However, DPP Ng raised objections, asserting that there was no indication his medical condition couldn’t be managed while he remained in remand. She further noted that additional time was necessary for ongoing investigations.

DPP Ng elaborated that the total value of assets seized from Su Baolin and his spouse exceeded $130 million. Furthermore, she highlighted that pending documents were awaited from nine financial institutions and that a forensic extraction and review of 10 devices were currently underway.

After considering the arguments, District Judge Terence Tay concurred with the prosecution’s stance and denied Su’s application for bail.

Su Haijin appeared on screen in court from hospital

Su Haijin, brother of Su Baolin, made a virtual court appearance from the hospital, his limbs encased in casts.

He reportedly leapt from a second-floor balcony and was later discovered concealed in a drain by the police last Tuesday.

The former director of No Signboard Holdings, a restaurant operator, is also charged with resisting arrest. He purportedly refused to open his room door at 16 Ewart Park in the early hours of 15 August.

Suffering fractures to his hands and legs from the fall, he remained conscious as he was transported to the hospital.

During a recent court session, the prosecutor revealed the seizure of 18 properties and cars worth over S$160 million under the names of Su and his wife. The origin of these funds requires further investigation.

Documentation is pending from six financial institutions, and forensic extraction and review are underway for 14 seized devices.

Upon the request of Su Haijin’s lawyer, Judge Tay approved a 15-minute hospital visit to discuss the necessity of surgery.

Su’s lawyer conveyed that his client had suffered fractures in his heels, femur, and wrists.

During the court appearance, Su Haijin inquired about arranging for a surgeon to perform an operation on him. In response, Judge Tay indicated that this decision would be made in collaboration with his legal representation and the hospital.

Furthermore, the judge permitted Su Haijin to virtually connect with his family during the court proceedings via his lawyer’s laptop camera, however, direct communication was not allowed.

Despite his condition with his hand in a cast, Su Haijin managed to wave to his family.

Chen Qingyuan’s request for a phone call with his wife was denied

According to Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Edwin Soh, another suspect, Chen Qingyuan, had three luxury cars seized. Additionally, one property received a prohibition of disposal order, effectively preventing its sale.

DPP Soh explained that efforts were underway to trace the origin of funds for these assets, collectively valued at approximately $10 million. The police were also awaiting the submission of bank documents.

Chen’s request for a phone call with his wife was denied.

DPP Soh raised the possibility of such communication involving discussions about asset dissipation, with potential involvement of external parties through Chen’s wife.

Su Wenqiang offers cooperation with authorities in exchange for expediated court hearing

Su Wenqiang (Source: Lianhe Zaobao)

According to DPP Edwin Soh, defendant Su Wenqiang’s two luxury cars, valued at S$600,000, were seized under his wife’s name.

DPP Soh explained that the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) needed to establish the origin of funds for these vehicles. As part of this process, they were awaiting statements from two financial institutions associated with his wife.

Furthermore, five mobile phones and two laptops had been confiscated and were currently undergoing examination.

In his pursuit for an earlier court hearing, Su Wenqiang expressed willingness to cooperate with the authorities.

However, Judge Tay declined the request, citing that the prosecution was still in the process of gathering evidence.

Assets affiliated to Lin Baoying totalling S$72 million

Lin Baoying, the sole female among the ten individuals facing charges, had her name attached to two seized cars and five properties that received a prohibition of disposal order.

DPP Soh highlighted the considerable value of the assets taken from her, totalling a staggering S$72 million.

The investigation aimed to discern the origins of funds tied to these assets, necessitating the collection of bank documents from five financial institutions related to her spouse’s accounts.

Lin and her lover, Zhang Ruijin, both Chinese nationals, have each been charged with one count of forgery. They were apprehended at a bungalow located in Pearl Island at Sentosa Cove.

Zhang possessed a foreign passport, seemingly issued by Saint Kitts and Nevis, a Caribbean island nation. Meanwhile, Lin was allegedly found with foreign passports believed to be issued by Dominica and Turkey.

Police reports indicated the confiscation of cash exceeding S$7.6 million, accompanied by prohibition of disposal orders for nine properties and five vehicles with an estimated combined value surpassing S$106 million.

During the charging process, Zhang referred to Lin and told the court: “You can separate her crimes from me, we are just lovers… You can bail me out, but remand her.”

Seized properties exceeding S$49 million in Wang Dehai’s case

In the case involving Wang Dehai, properties with a combined value surpassing S$49 million have been seized.

DPP Ng informed the court about the ongoing review of 11 confiscated devices.

Wang faced a single charge of money laundering and was apprehended at his condominium located on Paterson Hill, close to Orchard Road.

During the proceedings on Wednesday, Wang adamantly refuted the charges brought against him.

He declared before the court, “I’m being illegally detained. I have been in Singapore for five years and I have not done anything unlawful.”

District Judge Tay indicated that Wang could present his defense at a later stage.

Court rejects bail requests, emphasizes continued remand for investigation purposes

The remaining accused individuals, namely Zhang Ruijin, Su Jianfen, Vang Shuiming, and Wang Baosen, have also been subjected to an additional eight-day remand to facilitate ongoing investigations.

The cases of these individuals have been extended until 30 August for the next court hearing.

While one of the defense attorneys sought bail for their client and a 15-minute consultation, another lawyer requested permission for their client’s wife to visit.

Nevertheless, the court dismissed these appeals and sided with the prosecution’s assertion that the complexity and depth of the case necessitated continued remand for the purpose of thorough investigations.