District court acquits former Keppel FELS manager of 46 corruption charges

A district court in Singapore has acquitted a former shipyard manager of accusations that he received close to S$300,000 (US$234,000) in kickbacks during his time at Keppel FELS between 2015 and 2017.

Alvin Lim Wee Lun, 46, was cleared on Wednesday, 17 June 2026, of all 46 charges of conspiring to corruptly obtain gratification from three vendors that had been awarded contracts by Keppel FELS, according to a report by CNA.

The acquittal turned on weaknesses in the evidence given by a key prosecution witness, Rajavikraman Jayapandian, whom District Judge Eddy Tham said had a possible motive to falsely implicate Lim.

Two men, Rajavikraman and Goh Ngak Eng, had earlier been convicted and penalised for their roles in the corrupt scheme. Both pleaded guilty and served as witnesses for the prosecution at Lim's trial.

The alleged kickback scheme

Keppel FELS, now part of Seatrium and known as Seatrium New Energy, specialised in shipbuilding and repairs.

Rajavikraman was a former assistant shipyard manager at Keppel FELS and, at the time of the offences, the project director of Rotating Offshore Solutions. He had befriended Lim during his 13-year stint at the firm, which he left in 2013.

Goh was the director of Megamarine Services, a company that makes and repairs air winches and trades in equipment.

According to the scheme that Rajavikraman and Goh admitted to, Lim would convey Keppel FELS' business requirements to Rajavikraman, who would pass that information to Goh.

Goh would then seek out vendors to provide those services, and Rajavikraman would refer the vendors to Lim.

Some vendors awarded Keppel FELS contracts were told to mark up their invoices, with the marked-up amount split among the co-conspirators.

Rajavikraman and Goh each pleaded guilty to receiving S$191,115.89 in kickbacks. Rajavikraman claimed that Lim took a 15 per cent cut of the marked-up amounts.

By the prosecution's calculation, this would have amounted to S$294,208.98 in kickbacks, more than either Rajavikraman or Goh received.

The prosecution also pointed to Lim's WhatsApp messages with Rajavikraman to argue that he knew of the scheme, and to car loans Lim was paying to argue that the sole breadwinner and father of three was living beyond his means.

The defence's case

Defence counsel Justin Ng and Ravinderpal Singh of Kalco Law argued that Lim received only about S$4,000 from Rajavikraman, which he understood to be a token of appreciation paid out of his friend's own pocket.

The lawyers contended that the corrupt scheme involved kickbacks rather than bribes, which made it possible for Rajavikraman to operate without Lim's participation.

They added that vendor representatives all agreed there was no guarantee of being awarded Keppel FELS jobs even if they took part in the scheme.

Lim was instead focused on performing his new role as yard manager, the lawyers said, and looked to Rajavikraman as a senior and mentor while seeking help with new and challenging projects.

The defence argued that Lim was unaware Rajavikraman would betray his trust by conspiring with Goh and exploiting their relationship to obtain kickbacks for himself and Goh.

They further noted that, apart from Rajavikraman, Lim either had no contact with the prosecution's witnesses or interacted with them only on work matters, leaving them unable to say with certainty whether he knowingly received kickbacks.

The defence also argued that Rajavikraman had a strong motive to keep implicating Lim in order to reduce his own culpability and sentence.

Inconsistent evidence and motive to lie

Judge Tham found that Rajavikraman had a possible motive to falsely implicate Lim by painting him as a co-conspirator.

He noted that the prosecution's case rested primarily on Rajavikraman's evidence, as he was the only witness with direct knowledge of Lim's supposed involvement.

The judge identified inconsistencies in that evidence, including a shifting account of how Lim was allegedly recruited, and whether this occurred over the phone or face to face.

These were not minor inconsistencies but went to the heart of how and whether Lim was ever brought into the conspiracy, the judge said. Rajavikraman's accounts of handing over envelopes of cash were also materially inconsistent and not satisfactorily explained.

The judge noted that when Rajavikraman testified, he was in the midst of an appeal to reduce his jail sentence and penalty order of S$191,115.89.

Maintaining Lim's guilt was self-serving because the appeal was still pending, and any retraction would disadvantage Rajavikraman, the judge said. His evidence therefore had to be viewed with great circumspection.

In contrast, the judge said Lim's candid admission that he had received some money was more consistent with a casual token of appreciation from a longstanding friend than with benefiting from a corrupt scheme.

Judge Tham added that he could not accept the prosecution's interpretation of the WhatsApp messages and other documentary evidence as the only possible explanation.

While the circumstances might give rise to some suspicion, the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Lim knew of and was part of the scheme, or that he acted with guilty knowledge, the judge said.

The prosecution reserved its right to file an appeal after the verdict was delivered.