, the court concluded that Baizanis failed to authenticate a service agreement that allegedly bound Snap Innovations to replace stolen digital assets. The agreement, purportedly signed on May 24, 2019, was said to guarantee compensation for stolen assets within five business days and was supposedly endorsed by Ong and Snap director Wu Zongyi (also known as Zee). The dismissal came after a detailed examination of evidence and testimonies, which ultimately did not support the investor’s claims.
The court also determined that Ong, who was the managing director at Snap Innovations, did not possess the authority to bind the company to such an agreement. The dismissal came after a detailed examination of evidence and testimonies, which ultimately did not support the investor’s claims.
2021 Lawsuit and Defense
In 2021, investor Georgios Baizanis filed a lawsuit against Snap Innovations, alleging that the company had breached a corporate guarantee and failed to oversee its associate, Zee. Baizanis also targeted Mr. Ong, Snap’s managing director, for allegedly breaching his warranty of authority. Represented by David Ong and Matthew Chua from David Ong & Co, Baizanis pursued these claims vigorously.
Snap Innovations, defended by Christopher de Souza, Basil Lee, and Darius Tan of Lee & Lee, denied all allegations. The company’s defense, submitted to the High Court in 2021, argued that it had no trading activities in Vietnam through Snap Vietnam. Additionally, Snap claimed that Mr. Ong was not a registered director but rather an independent contractor tasked with marketing, a role for which he was listed as a director on the company’s website. The court’s decision has been seen as a victory for companies in these industries, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
