Connect with us

Current Affairs

Lawyer Lim Tean found guilty of practising without valid certificate

[#item_excerpt]

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Lawyer Lim Tean was found guilty on Friday (26 July) of practising as a lawyer for about two months without a valid certificate.

The 59-year-old faced three charges under the Legal Profession Act for acting as an advocate and solicitor without authorisation between 1 April 2021 and 9 June 2021.

Senior District Judge Ong Hian Sun convicted Lim on all charges after declining the defence’s request to adjourn the verdict, pending a criminal motion at the High Court on this coming Monday, heard by Justice Hoo Sheau Peng.

According to the report by Channel News Asia, Lim’s lawyer, Patrick Fernandez, argued that the High Court’s decision would impact the current verdict, as the motion seeks to retrieve correspondence between the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) about other lawyers in similar situations.

“Today is Friday, your honour, the matter is going to be heard on Monday – it’s only a matter of a couple of days,” argued Mr Fernandez. He emphasised that the correspondence was relevant, pointing out that a trial witness testified about other lawyers in similar situations, which led Lim to question why he was singled out.

However, Judge Ong rejected the argument.

Prosecution’s Case

Deputy Public Prosecutors Edwin Soh and Bryan Wong argued that Lim “clearly breached” the Legal Profession Act, which mandates that practising certificates are valid from the date of issue to the end of the practice year.

Lim’s practising certificate was issued only on 10 June 2021.

In the two months prior, Lim carried on or defended court proceedings on 32 occasions and prepared related documents as many times, said the prosecution.

“Instead of pleading guilty as a sign of remorse, the accused claimed trial. His conduct during the trial was demonstrative of his guilt,” said the prosecution.

They added that Lim had no valid defence and had repeatedly attempted to delay proceedings with “irrelevant constitutional arguments” based on being “singled out for prosecution.”

They pointed out that the trial was initially fixed to begin on 29 August 2023 but was adjourned after Lim sought to change his lawyer.

On 11 December 2023, Lim applied for another adjournment due to gastroenteritis. The trial only began on 27 December 2023.

During the trial, Lim’s lawyers requested correspondence between the Registrar of the Supreme Court and AGC, but the prosecution declined.

A week before the hearing in May 2024, Lim filed a criminal motion for the High Court to direct the prosecution to disclose the correspondence.

However, a day before the trial, Lim filed an application for an adjournment pending the criminal motion.

Defence’s Case

The defence argued that Lim’s practising certificate, dated 10 June 2021, authorised him to act as an advocate and solicitor between 1 April 2021 and 9 June 2021. They cited the practice year, which runs from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, as covering the period of Lim’s alleged unauthorised practice.

The defence also produced a transcript of a former Law Society assistant director’s testimony, who stated there was no specific phrasing in the certificate indicating it was effective from 10 June 2021.

Lim had informed the Law Society about his lack of a practising certificate and was advised he could go to court but needed to inform the judge, which he claimed he did.

Criminal Motion to Retrieve Correspondence 

A criminal was filed after the prosecution refused to disclose the correspondence between the Supreme Court registrar and AGC where it was claimed that a registrar of the Supreme Court notified AGC when the registrar noticed that Mr Lim was attending court without a valid practising certificate, instead of having a first information report lodged with the CAD (Commercial Affairs Department) leading to the charges against Lim.

In a previous hearing, Lim, through his legal representative, Mr Fernandez, expressed disbelief that the registrar informed AGC about his court appearances without a valid practising certificate.

Lim also believed that he was not the only one attending court without the necessary certification.

“Mr Lim is asking to see the correspondence to establish the truth of the complaint and to see whether other solicitors were in the list. If there were, why is he being singled out for prosecution?”

Mr Fernandez argued that without access to the correspondence between the Supreme Court registrar and AGC, Lim’s defence will be “crippled”.

“He is entitled to know the truth about the matter and whether he was the only one who allegedly came to court without a valid practising certificate,” Mr Fernandez said.

In response, DPP Soh stated that the prosecution would not disclose the correspondence as it contained official communications between agencies, revealing internal government procedures.

He emphasized that Lim had already been charged with strict liability offences based on attending court without a valid practising certificate, clarifying that this wasn’t an inquiry into other cases.

Judge’s Ruling

Judge Ong ruled that there was “no ambiguity in reading and interpreting” the relevant section of the Legal Profession Act. He clarified that the practising certificate issued to Lim clearly stated it only came into force on 10 June 2021. The judge found that Lim had failed to demonstrate any reasonable basis for his purported misinterpretation of the law.

Judge Ong further stated that the evidence presented by the prosecution conclusively established Lim’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He noted that Lim’s actions, including his attempts to delay proceedings and his failure to provide a valid defence, reinforced the verdict.

Case Adjourned for Sentencing and Other Charges

The case was adjourned to 5 November for arguments on sentencing.

For practising as a lawyer without a valid practising certificate under the Legal Profession Act, Lim could face up to six months in jail, a fine of up to S$25,000 (US$18,619), or both.

Lim, who is also the leader of Peoples Voice, a political party in Singapore, faces four other charges that have been dismissed for the time being.

These charges include criminal breach of trust as an attorney and unlawful stalking. He has indicated through his lawyer that he intends to contest these charges.

The post Lawyer Lim Tean found guilty of practising without valid certificate appeared first on Gutzy Asia.

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

Current Affairs

Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun

A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.

The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.

The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.

Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.

The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.

The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.

If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.

In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.

They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.

The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.

The investigation is ongoing.

Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.

Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.

The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.

Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.

However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.

The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents

Published

on

By

The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) has been fined S$20,000 by the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) for breaches under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).

According to a judgement which was published on 28 August, the fine was imposed due to the consumer watchdog’s failure to implement reasonable security measures to protect the personal data in its possession and to establish necessary policies and practices required under the PDPA.

The breaches resulted in two significant incidents, one in October 2022 and another in June 2023, where the personal data of up to 34,760 individuals was potentially compromised.

Both incidents were handled under the Expedited Decision Procedure (EDP) at the request of CASE, with the organization admitting to all the facts and contraventions of the PDPA, leading to a faster resolution of the case.

The First Incident: Phishing Attack in October 2022

The first incident occurred in October 2022 when a threat actor accessed CASE’s email accounts and sent phishing emails from its official email addresses.

On 8 October 2022, some consumers received unsolicited emails from “[email protected],” which falsely claimed that their complaints had been escalated to the “collections and compensation department” and that they were eligible for compensation.

The recipients were asked to provide their banking details by clicking on a chat icon.

The following day, similar phishing emails were sent from “[email protected],” an account used for complaints that had progressed to mediation. CASE later discovered that the phishing emails had affected up to 22,542 email addresses.

Further investigations revealed that the phishing emails likely resulted from the threat actor obtaining login credentials from a CASE employee via a phishing attack.

The compromised accounts led to the sending of 5,205 phishing emails to 4,945 recipients. Although CASE acted swiftly to suspend the affected accounts and reset all administrator passwords, three consumers reported that they had clicked on the phishing links and collectively lost S$217,900. CASE subsequently lodged a police report.

The Second Incident: Data Breach During Vendor Migration

While PDPC was investigating the first incident, a second breach came to light in June 2023. On 22 June 2023, PDPC received a complaint about a phishing email that replicated a consumer’s complaint previously submitted to CASE.

This led to the discovery that the personal data of 12,218 individuals, including names, email addresses, contact numbers, and complaint details, had been exposed. The PDPC concluded that the breach likely occurred during a data migration exercise conducted by CASE between December 2019 and January 2020 when CASE switched vendors.

Investigations revealed that CASE’s contract with one of its vendors, Total eBiz Solutions Pte Ltd (TES), did not stipulate clear security responsibilities. This lack of contractual clarity contributed to the data breach during the migration process, highlighting CASE’s negligent vendor management.

PDPC Findings and Penalties

The PDPC found that CASE had failed to enforce its password management policy, with some passwords not meeting minimum length and complexity requirements and others remaining unchanged for up to four years. Furthermore, CASE’s vendor management was deemed negligent, as one of its contracts did not specify clear security responsibilities, putting personal data at risk.

CASE admitted to not conducting regular security awareness training for its staff, with the last session held five years before the first incident.

The PDPC also noted that CASE lacked an Information and Communications Technology (ICT) policy, particularly in relation to patching and maintaining IT systems. The absence of a documented IT infrastructure management plan, insufficient logging and monitoring practices, and the lack of security reviews over the three years preceding the first breach were significant failures highlighted in the judgment.

In assessing the financial penalty, the PDPC considered the nature and gravity of the breaches, the duration of non-compliance, and CASE’s annual turnover. The fine of $20,000 was determined to be appropriate in light of these factors.

Remedial Actions by CASE

It is said that CASE, which is headed by Mr Melvin Yong, People’s Action Party Member of Parliament for Radin Mas, has implemented several measures to enhance its cybersecurity in response to the breaches.

These include introducing multi-factor authentication for all web-based applications, strengthening password complexity requirements, decommissioning end-of-life devices, and implementing patch management software for security updates.

CASE has also revised its contracts with outsourced vendors to include data protection clauses and mandated annual data protection training for all staff members.

CASE is working towards obtaining the Cyber Essentials Mark and the Data Protection Trust Mark to reinforce its commitment to safeguarding personal data and complying with PDPA obligations.

The PDPC has directed CASE to review and update its data protection policies, rectify all identified security gaps, and report back within one week of completion. The organization has also been instructed to conduct a penetration test after addressing the vulnerabilities to ensure no further security gaps exist.

The post Consumers Association of Singapore fined S$20,000 for PDPA breaches following two data security incidents appeared first on Gutzy Asia.

Continue Reading

Trending