Connect with us

Court Cases

Court of Three Judges acquits PAP MP Christopher de Souza of misconduct charges

On Monday (31 Jul), the Court of Three Judges acquitted PAP MP Christopher de Souza of misconduct charges.

The court ruled that LawSoc couldn’t establish beyond reasonable doubt that Mr de Souza intended to assist his client in suppressing evidence, despite a prior guilty verdict by a disciplinary tribunal.

The Tribunal had concluded that Mr de Souza’s client’s failure to fully and frankly disclose amounted to suppression of evidence, and Mr de Souza, as a party to and facilitator of the suppression, assisted in the act by filing the supporting affidavit.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: On Monday (31 Jul), the Court of Three Judges, which is composed of Justice Belinda Ang, Justice Woo Bih Li, and Justice Kannan Ramesh, cleared People’s Action Party(PAP) Member of Parliament (MP) Christopher James de Souza of any improper professional conduct as a lawyer.

In December 2022, the 47-year-old, who also holds the position of Deputy Speaker of Parliament, had been found guilty by a disciplinary tribunal.

Based on the report by the two-member tribunal, found cause of sufficient gravity for Mr de Souza to face disciplinary sanction before the Court of Three Judges on one charge, but dismissed the other four charges against him raised by Law Society (LawSoc).

The MP for Holland–Bukit Timah GRC, was accused of assisting a client in concealing evidence from the court.

The tribunal’s report found that Mr de Souza had not made full and frank disclosure to the court when he was aware that his client, Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte. Ltd and Amber Laboratories Pte. Ltd (collectively referred to as “Amber”), had breached the conditions of a search order.

These confidential materials were initially obtained through search orders and were intended for use solely in a High Court suit. Instead, the client misused them to file police reports and other complaints against parties they were suing.

Court says LawSoc failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr de Souza had intended to help his client suppress evidence

Despite the initial ruling against him, the Court of Three Judges stated on Monday ruled that LawSoc failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Mr de Souza intended to assist his client in suppressing evidence.

The court, which is the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession, has the power to disbar, suspend, or fine a lawyer who is guilty of professional misconduct.

Represented by Mr Madan Assomull from Assomull & Partners, LawSoc initially sought a four-year suspension order for Mr de Souza.

During the proceedings on Monday, Mr Madan Assomull argued that Mr de Souza was aware of the breach but did not disclose it in the affidavit filed by a company representative to support the application.

He asserted that the affidavit was deliberately vague and that Mr de Souza made a considered decision not to include the relevant reports.

In response, The Court of Three Judges questioned Mr Assomull about the framing of the charge on which Mr de Souza had been found guilty. They also sought clarification on LawSoc’s precise case regarding Mr de Souza’s intention to suppress evidence.

Mr Tan, representing Mr de Souza, was asked about how the affidavit was drafted. He argued that the affidavit did disclose the wrongdoing but admitted that it could have been clearer.

Justice Woo said: “It’s not as crystal clear as you’re making it out to be … otherwise, we don’t have to be here today.”

Mr Assomull argued that internal correspondence at Lee & Lee indicated that Mr de Souza was aware of the breach and the significance of disclosing it.

He claimed that the absence of such disclosure in the affidavit implied an intention to suppress evidence.

Mr Assomull further stated that if a lawyer’s client refused to agree to certain facts or wordings necessary for an affidavit, the lawyer had a paramount duty to discharge themselves from the case in the best interest of the court.

“That is the paramount duty that every lawyer owes to the court,” Mr Assomull reiterated, “First the court – then the client. Not the client, then the court.”

Mr Tan countered Mr Assomull’s argument by pointing out that Mr de Souza had, in fact, discharged himself in July 2019 after realizing that the client had once again used the seized documents despite his advice.

“The immediate steps taken by Mr de Souza in consultation with Mr Tan Tee Jim was to discharge. He could not stand the nonsense of the client in breaching the undertaking,” said Mr Tan.

“That cannot be the conduct of an officer of the court who wanted to suppress evidence.”

The case background: Disciplinary Tribunal hearing initiated following Court of Appeal’s observations

The case came to light following observations made by the Court of Appeal in its judgement on appeals regarding the High Court judge’s decision on the use of documents obtained from the search order.

An Inquiry Committee was convened on 13 January 2021, which later found that Mr de Souza breached his paramount duty to the court and recommended a fine of S$2,000.

The committee, however, did not believe that a formal investigation by a disciplinary tribunal was necessary.

However, the Council of the Law Society applied to the Chief Justice on 5 November 2021 for a disciplinary tribunal to be set up, which resulted in the current tribunal hearing the matter.

After finding that one of the charges against Mr de Souza was made out, the tribunal ordered him to pay costs of S$18,000 to LawSoc, as well as the society’s reasonable disbursements.

Tribunal document reveals exchange between Mr de Souza and client

Amber commenced the High Court Suit (HC suit) on 14 February 2018.

Mr de Souza and Lee & Lee were not the original counsel for Amber – they were represented by Dodwell & Co LLC until 14 December 2018.

On 15 March 2018, Amber applied ex parte for search orders against the Defendants, which was granted on 13 April 2018.

On 31 May 2018, counsel for the parties in the HC Suit provided signed undertakings not to hand over the documents to their respective clients and/or any other three parties.

These undertakings were in addition to the express undertakings given by Amber as a condition for obtaining the Search Orders.

Riddick principle

The search orders granted were subject to an express undertaking by Amber not to use any of the information or documents obtained except for the purposes of the proceedings in the HC Suit, or to inform anyone else of the proceedings in the HC Suit until the trial or further order.

As a matter of law, Amber was also bound by the Riddick principle.

On 18 July 2018, Judicial Commissioner Audrey Lim decided against setting aside the Search Orders, and instead directed that a listing exercise to be carried out whereby Amber’s solicitors were directed to review, itemize and categorize each of the seized documents based on 32 search terms by 8 August 2018, and to provide the Defendants with a list of the seized documents arranged and/or separated by ownership by 22 August 2018.

While reviewing the documents seized pursuant to the Search Orders, Amber formed the view that certain documents were probative of serious criminal offences on the part of the Defendants.

Amber made three reports to MOM and CPIB in 2018, in breach of undertakings in the High Court suit

Amber’s representative, Mr Samuel Sudesh Thaddaeus, made three reports on 31 July 2018, 20 October 2018 and 22 October 2018 to the Ministry of Manpower, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and the Singapore Police Force disclosing ten (10) such documents, in breach of Amber’s undertakings in the High Court suit.

It should be noted that these reports were made after further undertakings on 31 May 2018.

Since the previous solicitors did not give evidence and Samuel Sudesh did not address this in his evidence, and was not cross-examined on this, the tribunal has not considered the breach of the further undertakings of 31 May 2018.

On 5 December 2018, Amber was advised by Mr de Souza and Lee & Lee to file an urgent application for leave, in the civil proceedings, for Amber to preserve and use the documents seized pursuant to the Search Orders for the purposes of making criminal reports.

In a pre-trial conference(PTC) held on 23 January 2019, Mr de Souza requested for an extension to complete the Listing Exercise, without disclosing the breach to the Court.

After the PTC, Mr de Souza requested for an extension of time to complete the Listing Exercise by 5 April 2019 in a letter dated 25 January 2019 to Defendant’s counsels, without mentioning the breach.

The Tribunal report found that Mr de Souza was clearly aware that documents and information had already been used and that his client was determined not to be honest with the Court.

In a response to their client, the Lee & Lee team acknowledged Mr Sudesh’s discomfort with paragraph 24 and rephrased it to convey the same point but in a different tone, as stated in their reply on 22 January 2019:

Paragraph 24 was re-drafted to read as follows:

On 22 January 2019, Mr Sudesh provided “further amendments to the wording” of the supporting affidavit. However, these amendments resulted in significant changes to paragraph 24:

Mr de Souza caught the amendments made by Mr Sudesh and expressed his disapproval in an email dated 22 January 2019.

On the following day, Mr de Souza further questioned the accuracy of Mr Sudesh’s amendments in an email, pointing out that documents had already been disclosed to the various authorities. This made Mr Sudesh’s proposed amendment inaccurate.

After Mr de Souza pointed out the inaccuracy of Mr Sudesh’s amendments, the Lee & Lee team revised the paragraph in question. The final version of the supporting affidavit was sent to Mr Sudesh on 25 January 2019.

According to the disciplinary tribunal’s report, the Lee & Lee team maintained an unyielding position on the disclosure of Amber’s breach of undertakings in the supporting affidavit, as evident from the chronology of amendments.

“Such an unflinching attitude was maintained by Mr de Souza even though he was of the knowledge that the defendants had not yet been contacted by the authorities. At no point in time did the team, including Mr de Souza, waver in their position that the fact of Amber’s previous breach must be disclosed to the court.”

The report said even when Mr Sudesh raised a ruckus, the team acquiesced to the extent of re-wording the paragraph but without losing the essence of its content.

When Mr Sudesh attempted further amendments, Mr de Souza promptly identified them as inappropriate due to their false impression.

The Tribunal concluded that Amber’s failure to fully and frankly disclose amounted to suppression of evidence, and Mr de Souza, as a party to and facilitator of the suppression, assisted in the act by filing the supporting affidavit.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Civil Society

Three women to contest charges over pro-Palestinian procession outside Istana

Three Singaporean women, charged under the Public Order Act for organizing a pro-Palestinian procession on 2 February, will contest their charges at trial, a court heard on 18 September. About 70 people participated in the February event, carrying watermelon-adorned umbrellas as a symbol of Palestinian resistance while delivering letters to then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Three Singaporean women charged in connection with a pro-Palestinian procession to the Istana will contest their charges at trial, a court heard on Wednesday (18 September).

The defendants are Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, 35, an activist with the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC); Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori, 29, a social media influencer; and Mossamad Sobikun Nahar, 25, a community worker.

They were charged in June under the Public Order Act for organizing an unpermitted procession on 2 February.

During the court hearing on Wednesday, the trio, through their lawyer, indicated their intention to contest the charges and claim trial.

Siti Amirah and Mossamad are accused of organizing the procession that occurred between 2pm and 3pm along the perimeter of the Istana, a restricted area.

Kokila is charged with abetting the conspiracy by collaborating with Siti, Mossamad, Alysha Mohamed Rahmat Shah, Anystasha Mohamed Rahmat Shah, and other unnamed individuals to organize the event.

According to a previous police statement, around 70 people gathered outside a mall on Orchard Road at about 2pm on 2 February before marching towards the Istana.

They carried umbrellas painted with watermelon images, symbolizing support for Palestinians amidst the ongoing Israel- Palestinian conflict.

The watermelon, reflecting the colors of the Palestinian flag, has become a symbol of solidarity.

Social media posts indicate that participants of the Letters for Palestine event walked from Plaza Singapura to the Istana to deliver letters addressed to then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The cases have been adjourned to October for pre-trial conferences.

If convicted under the Public Order Act, the women face a potential penalty of up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to S$10,000, or both.

The police have reiterated their call for the public to avoid actions that could disrupt peace, public order, and social harmony in Singapore.

They advised that while strong feelings about the Israel-Hamas conflict are understandable, lawful means of expression, such as participating in organized forums, dialogues, and donation drives, are preferable to illegal protests.

Continue Reading

Court Cases

New Silkroutes Group ex-director jailed for market rigging; Prosecutors label Goh Jin Hian as ‘mastermind’

Teo Thiam Chuan William, former finance director of New Silkroutes Group (NSG), was sentenced to 12 weeks in jail on 16 September for his involvement in a market rigging scheme. The prosecution labeled co-accused Goh Jin Hian, former CEO and son of ex-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, as the “mastermind” behind the conspiracy to inflate NSG’s share price from S$0.285 to S$0.50 in 2018.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Teo Thiam Chuan William, the former finance director at New Silkroutes Group (NSG), has been sentenced to 12 weeks in jail on Monday (16 September) in court for his role in a market rigging scheme.

This sentencing marks the first revelation of case details as Teo is the first among four co-accused to plead guilty.

During sentencing argument, the prosecution has labeled former CEO Goh Jin Hian as the “mastermind” behind the scheme.

Teo, 55, pleaded guilty to six charges under the Securities and Futures Act for abetment by conspiracy over false trading and market rigging transactions.

Goh, the son of former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, is alleged to have led a conspiracy to inflate NSG’s share price from S$0.285 to S$0.50 in 2018.

NSG, an investment holding company listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) since 2002, operates subsidiaries in oil trading, information technology, and healthcare.

As the finance director, Teo was responsible for managing the company’s accounts, overseeing funding, mergers, and acquisitions. He also controlled NSG’s corporate securities trading accounts and was authorized to conduct share buybacks.

The co-accused in the case include Oo Cheong Kwan Kelvyn, 53, who was the executive director and chief operating officer of NSG, and Huang Yiwen, 40, the sole director of the commercial market maker GTC Group.

Originally, NSG focused on oil trading, electronics, and IT product distribution.

In December 2016, the company expanded into healthcare by acquiring clinics and medical supply companies. These acquisitions were primarily financed through the issuance of NSG shares.

However, in 2017, NSG’s efforts to acquire additional companies and raise capital through private placements were hampered by a decline in its share price.

From January to May 2017, NSG’s share price fluctuated between S$0.70 and S$0.90. However, it dropped to approximately S$0.40 to S$0.50 in June and fell further to a low of S$0.285 in November.

On 29 November 2017, NSG applied to halt trading of its shares, which led to a trading suspension a few days later. During the suspension, which lasted until 25 February 2018, NSG entered into several corporate transactions involving potential new share issuances.

On 21 February 2018, NSG proposed a placement of over 11 million new shares at S$0.44 per share to an external investor, Dr Andrew Chua Soon Kian, aiming to raise S$5 million. This placement was completed in March 2018.

Additionally, in February 2018, NSG announced a memorandum of understanding with Mr Shen Yuyun to acquire two medical supply companies in Shanghai, planning to issue new shares at S$0.50 each for the S$65 million acquisition.

The same month, NSG also disclosed a memorandum of understanding with Haitong International Securities, where Haitong would subscribe to a S$5 million convertible bond issued by NSG. The bond, maturing in two years, would offer an annual interest rate of 5 percent.

Prosecution Alleges Complex Scheme to Manipulate NSG Share Prices Using Multiple Accounts

While trading was suspended, Teo and his three co-accused allegedly engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the price of NSG securities, according to the prosecution.

The scheme, as outlined by the prosecution, employed three primary methods: using GTC’s trading account to place and execute orders for NSG securities, utilizing NSG’s share buyback accounts for similar trades, and leveraging Goh Jin Hian’s personal trading account for additional transactions.

As a commercial market maker registered with SGX, GTC was prohibited from manipulating share prices. Market makers are typically required to enhance trading liquidity by providing competitive bid-ask quotes continuously within an agreed-upon spread.

Despite this, Teo, Goh, and Oo are alleged to have hired GTC to artificially boost and maintain NSG’s share price, masquerading as legitimate market-making activities. This manipulation aimed to enhance investor confidence and facilitate the completion of announced corporate transactions, as well as support future share placements.

On 4 February 2018, Goh reportedly instructed Teo to find a market maker to support NSG’s share price. Subsequently, NSG engaged GTC between 21 and 28 February 2018.

Goh, Teo, and Oo allegedly set a target price of S$0.50 for GTC to achieve.

Over the course of six months, starting from late February 2018, the four men are said to have conducted the market-rigging scheme.

Goh and Co-Accused Allegedly Discussed Timing and Pricing for NSG Trades

They communicated via text messages and emails to coordinate their actions, including timing and pricing for NSG securities trades. For instance, Goh allegedly urged Teo to place bids at specific times and requested that GTC be reminded of their target price of S$0.50 in an email.

In a group chat, Goh is said to have suggested delaying GTC’s payment until the share price reached S$0.40 by May.

The trading suspension on NSG shares was lifted after the market closed on 25 Feb 2018. The following morning, Teo and his co-accused allegedly strategized to boost the opening share price of NSG to reach their target.

According to the prosecution, Huang used GTC’s trading account to place buy orders during the pre-market routine before trading officially began at 9 am.

On 26 Feb 2018, NSG shares opened at S$0.390, representing a 36.84 percent increase from the last traded price of S$0.285.

Teo and Huang continued to place orders and execute trades in early March 2018 to further artificially inflate the share price.

The prosecution sought a 12-week jail sentence for Teo, describing the scheme as “sophisticated, well-coordinated, and effective” in manipulating the price of NSG shares to facilitate corporate transactions. They emphasized that Teo played a “critical role” as finance director in the scheme.

The prosecution noted that the scale of the market rigging was significant, causing “great distortion” in the market for NSG securities.

Pre-Trial Conferences for Goh, Huang, and Oo Set for 26 September

On the 31 days covered by Teo’s charges, the trades and orders executed by Teo, Huang, and Goh accounted for 28.78 percent of the total market volume of buy trades.

Additionally, they set the intraday high on 11 trading days and increased the closing price of NSG securities on 22 trading days.

The prosecution argued that the scheme was a “concerted and successful effort” to make NSG shares appear more attractive than they would have under normal market conditions.

It was intended as a “quick and convenient way” to support NSG’s expansion and raise capital through new share issuances. The use of GTC was described as creating “a veneer of legitimacy” for their manipulative trades.

Although Goh was identified as the mastermind, prosecutors highlighted Teo’s important role as the main liaison between NSG and Huang.

Teo is set to begin his jail term on Wednesday (18 Sept).

The cases for Goh, Huang, and Oo are currently at the pre-trial conference stage, with the next session scheduled for 26 September. Court records indicate that Huang intends to plead guilty.

Continue Reading

Trending