SC rules in favour of South Korean investor in USD 96,000 copper fraud case

The Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in favour of a South Korean investor, affirming the decision of the Colombo Commercial High Court that he is entitled to recover a sum equivalent to USD 96,000 from a Sri Lankan individual who allegedly defrauded him after promising to export 15 tonnes of copper.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Sri Lankan, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Commercial High Court, which had been delivered after properly evaluating the evidence presented by both parties.

Meanwhile, the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Kumudini Wickremasinghe, Arjuna Obeyesekere, and Sampath B. Abayakoon, ordered the first defendant (the Sri Lankan individual) to pay Rs. 100,000 as costs of the appeal to the South Korean investor.

In this case, plaintiff Kim Hyum Wook was a Korean national who came to Sri Lanka in the year 2010 to establish a business venture and to enter into a transaction for the export of copper to South Korea.

The plaintiff has been informed by one Ranasinghe, whom he came to know while in South Korea, that the first defendant Indralal Rajapaksha is engaged in exporting copper, which has resulted in the plaintiff, together with the said Ranasinghe, meeting the first defendant at his house.

After having shown about three tonnes of copper stored in his house, the plaintiff has been made to believe that the first defendant is capable of supplying copper, which in turn has resulted in the plaintiff entering into an agreement with the first defendant for him to export 15 tonnes of copper to the port of Busan in South Korea.

Accordingly, having signed the agreement for the said purpose, the plaintiff has gotten in touch with his father’s company in South Korea and has transferred USD 96,000 to the personal bank account of the first defendant.

However, the first defendant has failed to supply the agreed 15 tonnes of copper or has failed to return the money, which has resulted in the plaintiff instituting this action.

The position taken up by the plaintiff in his evidence has been that the wife of the first defendant, and part of the money credited to the bank account of the first defendant has been used by his wife for her own use with the connivance of the first defendant.

The position taken up by both the defendants at the trial at the High Court had been that the agreement has been a one entered between a Korean company and a local company where the first defendant was not a party, and the signature in that agreement was not the first defendant’s signature, and that it was a fraudulent document.