SINGAPORE - A man allegedly harassed two women with racist slurs in separate incidents, and a district court heard on Thursday (June 24) that he intends to plead guilty to his charges. Periyanayagam Appavoo, 52, is accused of two counts of harassment and one count of using criminal force on a man. His nationality as well as the nationalities of his alleged victims were not disclosed in court documents. He is expected to plead guilty on July 27. Periyanayagam was at a Rivervale Drive supermarket in Sengkang on April 23 last year when he allegedly verbally abused a woman identified as Ms Kamsuna with vulgar language. He is said to have told her: "Be careful as I would return to beat you... You Chinese people bring the Covid into Singapore." He was at Sengkang General Hospital on June 23 last year when he allegedly targeted a nurse, Ms Catherine Lam, and abused her with vulgar language. He is said to have pointed his finger at her and exclaimed: "You are Chinese, Chinese people are stupid. I want an Indian doctor." While at the hospital, Periyanayagam is also accused of using criminal force on Mr Muhammad Faizuan Ahmad Juan by grabbing his neck. Details about Mr Faizuan and Ms Kamsuna, who goes by only one name, were not disclosed in court documents. In an unrelated case, a woman was sentenced to four weeks' jail on Wednesday after she hurled racist insults and profanities at another woman while on a bus on Sept 3 last year. Siti Ai'sha Jaffar, 40, had called the 33-year-old victim a "stupid Indian" during her tirade, which the court heard was unprovoked. Both women are Singaporeans. For harassing a public service worker, an offender can be jailed for up to two years and fined up to $10,000. More on this topic Related Story Former property agent who made racist remarks on MRT train charged in court Related Story Courts & Crime: Read more stories
SINGAPORE - A woman who hurled racist insults and profanities at another woman on a bus for over seven minutes was sentenced to four weeks' jail on Wednesday (June 23). Siti Ai'sha Jaffar, 40, called the victim, Danaletchmi Selvam, 33, a "stupid Indian" during her tirade, which the court heard was unprovoked. Siti Ai'sha, who was unrepresented and appeared via video-link, frowned and lowered her head as two video clips of the incident were played in court. In passing a deterrent sentence, District Judge Tan Jen Tse said that "in no way can this (sort)of offence... stand in our society". The court heard that the incident occurred on Sept 3 last year, around 9.30am, after the victim boarded the service 182 bus from Tuas Checkpoint. She was listening to music using her earphones when she noticed Siti Ai'sha pointing and staring at her. In the two clips played in court, which were taken by the victim, Siti Ai'sha can be seen gesturing and shouting at the woman, calling her a "minority". In the first clip which lasted 15 seconds, she can be heard saying: "Your heart is also black ... everything is black" and in the second clip, which was four minute and 21 seconds long, she said: "stupid Indians ... you are an Indian, so black ... I hate your skin ... I don't like your face". After recording the accused for a short while, the victim confronted Siti Ai'sha and asked her if there was anything wrong but Siti Ai'sha continued making remarks at her, said the prosecution. The victim then called the police and informed the bus captain to stop the bus near the Singapore Discovery Centre. Deputy Public Prosecutor Kwang Jia Min She said the attack was "entirely unprovoked (and) directed at the colour of the victim's skin", and urged the court to pass a deterrent sentence, noting the recent spate of racist remarks made in the public space. For uttering words with the deliberate intention to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person, Siti Ai'sha could have been jailed for up to three years, fined, or both. More on this topic Related Story Former property agent who made racist remarks on MRT train charged in court Related Story Ngee Ann Poly to sack lecturer in racist incident for serious misconduct
SINGAPORE - A 60-year-old man befriended his grandson's friend, 14, by meeting up almost daily to give him life advice. The boy's father even told the man to keep advising his son and the man responded that he thought of the boy as his own grandchild. But the man performed a sexual act on the boy at a staircase landing in January last year. On Tuesday (June 22), the man was sentenced to 20 months' jail on one charge of penetration of a child under the age of 16 while they were in an exploitative relationship. One other similar charge was taken into consideration for his sentencing. The man cannot be named, to protect the boy's identity. The man was represented by lawyer Ng Pei Qi, who told the court that her client had "misjudged the relationship and thought it was a friendship where they (could) give each other sexual (favours)". The court heard that the man met the boy in November or December 2019 when the man was picking his grandson up from school. He offered the boy a cigarette and the pair started talking and the man asked for the boy's phone number. They met up six times a week for about three hours each time, during which the victim would occasionally ask the man to buy him cigarettes. "The victim trusted and respected the accused, as the accused would frequently give him 'good advice' - such as advice not to skip school, or not to be rude to his parents," Deputy Public Prosecutor Eugene Teh told the court. The victim's father met the man sometime in January last year and asked the man to advise the victim and his younger brother. The man agreed to do so and told the victim's father that he treated the boys "as his own grandchildren", the court heard. On Jan 19 that year, the man met the victim at a void deck to talk and smoke. More on this topic Related Story 18 years' jail, caning for man who sexually abused two young brothers he housed in his flat Related Story Man who sexually abused nephew jailed 22 years He then took the boy to a staircase landing where he asked if he could perform a sexual act on the boy. The boy refused but the man persisted and removed the victim's pants and performed a sexual act on him for about 30 seconds. The victim kept silent and did not react as he did not know what to do. On Feb 29 last year, the victim was giving his statement at a police station for a separate incident and told the officers that he had been sexually assaulted by the man. DPP Teh urged the court for a sentence of 20 to 24 months, citing the exploitative relationship and the large age gap between the man and the boy. More on this topic Related Story Jail, caning for man who force-fed vodka to 13-year-old and raped her in park Related Story Courts & Crime: Read more stories
SINGAPORE - A taxi driver who hit a pedestrian's elbow with his car's side mirror drove into him again, as the man was trying to photograph the front side of the vehicle following the incident. On Monday (June 21), Michael Hui,also known as Kuswara Mahmud, was sentenced to four weeks' jail and a fine of $800. The 71-year-old has also been disqualified from driving for a year after his release. Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Kelly Ho told the court that a couple with a young child were passengers in the taxi at the time of the incident. The court heard that on March 19, 2018, at about 9.30pm, Hui, who was a taxi driver with Transcab, drove to the drop-off point at the Intercontinental Singapore Robertson Quay and hit Mr Dirk Eduard Gustaaf Motman's right elbow with the taxi's side mirror. An argument followed and Mr Motman, then 53, told Hui that he was going to take a picture of the taxi and call the police. Hui told him tp go ahead, DPP Ho told the court. When Mr Motman, a Dutch national and permanent resident here, walked to the front of the stationary taxi, Hui suddenly accelerated and the taxi hit Mr Motman's legs. Mr Motman suffered a microfracture on his right knee and was treated with medication and physiotherapy. He was issued two months of medical leave as he had difficulty walking. DPP Ho noted that the act caused "public disquiet" as at least 10 people witnessed the incident. Hui's lawyer, Mr Vas Kumar, told the court that Hui has not been able to get his taxi licence renewed and drive for a long period of time, and that this has affected his livelihood and caused him to stay with a friend who can support him. He added that his client was truly sorry but could not afford to compensate the victim. Hui was unable to pay the $800 fine and will serve two days in jail in default. He began serving his sentence on Monday. More on this topic Related Story Probation for negligent driver who caused severe brain injury to cyclist Related Story Woman who knocked over two people at Jurong carpark fined, disqualified from driving
SINGAPORE- When parents of delinquent teens come to him for help, senior counsellor Ibrahim Abdul Alim aims to help as much as possible so the parents do not have to resort to filing for a Family Guidance Order (FGO) in court. Previously known as the Beyond Parental Control order, the FGO can result in a child being placed in a home for up to three years. Please subscribe or log in to continue reading the full article. Get unlimited access to all stories at $0.99/month Latest headlines and exclusive stories In-depth analyses and award-winning multimedia content Get access to all with our no-contract promotional package at only $0.99/month for the first 3 months* Subscribe now *Terms and conditions apply.
SINGAPORE - A school bus driver was jailed for two years on Monday (May 24) for molesting an autistic student he was ferrying. Ang Boon Hock, 66, pleaded guilty to one count of molesting the victim who was 13 at the time. Another similar charge was taken into consideration for sentencing. The court heard that Ang would ask the victim to sit beside him in the bus because the boy always cried when he sat at the back. Sometime in July 2019, while on the bus, the victim wanted to urinate and clutched his private part to prevent himself from doing so. Ang slid his hand into the boy's underwear and molested him. The victim felt scared but did not say anything, making only a whimpering sound. Ang told him to keep quiet and not to tell his mother. The mother found out what had happened from the boy on Sept 23 that year and made a police report. Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) James Chew told the court that the boy was a particularly vulnerable victim, since he was both young and had special needs. He said Ang had abused the trust placed in him as a bus driver responsible for ferrying students to and from school. More on this topic Related Story Cabby jailed for molesting 13-year-old boy in taxi Related Story Man who pretended to help 11-year-old runaway only to molest her gets jail, caning DPP Chew added that the other charge that was taken into consideration was for a similar act that took place on a separate instance. Ang's lawyer Ng Peiqi, who was assigned to him under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, told the court that the accused suffers from a serious heart condition that prevents him from ever taking on any form of employment again. She added that he recently had a heart attack. More on this topic Related Story 21 months' jail for elderly repeat offender who molested 7-year-old boy Related Story Jail for 2 men who molested underage boys in unrelated incidents District Judge Victor Yeo said Ang was not liable to be caned as he was above 50. He added that he agreed with the prosecution, but also noted that Ang was remorseful having pleaded guilty instead of claiming trial. Those found guilty of molesting a person under the age of 14 may be jailed for up to five years, or fined, or caned, or face any combination of these punishments.
TORONTO, May 13, 2021 - (ACN Newswire via SEAPRWire.com) - On Monday, May 10, 2021, at the request of Messrs. Anthony Durkacz and Zeeshan Saeed, founding shareholders and members of the group of concerned shareholders (the "Concerned Shareholders") of FSD Pharma Inc. (NASDAQ: HUGE) (CSE: HUGE) (FSE: 0K9A) (the "Company" or "FSD"), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the "Court") issued an order appointing Ms. Carol Hansell as independent chair of the Company's shareholders' meeting to be held on May 14, 2021 (the "Meeting") and dismissed FSD's application challenging the Concerned Shareholders' information circular.This defeat is only the most recent in a series of Court orders against FSD management and directors obtained by the Concerned Shareholders that the Company has concealed, despite their importance."These consistent losses are clear evidence of Dr. Raza Bokhari's [the Company's Chief Executive Officer] poor grasp of fundamental corporate governance principles and his repeated breaches of court orders provide insight into his moral compass," said Anthony Durkacz. "It is regrettable that Dr. Bokhari's latest misconduct implicated Senator Rick Santorum and resulted in a further waste of Company money. A simple respect for the law would have avoided this embarrassment for all of us." The most recent Court decision noted that Senator Santorum was compromised by a conflict of interest and was not to serve as the Meeting chair. The Court rejected his appointment and instead appointed Ms. Carol Hansell, a well-respected corporate governance expert, independent of all parties, to chair the Meeting.It has previously been disclosed to shareholders that, on March 5, 2021, the Court ordered (the "March 5 Court Order") the Company to hold the Meeting on May 14, 2021 and to appoint an independent chair agreed to by both parties to ensure that someone other than Dr. Raza Bokhari acted as chair of the Meeting. The Original Order also prohibited Dr. Raza Bokhari and his collaborating directors from voting shares at the Meeting that they had recently issued to themselves.What the Company failed to disclose is that, just a few weeks later, on April 9, 2021, the Court issued an injunction (the "April 9 Court Order") that restrained FSD from closing a transaction that Dr. Raza Bokhari and his collaborating directors had attempted to rush through in advance of the Meeting. As a director of FSD, Mr. Durkacz objected to the proposed transaction on the basis that it was not in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. To preserve the status quo pending the Meeting, the April 9 Court Order prohibits the Company from undertaking any transaction other than in the ordinary course of business prior to the Meeting.Management of FSD asked the Court to reconsider its decision, but on April 16, 2021, the Court refused to alter any of the April 9 Court Order's terms.To make matters worse, Dr. Raza Bokhari has repeatedly breached these Court orders. The appointment of Senator Santorum by Dr. Raza Bokhari was a breach of the March 5 Court Order. Dr. Raza Bokhari subsequently breached the April 9 Court Order when he paid Senator Santorum a non-refundable fee of US$75,000. "This was, quite simply, an inappropriate action and a waste of FSD's money by Dr. Raza Bokhari and his supporters. Unfortunately, due to Dr. Raza Bokhari's actions contrary to Court orders, Senator Santorum was implicated. It was never appropriate or, outside of their fantasy world, realistic that Senator Santorum should act as independent chair of this meeting," said Anthony Durkacz.A further breach of the March 5 Court Order arose from the Company's failure to include a resolution to reduce the size of its board of directors from seven to five directors in the matters to be considered at the Meeting. To avoid more expensive legal action, rather than object to this breach, the Concerned Shareholders chose instead to recommend that shareholders vote for the two director nominees who were not currently serving on the Company's board - Donal Carroll and Frank Lavelle. The Concerned Shareholders regarded these individuals as apparently well-qualified and hoped that they would evidence the independent judgment that Dr. Raza Bokhari's collaborators on the current board so clearly lack.However, these hopes were undone with respect to Mr. Lavelle when he intervened in the Company's failed court action against the Concerned Shareholders. Mr. Lavelle's goal was to require that the Concerned Shareholders clarify that his allegiance lies firmly with Dr. Raza Bokhari and the other members of the current board. While Mr. Lavelle's specious action failed, the Concerned Shareholders do acknowledge that Mr. Lavelle has declared he is firmly allied with Dr. Raza Bokhari and his collaborators, notwithstanding their now substantial track record of failure in governing FSD.By contrast, Mr. Carroll, who was the Company's Chief Financial Officer, resisted pressure from Dr. Raza Bokhari to take actions that he was concerned were contrary to the April 9 Court Order. For his efforts, Mr. Carroll was removed from the list of management's director nominees on May 3, 2021 and, on May 5, 2021, Mr. Carroll's employment was terminated by Dr. Raza Bokhari.Many shareholders have submitted votes for the election of Mr. Carroll at the Meeting. The Concerned Shareholders want to honor shareholders' wishes and are seeking to cast these votes at the Meeting for the election of Mr. Carroll. The Concerned Shareholders anticipate that Dr. Raza Bokhari will object to this and are seeking a ruling from the Meeting chair that Mr. Carroll remains eligible for election as a director.The Concerned Shareholders thank FSD shareholders for helping to rebuild FSD by voting Gold proxies to replace Dr. Raza Bokhari and his collaborators at the Meeting. "Shareholders deserve better," said Mr. Durkacz, "and we hope to give them a better board of directors at the meeting on May 14, 2021."Further details regarding the Concerned Shareholders' nominees and the reasons that the Concerned Shareholders want to reconstitute FSD's board are contained in the information circular available on the Company's SEDAR profile at www.sedar.com and at the website established by the Concerned Shareholders: www.RestoreFSD.com. Stay up-to-date by following us at: www.RestoreFSD.com; Facebook: RestoreFSD; and Twitter: @RestoreFSD.For additional information, please contact:Carson ProxyNorth American Toll Free Phone: 1-800-530-5189Local (Collect outside North America): 416-751-2066Email: info@carsonproxy.comForward-Looking InformationCertain statement contained herein are "forward-looking statements". Often, but not always, forward-looking statement can be identified by the use of words such as "plans", "expects", "expected", "scheduled", "estimates", "intends", "anticipates" or "believes", or variations of such words and phrases, or states that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved. Forward-looking statements contained in this press release include statements regarding the Meeting, the business to be conducted at the Meeting and the Concerned Shareholders' plans and anticipation regarding the election of Mr. Carroll at the Meeting. The Concerned Shareholders cannot give any assurance that such forward-looking statements will prove to have been correct. The reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this document.To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/83807 Copyright 2021 ACN Newswire. All rights reserved. (via SEAPRWire)
SINGAPORE - Hin Leong Trading founder Lim Oon Kuin did not show up in State Courts on Thursday morning (April 29) to face 23 new charges of forgery-related offences as he had obtained a medical certificate stating he was unfit to attend court. As a result, Mr Lim could not be tendered the new charges for a third time on account of his health issues. The 79-year-old former oil tycoon - better known as O.K. Lim - was deemed unfit to attend court by his doctor as he has been diagnosed with acute and chronic sinusitis, which will require surgery. However, he has not undergone surgery as he was on blood thinner medication Plavix, according to Lim's defence lawyer, Mr Navin Thevar of Davinder Singh Chambers. Deputy Public Prosecutor Navin Naidu told the court that all 23 cautioned statements have been served on Lim on April 12. These refer to statements made by the defendant in his defence at the time the charges are presented to him. "Prosecution has indicated that Lim's presence is required but he is not in court. And it's 9.05 am," the DPP said. District Judge Terence Tay earlier this month ruled that Lim's attendance is required if fresh charges are being served to him "and or otherwise requested by the investigation officer due to applications made by the prosecution that will require his presence". But on account of Lim's medical status, his lawyer on Thursday asked for a two-week adjournment to give him time to recover. But Judge Tay responded: "Your letter says your client is required to go for surgery, and you are asking the court and prosecution to wait until when? When will you get updates?" "What I have is an open-ended letter with no clarification," he said. The DPP objected to the defence's request for a two-week adjournment, and asked the judge to consider whether Lim should be made to attend court today. The DPP argued: "Lim saw the doctor on April 20 and was told to come back for review in a week, on April 27. But on April 22, he went back to the doctor again. What we have here is a document dated April 28 saying Lim is unfit to attend court on April 29... But no medical assessment was done between April 22 and 28." He further added: "At the last mention (on April 8), Lim was also absent because he was on a five-day stay-home notice (SHN). I placed on record then there were issues with the SHN. He saw the same doctor on a Saturday (April 3) but the SHN commenced one day after he saw the doctor." Had the SHN commenced on April 3, it would have ended on April 7, and not April 8, the date of the last mention, the DPP said. But Judge Tay noted: "As far as the court is concerned, I'm not in a position to override the position of doctors." More on this topic Related Story How an epic gamble exposed the rot inside O.K. Lim's Hin Leong oil trading empire Related Story Hin Leong founder O.K. Lim and two children sued by bankrupt firm's judicial managers for US$3.5 billion Objecting to the defence's request, the DPP then asked for the hearing to be fixed on Friday. But Mr Navin argued: "My client is 79. He suffers from a slew of chronic medical conditions and is generally in poor health... The fact that he is unfit today, it may be prudent to give us a few days." But Judge Tay disagreed. "He is unfit today. The MC doesn't say he will be unfit tomorrow." The hearing was thus set for 9am on April 30 at the State Courts. Lim and the bailor are to be present, Judge Tay said. His $3 million court bail was extended on Thursday. In August and September last year, Lim was hit with two counts of abetment of forgery for the purpose of cheating. He is accused of instigating a Hin Leong employee to forge an e-mail and another document in order to obtain more than US$56 million in trade financing, according to the police. Hin Leong collapsed last year after the oil price plunge triggered a debt default that exposed years of hidden losses and alleged fraud by the Lim family. The firm was wound up last month, after failing in a year-long effort to restructure about US$3.5 billion in debts. Its shipping arm Ocean Tankers filed for judicial management last May, and in August, the court approved OCBC Bank's application against Lim family-owned Xihe Holdings and its subsidiaries. More on this topic Related Story The hunt for lost billions: Failed Hin Leong's owners face asset claims Related Story Hin Leong judicial managers file to wind up collapsed oil trader
SINGAPORE - A man who took part in a staged robbery involving $418,000 in cash was sentenced on Friday (March 26) to six years and 10 months' jail. Joshua John Foo Kuo-Li had faced a slew of charges before pleading guilty in a district court earlier this month to one count of cheating linked to the staged heist and two unrelated assault charges. The 25-year-old Singaporean also admitted to a criminal intimidation charge and seven drug-related offences. The court heard that Foo had worked with 28-year-old Ernest Leong Zhang Sheng to stage the heist in 2019. Leong was then engaged as a courier for Royston Lim Swee Sheng, a 39-year-old who was involved in the illicit money-changing trade. In proceedings which took place earlier, Deputy Public Prosecutor Sunil Nair said that on Feb 19 that year, Leong travelled to South Korea with two other couriers - Ng Yu Jie, 22, and Hong Jing Hui, 28 - to physically transport $418,000 to Singapore. While in the country, a man handed Ng the money. He then split the sum among the three couriers for ease of transportation to Singapore. Leong, who wanted to keep the money for himself, called Foo three days later and told him of the plan to cheat Lim by staging a robbery. Foo agreed to take part in the crime. The DPP said: "The act would fool the victim into believing that the money had been taken by unknown robbers who had no connection with Ernest, Yu Jie or Jing Hui." The three couriers consolidated the cash when they arrived in Singapore on Feb 25 and Ng put the money in a bag. Leong then told the two other couriers that he had to rush home to attend to "something urgent". When he left, he told Foo to be ready. The plan was to stage the robbery in Balestier Road. Foo had engaged two others to help him. When they reached their destination, Foo pointed a knife at Ng and one of his accomplices snatched a bag containing the cash from Ng's hands. They then fled in a car. Foo later met Leong for supper in Sims Avenue and received a reward of $50,000 in cash after handing him the bag. More on this topic Related Story Manager staged robbery at workplace after misappropriating employer's monies Related Story 9 months' jail for ex-mosque employee who misappropriated nearly $38k Lim, Ng and Hong were dealt with in court earlier over money-laundering offences, while Leong is still at large. It was not mentioned if Foo's accomplices will be dealt with in court. Foo, who was arrested in March 2019, had also assaulted two men and threatened a convenience store worker with a knife in unrelated incidents. More on this topic Related Story Courts & Crime: Read more stories
SINGAPORE - The former vice-president of UOB has been hauled to a district court after he allegedly misappropriated cash totalling more than $5.3 million while he was holding the position. Ling Shek Lun, now 65, is accused of misappropriating a total of nearly £2.9 million (S$5.4 million) and US$14,010 (S$18,600) on multiple occasions between 2004 and 2014. Court documents do not disclose the exact source of the monies. The Singaporean is also accused of transferring more than £1.8 million of the benefits of his alleged criminal conduct to one Yong Ai Khim, whose details were not revealed in court documents. Ling, who was charged in court on Feb 10, currently faces two cheating charges, 11 counts of criminal breach of trust, 28 counts of forgery for the purpose of cheating, 54 counts of forgery and 47 counts of dealing the benefits of his alleged criminal activities. He is said to have committed these offences between 2003 and 2015. Between 2005 and 2015, Ling allegedly made false documents, including multiple fixed deposit account statements, to cheat a man identified as Kevin William Braddick. He is accused of duping Mr Braddick into believing that his funds were deposited into a "special nominee account" with UOB. As a result, Ling is said to have intentionally induced Mr Braddick to hand over more funds. The total amount involved were not disclosed in court documents. Separately, Ling is also accused of creating false documents between 2008 and 2015. These include multiple fixed deposit account statements, purportedly issued by the bank. His bail has been set at $150,000 and his pre-trial conference will be held on March 11. More on this topic Related Story 33 months' jail for former DBS employee who cheated clients of over $400,000 Related Story Jail for company founder who helped clients secure nearly $1m in bank loans through forged payslips Responding to queries from The Straits Times, UOB said it had dismissed Ling and lodged a police report against him. The bank's spokesman added: "At UOB, we have zero tolerance for any behaviour that violates our code of conduct predicated by a groupwide culture committed to acting with honour in all that we do. "The UOB code of conduct lays down the principles of personal and professional conduct and requires all employees to uphold the highest standards." If convicted of criminal breach of trust, Ling can be jailed for up to 15 years and fined for each charge. For each count of forgery for the purpose of cheating, an offender can be jailed for up to 10 years and fined. More on this topic Related Story Credit Suisse faces US$300 million lawsuit in Singapore over rogue trader Related Story Courts & Crime: Read more stories
SINGAPORE - In a desperate bid to save costs on divorce proceedings, a man lied before a court that his newly-wed wife had refused to consummate their marriage, so that they could annul their marriage instead. Daryl Lim Chun Leng, 25, also wanted to avoid being labelled a divorcee, and he got his then wife to agree to his plan in exchange for his cooperation in future matters. On Tuesday (Dec 22), Lim was sentenced to one week's jail after he pleaded guilty to one charge of lying before a court of justice. The court heard that Lim and Ms Wang Kechen, 24, were married in January 2017, but had marital troubles by mid-June that year, after Lim discovered that she had an extramarital affair. Lim then proposed an annulment, which he said was a "better" option, as the cost of the proceedings was lower and both could avoid being labelled as divorcees, according to court documents. An annulment would also "void the marriage immediately", and Lim promised to maintain appearances in front of Ms Wang's parents and to help her in all her future requests. Both parties agreed to annul the marriage, and Lim engaged a law firm to commence annulment proceedings, on the basis that Ms Wang had "wilfully refused" to consummate their marriage, said court documents. A district judge granted an interim judgment in August based on Lim's false claim, and pronounced that their marriage is void. However, their lies were subsequently uncovered and they were discovered to have had sex with each other between January and July 2017. Investigations further revealed that Lim had continued to have sex with Ms Wang in August and October before the annulment was finalised in November 2017. Court documents did not state how the pair were found out. For making a false claim before a court of justice, Lim could have been jailed for up to two years, and fined. He will begin his sentence on Jan 4 next year. More on this topic Related Story Man jailed after harassing judge because he was unhappy with divorce proceedings Related Story Courts & Crime: Read more stories
SINGAPORE - A full-time national serviceman (NSF) with the Singapore Police Force allegedly insulted a female colleague's modesty while at a police unit last year. Jonathan Chua Wei Cong, now 23, is claiming trial to one count each of criminal trespass and insulting a woman's modesty. The alleged victim cannot be named due to a gag order. Chua, who has since completed his national service, allegedly committed the offences at around 5pm on March 12 last year. On the first day of his trial on Thursday (Nov 26), the court heard that Chua allegedly entered a toilet for women at the headquarters before placing his mobile phone at the top of a cubicle door. A female colleague was in the shower at that point. Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Zhi Hao told District Judge Brenda Tan that when the alleged victim saw the top half of the device pointing at her, she shouted. The perpetrator fled before she could catch a glimpse of him, but the woman told her superiors about the incident and a lockdown was ordered. Officers then inspected the phones belonging to more than 10 personnel present at the time, the court heard. The woman gave her in-camera testimony in court on Thursday. This means the hearing was not open to the public, including members of the media. In a statement after Chua was charged in court last year, police said that officers of the force, including national service officers, are expected to uphold the law and maintain high standards of discipline and integrity. "Those who commit criminal offences will be charged in court and dealt with in accordance with the law. As the court case is ongoing, we are unable to comment further," added its spokesman. More on this topic Related Story Former ITE lecturer pleads guilty to insulting woman's modesty; over 300 upskirt video clips found in his possession Related Story NUS student who secretly filmed women in dorm showers jailed 12 weeks The trial continues. For insulting a woman's modesty, an offender can be jailed for up to a year and fined.
SINGAPORE - Senior lawyer Lee Suet Fern has been suspended for 15 months by the Court of Three Judges over her handling of the last will of her late father-in-law Lee Kuan Yew. In a written judgment released on Friday (Nov 20), the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession found Mrs Lee guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor, saying that she had “blindly followed the directions of her husband, a significant beneficiary under the very will whose execution she helped to rush through”. The case centred on the role Mrs Lee played in the preparation and execution of the senior Mr Lee’s last will, which was signed on Dec 17, 2013. His last will differed from his sixth and penultimate will in significant ways, including the distribution of his estate among his three children as well as the demolition of his house at 38 Oxley Road. It also did not contain some changes he had wanted and discussed with his usual lawyer Kwa Kim Li four days earlier. A disciplinary tribunal (DT) had found Mrs Lee guilty of grossly improper professional conduct in February this year. The Court held a virtual hearing in August, where the Law Society set out its arguments for why Mrs Lee should be disbarred over her handling of the will. Mrs Lee's lawyers called for all charges to be dropped. An 'unseemly rush' In its 98-page judgement, the court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash and Justice Woo Bih Li, said Mrs Lee had acted at the behest of her husband to push through the execution of the will in an “unseemly rush”. The will was signed just 16 hours after Mrs Lee first sent a draft of it to the senior Mr Lee. The court said Mrs Lee had forwarded the draft, which was to have been based on the first will, without verifying if it was the correct version. In fact, Mrs Lee knew she was in no position to verify it since she had not been involved in the execution of the first will, the court added. Even then, she acquiesced to the senior Mr Lee’s lawyer, Ms Kwa Kim Li, being left out of the arrangements regarding the last will, the court said. Ms Kwa was the lawyer who had executed the first will. Despite these factors, Mrs Lee had allowed the senior Mr Lee to proceed to execute the last will, arranging for her law Stamford Law colleagues Bernard Lui and Elizabeth Kong to be the witnesses. The court said Mrs Lee had done so even though she conceded that the senior Mr Lee would have believed and relied on her representations. It added that after the last will was executed, Mrs Lee did not update Ms Kwa fully and frankly about all that had transpired. Mrs Lee’s conduct was made worse by the fact that she knew her husband was a significant beneficiary under the last will, said the court, adding that she had faced divided loyalties. “On the one hand, (she) was loyal to her husband, who was a significant beneficiary under the last will and who was evidently keen to rush its execution. “On the other hand, (she) had a responsibility to act honourably and to ensure that (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), who she would reasonably have regarded as her client, was fully apprised of the factual position before he proceeded to execute the last will. “Even in the absence of an implied retainer, the potential conflict of interest presented by these divided loyalties must have been patent to the respondent,” said the court. It added that had there been a lawyer-client relationship between Mrs Lee and the senior Mr Lee, her conduct would have “constituted a grave breach of her duties”, even without regard to the conflict of interest that would have arisen. In this case, the court said, she “not only failed to act with prudence, but in fact acted with complete disregard for the interests of (Mr Lee Kuan Yew)”. “In those circumstances, her failure to put a stop to her husband’s efforts to procure the execution of the last will with unseemly haste can only be described as improper and unacceptable,” the court added. But the court said it did not agree with some of the tribunal’s findings, in particular that there was an implied retainer between Mrs Lee and the senior Mr Lee and that they were in a solicitor-client relationship. The court also said Mrs Lee did not receive instructions or directions directly from the senior Mr Lee. Suet Fern responds In a statement posted on Facebook by her husband Lee Hsien Yang on Friday, Mrs Lee said she disagreed with the decision. “There was no basis for this case to have even been initiated. This was a private will,” she said. “Lee Kuan Yew knew what he wanted. He got what he wanted. The Court of Three did not find that he was of unsound mind or that he was not in control. He made the decision to revert to his landmark 2011 will following discussions with his lawyer Kwa Kim Li before I was tasked to find a witness. Anyone can revoke their own will while they are alive.” Mrs Lee's role in the handling of the last will had triggered a complaint by the Attorney-General's Chambers to the Law Society in January last year about possible professional misconduct. The home of former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew at 38 Oxley Road. PHOTO: ST FILE Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee had asked that the case be referred to a disciplinary tribunal, and a two-man tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Sarjit Singh Gill and lawyer Leon Yee Kee Shian, was appointed by CJ Menon. The tribunal had said in its 206-page grounds of decision that the facts exposed an "unsavoury tale" of how Mrs Lee and her husband had misled the senior Mr Lee to sign a new will without the advice of his usual lawyer, Ms Kwa, who had prepared all six of his previous wills. The senior Mr Lee was then aged 90 and in poor health. More on this topic Related Story Disciplinary Tribunal finds Lee Suet Fern guilty of misconduct in handling founding PM Lee Kuan Yew's last will Related Story Lawyer Lee Suet Fern disagrees with tribunal's report, will 'fight this strongly' in open court In August, the court reserved judgment after the virtual hearing. The Law Society, represented by lawyer Koh Swee Yen, had argued that Mrs Lee had been involved in the will's preparation and execution despite knowing her husband stood to gain from it. It also said the lawyer of 37 years had hurried her father-in-law through the process of signing it without the advice of his usual lawyer, who had prepared his earlier wills. Countering the society's arguments before the court, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan and Professor Walter Woon, a former attorney-general, said Mrs Lee was acting out of affection and concern as a daughter-in-law in assisting Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and was merely performing an administrative role. They added that there could not have been any conflict of interest because Mr Lee Kuan Yew, "a brilliant lawyer", was fully aware of what he wanted and had consented to Mrs Lee handling the will for him. They called for all charges to be dropped. More on this topic Related Story Disciplinary Tribunal's report on conduct of lawyer Lee Suet Fern addresses some troubling issues Related Story How founding PM Lee Kuan Yew's last will was executed in 16 hours
The Court of Appeal yesterday gave the green light for Singaporean heroin trafficker Syed Suhail Syed Zin, 44, to argue his case that death-row inmates are not being treated equally in the scheduling of executions. Suhail is seeking a judicial review of the Singapore Prison Service's (SPS) decision to carry out his death sentence before that of others who were convicted before him. He contends that is a violation of his right to equality under the Constitution. The apex court's decision to grant permission for judicial review came after Suhail's lawyer, Mr M. Ravi, cited Malaysian drug trafficker Datchinamurthy Kataiah as an example. Datchinamurthy was given the death sentence before Suhail in 2015 but Suhail was scheduled to be hanged before Datchinamurthy. Mr Ravi also pointed out that Datchinamurthy's inmate number is 944, while Suhail's is 949, to support his case about the sequence in which they were put on death row. Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, giving the decision of the three-judge apex court, said that on the face of it, there is an inconsistency between the known facts and an assertion contained in an affidavit submitted to the court by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Based on this inconsistency, the threshold to grant permission for judicial review has been crossed, he said. The affidavit states that "when the 18 September 2020 date was scheduled for the execution of the appellant's sentence, the appellant was the earliest to have been sentenced to death among all offenders in the same position as he was at the point of scheduling". The court did not allow a bid by Senior Counsel Francis Ng from the Attorney-General's Chambers to submit further evidence, at this stage, to explain the circumstances of Datchinamurthy's case. Mr Ng said the MHA affidavit had been prepared to address questions raised by the apex court at the previous hearing on Sept 22. "We apologise if we understood the questions wrongly; we read them as referring to general terms," he said. The court, which also comprised Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Judith Prakash, gave directions for the matter to be dealt with in the High Court expeditiously. Suhail was sentenced to death by the High Court on Dec 2, 2015, for trafficking 38.84g of heroin. His appeal was dismissed on Oct 18, 2018. On July 5 last year, Suhail was told that his petition for clemency had been rejected. On Sept 11 this year, he was told that he would be hanged on Sept 18. Mr Ravi applied for permission from the court for judicial review of the SPS decision on the scheduling of his execution. The application was dismissed by the High Court on Sept 17 but Suhail's execution was stayed pending the appeal. Yesterday, the Chief Justice said he accepted that the State has a measure of flexibility in scheduling executions, which he noted cannot be effected in a way that is "entirely mathematical". But he said that flexibility has to be exercised in a way that is rational and fair.