← All Authorities
Singapore vicarious liabilityquincecare dutynature of fiduciary relationship

Ivanishvili Bidzina v Credit Suisse AG

[2023] SGHC(I) 11
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore International Commercial Court
Year2023
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Bank held vicariously liable for massive fraud perpetrated by its relationship manager against a private banking client through trust structures.

Key Principle

SICC; massive fraud by relationship manager; bank vicariously liable; trust structures; Patisserie Valerie principles

Area of Law

banking

Related Cases

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall (2019) 272 CLR 1

A bank owes a duty of care to guarantors to take reasonable steps to ensure they understand the nature and effect of the guarantee under the Code of Banking Practice.

AUSTRAC v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2018] FCA 930

CBA liable for systemic AML/CTF Act contraventions including failure to report suspicious matters and threshold transactions via intelligent deposit machines, resulting in $700 million civil penalty.

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Full Federal Court) (2015) 236 FCR 199

Full Federal Court held that bank late payment fees were not penalties or unconscionable under consumer protection law as they bore a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial interest.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Ivanishvili Bidzina v Credit Suisse AG and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Ivanishvili Bidzina v Credit S...