Bankers Trust Orders in Singapore: Tracing Funds Through Financial Institutions

When money disappears from a company’s account through fraud, a rogue director’s unauthorised transfer, or an employee’s diversion of customer receipts, the first and hardest problem a director faces is not proving the wrongdoing. It is finding out where the money went. Singapore’s High Court has a specific tool for exactly this problem: the Bankers Trust order, a disclosure order compelling a bank, an innocent non-party to the fraud, to hand over account records so that the victim can trace the funds. This article explains what a Bankers Trust order is, how the Singapore General Division of the High Court has applied it, how it interacts with Singapore’s statutory banking secrecy regime, and what a business owner needs to do to obtain one.

What Is a Bankers Trust Order

A Bankers Trust order takes its name from the English Court of Appeal decision in Bankers Trust Co v Shapira and others [1980] 1 WLR 1274. In that case, Bankers Trust had paid out on two forged cheques totalling one million US dollars. The Court of Appeal held that where a plaintiff has been defrauded, equity gives them a right to follow the money, and if that right is to be worth anything, the plaintiff must be given access to the bank’s books and records because that is the only way of tracing the money or discovering what has happened to it. Lord Denning MR described the plaintiff as entitled to “lift the latch of the banker’s door”, and held that a customer who has prima facie been guilty of fraud cannot rely on banking confidentiality to bolt that door shut.

A Bankers Trust order is therefore a third-party disclosure order aimed squarely at tracing and preserving a specific asset or fund. It is granted against a bank (or, increasingly, a financial institution of some other kind) that has had no part in the wrongdoing itself, but that holds the records needed to follow money from the fraudster’s account into the accounts of third parties, mixed funds, or onward transfers.

Recognition and Application in Singapore

Singapore courts have expressly recognised and applied the Bankers Trust jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Goh Seng Heng v Liberty Sky Investments Ltd and another [2017] SGCA 59; [2017] 2 SLR 1113 is the leading local authority. It drew a clear line between a Bankers Trust order and a Norwich Pharmacal order (discussed below), confirming that the Bankers Trust jurisdiction is an equitable remedy rooted in a plaintiff’s proprietary claim to specific funds, not a general discovery tool. More recently, in Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd v Arulappan Tony (DBS Bank Ltd, non-party) [2024] SGHC 227, the General Division of the High Court confirmed that Order 11 Rule 11 of the Rules of Court 2021, which allows the court to order production of documents “to enable a party to trace the party’s property”, is understood as the rule that now encapsulates the Bankers Trust jurisdiction, replacing the old Order 24 Rule 6(5) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed).

Bankers Trust Orders, Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Mareva Injunctions: Why the Distinction Matters

Directors researching their options after discovering a fraud often conflate three different remedies. They are related but serve distinct purposes, and the Singapore courts apply different tests to each:

• A Norwich Pharmacal order compels an innocent third party who is mixed up in wrongdoing to disclose the identity of the wrongdoer, or information needed to bring a claim against them. Its focus is identification. The Singapore test, drawn from Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd [2014] 2 SLR 208, asks whether the third party was involved in the wrongdoing, whether there is a reasonable prima facie case of wrongdoing, and whether disclosure is necessary and just.
• A Bankers Trust order compels a bank or financial institution to disclose account records so a claimant can trace specific funds to which they assert a proprietary claim. Its focus is tracing money, not identifying a person. The Court of Appeal in Goh Seng Heng held that an applicant must show good grounds for believing the funds are, or represent, the applicant’s own property (typically because the customer obtained them by fraud), and that there is a real prospect the order will lead to the location or preservation of those funds.
• A Mareva injunction (also called a freezing order or freezing injunction) does not compel disclosure at all. It restrains a defendant from dealing with, disposing of, or dissipating assets, whether or not their location is yet known. It is a restraint on conduct, not a route to information. Our related guides on worldwide Mareva injunctions in Singapore and how to apply for a Mareva injunction in the Singapore High Court cover that separate mechanism in detail.

In practice, the three remedies are frequently sought together or in sequence: a Mareva injunction freezes what is known, a Bankers Trust order uncovers what is not yet known, and a Norwich Pharmacal order names the person behind an anonymous or nominee structure. Where the underlying dispute concerns who beneficially owns shares rather than cash sitting in a bank account, the mechanics are different again; see our companion article on beneficial ownership of shares in Singapore: tracing and recovery.

The Legal Test Applied by the Singapore Courts

Drawing on Bankers Trust itself, Goh Seng Heng, and the High Court’s earlier decision in Success Elegant Trading Ltd v La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd and others and another appeal [2016] 4 SLR 1392, an applicant for a Bankers Trust order in Singapore must generally satisfy the court of the following.

1. A Proprietary Claim to the Traced Funds

The applicant must be asserting a proprietary claim, meaning a claim that the funds in the account belong to the applicant in equity (for example, because they were obtained from the applicant by fraud, breach of trust, or dishonest assistance) rather than a purely personal claim for a debt or damages. The Court of Appeal in Goh Seng Heng held that mere personal claims sounding in damages, such as claims for conversion or unjust enrichment that do not assert an equitable proprietary interest in the specific funds, will not suffice, even where the underlying facts involve an interference with property.

2. A Prima Facie Case of Wrongdoing

There must be at least a reasonable prima facie case that the funds were obtained from the applicant by fraud or other wrongdoing. The High Court in Success Elegant Trading left open whether a merely reasonable prima facie case suffices or whether a stronger, more compelling standard of evidence is required in every case; the Court of Appeal in Goh Seng Heng likewise did not need to resolve the point on its facts, but signalled scepticism that a sharp doctrinal line could sensibly be drawn between differing “degrees” of a prima facie case.

3. A Real Prospect That Disclosure Will Assist Tracing

The applicant must show a real prospect that the information or documents sought will lead to the location or preservation of the traced assets, and the order should, so far as possible, be narrowly targeted at uncovering the particular funds in issue rather than amounting to a general fishing expedition into a customer’s finances.

4. Necessary, Just and Convenient, With Clean Hands

Because the Bankers Trust jurisdiction is equitable in nature, the court retains a residual discretion to refuse an order where it would not be just to grant it. This is not a theoretical safeguard. In Goh Seng Heng, the Court of Appeal set aside a disclosure order that the High Court judge below had granted, both because it found the applicant had not made out even a reasonable prima facie case of fraud on the facts, and separately because the applicant had applied for the order against the bank without notifying the account holder, despite applying for a Mareva injunction against the same person on the very same day. The Court of Appeal held this meant the applicant had not come to court with clean hands, and that alone would have justified refusing the order. Directors and their advisers should treat this as a cautionary tale: procedural fairness to the account holder, where notice can practically be given, matters as much as the strength of the underlying fraud allegation.

Banking Secrecy Under the Banking Act 1970 and How a Bankers Trust Order Fits Around It

Unlike England, where banking confidentiality rests purely on the common law duty recognised in cases such as Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England, Singapore’s banking secrecy regime is set out in statute. Section 47(1) of the Banking Act 1970 prohibits a bank in Singapore from disclosing customer information to any other person, except as expressly provided in the Act. Section 47(2), read with the Third Schedule to the Act, sets out an exhaustive list of the circumstances in which disclosure is nonetheless permitted, and the Singapore courts have held that this list is exhaustive rather than illustrative.

One of those permitted circumstances, at paragraph 7 of the Third Schedule, is disclosure that is necessary for compliance with an order of the Supreme Court made under the powers conferred by Part 4 of the Evidence Act 1893, which deals with “bankers’ books”. The High Court in Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd v Arulappan Tony referred to this as the “Bankers’ Books Exception”, following the earlier High Court decision in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2023] 5 SLR 656. In practice, this means that a court order compelling a bank to disclose customer records, whether framed as an inspection order under section 175(1) of the Evidence Act or as a Bankers Trust style order made to trace property, is one of the recognised routes through which Singapore’s statutory secrecy regime can be lawfully overridden, provided the applicant satisfies the relevant test and obtains a court order that falls within the Third Schedule exception.

This point deserves care, because it is more restrictive than the position in England. In Bankers Trust itself, the English Court of Appeal held that its disclosure jurisdiction operated outside and beyond the scope of the English Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, precisely because English banking secrecy is a matter of common law rather than statute. The High Court in Alliance Divine Impex observed that this reasoning does not transplant cleanly into Singapore: because the Third Schedule is treated as exhaustive, an applicant here is generally best placed relying on the statutory route through the Evidence Act’s “bankers’ books” provisions, rather than assuming a free-standing equitable jurisdiction can simply bypass the Banking Act. For most business owners, the practical effect is the same: a properly obtained High Court order will unlock the bank’s records, but how that order is framed is a matter for careful drafting by counsel, not a formality.

Tracing Funds Through Overseas Cryptocurrency Exchanges

The Service-Out Gateway Under the Rules of Court 2021

Misappropriated funds increasingly pass through overseas cryptocurrency exchanges rather than, or in addition to, conventional bank accounts. A practical obstacle then arises: the exchange holding the relevant records is typically incorporated outside Singapore, so the applicant must first obtain the court’s approval to serve the disclosure application on the exchange out of Singapore. Order 8 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2021, which came into force on 1 April 2022, replaced the old rigid Order 11 “gateways” with a more flexible test: the applicant must show a good arguable case that there is sufficient nexus to Singapore, that Singapore is the appropriate forum, and that there is a serious question to be tried on the merits, with the former gateways retained as a non-exhaustive list of relevant connecting factors.

The General Division of the High Court has already grappled with how this framework applies to crypto assets. In Cheong Jun Yoong v Three Arrows Capital Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 21, the court confirmed that cryptoassets are property capable of a proprietary claim under Singapore law, consistent with CLM v CLN [2022] 5 SLR 273 and ByBit Fintech Ltd v Ho Kai Xin and others [2023] 5 SLR 1748. On where a cryptoasset is legally located for the “property situated in Singapore” gateway, the court held that because a cryptoasset has no physical presence, it manifests itself through control, and preferred the residence of the person controlling the relevant private key over that person’s domicile. This decision, together with Alliance Divine Impex confirming that Order 11 Rule 11 encapsulates the Bankers Trust jurisdiction, gives a reasoned basis for thinking a Singapore court would be prepared, in an appropriate case, to grant service out of jurisdiction against an overseas exchange in support of a Bankers Trust style application.

A Note on the English Authority, and What Remains Unverified for Singapore

It is worth being precise here, since commentary sometimes blurs jurisdictions. The best-known reported decision granting a Bankers Trust style order specifically against overseas cryptocurrency exchanges is an English High Court decision, LMN v Bitflyer Holdings Inc and others, handed down by Mr Justice Butcher in November 2022 and reported as the first such order made using England’s own new gateway for service out of the jurisdiction. At the time of writing, we have not been able to verify a reported Singapore judgment granting a Bankers Trust order, with service out of jurisdiction, against an overseas exchange specifically. Readers should treat the English position as a persuasive indication of how a Singapore court, applying the analogous test under Order 8 and Order 11 Rule 11, might approach such an application, not as settled Singapore law; ask counsel to run a current search of the Singapore Law Reports before filing, since this area moves quickly.

Step-by-Step: Applying for a Bankers Trust Order in the Singapore High Court

1. Gather the evidentiary trail. Before filing, assemble the internal audit trail, invoices, transfer instructions, and any admissions or inconsistencies establishing a prima facie case that specific funds were misappropriated and can be traced to an identifiable account.
2. Decide on the appropriate procedural vehicle. Depending on the facts, the application may be framed as an originating application under Order 11 Rule 11 of the Rules of Court 2021 (production of documents to trace property, against a non-party), as an application under section 175(1) of the Evidence Act 1893 for inspection of a banker’s book, or as both in the alternative, as occurred in Alliance Divine Impex. This is a decision for your lawyers, since the two routes carry subtly different requirements.
3. Consider whether a Mareva injunction is needed in parallel. If there is a risk that identified assets will be dissipated once the target becomes aware of the investigation, an application for a Mareva injunction should generally be pursued alongside, or immediately before, the Bankers Trust application.
4. Prepare the supporting affidavit. The affidavit must set out the nature of the underlying claim, the basis for asserting a proprietary interest in the traced funds, the prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, the necessity for inspection and copies (showing the entries sought would be admissible in the substantive proceedings), and the defined period and scope of the documents sought. Overly broad or open-ended requests invite refusal as a fishing expedition.
5. Decide on notice to the account holder. Where the account holder’s identity and whereabouts are known, and there is no genuine urgency, consider whether they should be notified or joined, in light of the Court of Appeal’s clean hands ruling in Goh Seng Heng. Where urgency is genuine, for example a real risk that notice will trigger immediate dissipation, an application without notice may be justified, but the reasons for proceeding this way should be squarely addressed in the affidavit.
6. File the originating application with the General Division of the High Court. Court fees are prescribed under the Fourth Schedule to the Rules of Court 2021; consult the Supreme Court Registry’s forms and fees resources, and your solicitors, to confirm the exact filing fee applicable at the date of filing.
7. Address service, including service out of jurisdiction if needed. If the target bank or exchange is overseas, apply concurrently for the court’s approval to serve out of Singapore under Order 8 Rule 1, addressing the nexus, forum conveniens, and merits limbs.
8. Attend the hearing. Bankers Trust applications are frequently heard on the papers or at a short hearing, particularly where the bank does not oppose the substance of the order but wishes to record its position, as DBS did in Alliance Divine Impex.
9. Comply with any costs undertaking. Banks are usually compensated for the cost of complying with a disclosure order, often on an indemnity basis, as a condition of the order; be prepared for this to be built into the order granted.
10. Review the disclosed records and take the next step. Once records are obtained, the applicant, with counsel, must decide whether to pursue further Bankers Trust applications against downstream institutions, apply for a Mareva injunction over newly located assets, or commence substantive proceedings for recovery.

Indicative Costs (SGD)

These figures are indicative only, intended to help a business owner budget for initial discussions with counsel. Actual costs vary significantly with urgency, the number of institutions targeted, whether service out of jurisdiction is required, and whether the application is contested.

Realistic Timelines

An uncontested Bankers Trust application, supported by clear documentary evidence and a cooperative bank, can realistically be prepared and heard within four to eight weeks of instructing counsel, particularly where the bank indicates it will abide by the court’s decision rather than actively opposing. A contested application, or one requiring service out of jurisdiction on an overseas exchange, will typically take several months from filing to a substantive hearing, given the time needed for cross-border service and any objections the account holder or exchange may raise. Where urgency can genuinely be demonstrated, for example an active and imminent risk of dissipation, applications without notice can be brought to court considerably faster, sometimes within days, but the account holder can subsequently apply to set aside or vary the order, as happened in Goh Seng Heng.

Practical Tips for Directors and Business Owners

• Move quickly but do not skip the evidence-gathering step. A rushed application built on thin evidence risks refusal for failing to establish even a reasonable prima facie case, wasting the time and fees that a properly prepared application would have used well.
• Distinguish your proprietary claim from a personal claim early. If your company’s loss is best characterised as a straightforward debt or breach of contract rather than an assertion that specific funds in a specific account belong to you in equity, a Bankers Trust order may not be the right tool, and you may need to consider a Norwich Pharmacal order or ordinary pre-action discovery instead.
• Think about notice to the account holder from the outset. Do not assume a without-notice application is always the safer or faster route; the Court of Appeal has shown it will scrutinise, and can penalise, an applicant who bypasses notice without good reason.
• Budget for a coordinated strategy, not a single order. Tracing funds often requires a sequence of orders against successive banks or exchanges as the trail unfolds, plus a Mareva injunction once assets are located, plus corporate records searches where corporate vehicles received the funds.
• Preserve your own internal records immediately. Bank statements, internal approval trails, and correspondence with the suspected wrongdoer are often needed to establish the prima facie case; do not wait for litigation to begin before securing these internally.
• Engage a law firm experienced in fraud and asset tracing early. The interplay between the Banking Act 1970, the Evidence Act’s bankers’ books provisions, and the Rules of Court 2021 is technical, and the framing of the application materially affects its prospects of success; if you need legal advice on the court application process, it is worth speaking to litigation counsel before any account holder is tipped off.

Where Bankers Trust Orders Fit Alongside Other Company Law Remedies

Fund misappropriation cases frequently overlap with other company law issues that our other guides address. Where the wrongdoer is a director, you may also need to consider applying for a court-appointed receiver to preserve the company’s assets pending resolution of the dispute. Where the company itself is being wound up as a result of the fraud, secured creditors’ priorities and enforcement rights are addressed in our guide to debenture holder rights in Singapore insolvency proceedings, and the liquidator’s own powers to investigate what happened are covered in our article on public examination of directors in Singapore winding up proceedings. Getting the sequencing right between these remedies, and a Bankers Trust order, is usually the difference between recovering something and recovering nothing.

How Raffles Corporate Services Can Help

Discovering that funds have gone missing from your company is stressful, and the procedural choices made in the first few days, whether to freeze assets, whether to notify the suspected wrongdoer, which bank or exchange to target first, often determine whether the money is ever recovered. While Raffles Corporate Services does not conduct litigation, our corporate secretarial and compliance team regularly supports directors and shareholders navigating fraud discovery, ACRA filings connected to disputes, and coordination with the litigation lawyers who bring these applications to the Singapore High Court.

To speak with the team at Raffles Corporate Services, you can email [email protected] or call, SMS, or WhatsApp +65 8501 7133. We are happy to assist with any queries.

The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services