[2004] SGHC 115

“all the conspirators to come together and execute their respective roles in the scheme at the same time (see OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others [2004] SGHC 115), it is necessary to show that they came together to take some form of concerted action, whether lawful o”

“gests that he and Ng were involved in a conspiracy to defraud PW1 in relation to the Autostyle investment. In OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others [2004] SGHC 115 (“OCM Opportunities”), Belinda Ang Saw Ean J noted at [47] that “in conspiracy cases of this type, it wo”

“ed to do so long as they were sufficiently aware of the surrounding circumstances and shared the same object: OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others [2004] SGHC 115 at [49]. The question was how far each of the parties to the conspiracy was aware of the plan (if any) a”

“tive as the others: see Wing Hak Man and another v Bio-Treat Technology Ltd and others [2009] 1 SLR(R) 446 at [7], citing OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP v Burhan Uray alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others [2004] SGHC 115 at [49].”

“suit struck out”: see Chandra Winata Lie v Citibank NA [2015] 1 SLR 875 at [34]. Similarly, the High Court in OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others [2004] SGHC 115 at [22], in the context of a claim in conspiracy, agreed that “a cause of action pleaded without support”