• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Famous accountant $16.5 million case - how come no charge but out on bail?

SadPlumpGal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
434
Points
0
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw...ml?utm_source=rss subscription&utm_medium=rss

Accountant allegedly misused $16.5m of firms' funds

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on print

SourceStraits TimesDate05 Sep 2012AuthorLeonard Lim

AN ACCOUNTANT hired by five companies linked to global computer giant Hewlett-Packard is alleged to have misappropriated $16.5 million of their funds.

The firms - which had engaged Mr Ewe Pang Kooi to take them through a liquidation process - successfully applied to the High Court for an injunction last month to freeze his assets up to that figure.

An employee of HP here also lodged a report with the Commercial Affairs Department in late July and investigations are believed to be ongoing.

A police spokesman said yesterday it was inappropriate to comment. It is understood that no criminal charges have been filed against the 59-year-old Mr Ewe.

The Malaysian, a permanent resident here, declined comment yesterday but confirmed that he was out on bail.

The $16.5 million figure, if eventually proven, will be higher than the David Rasif and Singapore Land Authority (SLA) cheating cases. The cases involving the rogue lawyer and two SLA executives involved about $11 million and $12 million respectively.

The five HP-linked firms - 3Com South Asia, 3Par Singapore, Compaq Asia, Mercury Interactive (Singapore) and Compaq Computer Asia - had all engaged Mr Ewe, well-known for providing insolvency services in industry circles, as their sole liquidator on separate occasions between June 2009 and November 2011.

The companies were dormant at the respective times.

Liquidation typically involves accountants calculating the firm's assets, and then using these to pay creditors or shareholders.

Mr Ewe, according to court documents in respect of the injunction, took control of the firms' affairs once they were placed in voluntary liquidation.

The documents further alleged that Mr Ewe had sent HP falsified bank statements to deceive the firm over a prolonged period.

The five firms, represented by Senior Counsel Hri Kumar Nair, are scheduled to file a statement of claim soon. Mr Ewe then has 14 days to file his defence.

[email protected]

Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
...Subscribe Free

RSS iPhone Android ....HomeHeadlinesCommentaryJudgmentsLegislationNotices & DirectionsContinuing Legal Education..AdvertiseFeedbackSitemapFAQ...Terms, Conditions and Disclaimers
 
My uncle said he is very well known in corporate restructuring and was highly sought after during the Asian financial crisis.

He is filthy rich and supposedly one of those whose salary is used for top benchmarking.
 
I am confused by this report. It says no criminal charges, then says out on bail????
 
bumping up, still hoping someone has the answer

all the laojiaos - why bail when no charge?
 
i emailed the reporter, so far no reply, maybe he is busy at work, hope can get answer soon

damn confusing

this is one of the top accountants here
 
Why you so kan cheong on his fate?

I'm no legal eagle, but shd you take face value his saying out on bail?

Report says kena court injunction to freeze his assets (to tune 16.5mil, must be loaded). And CAD's ongoing investigations, with plaintiffs filing statement of claim.

For some liquidations (voluntary winding up), you use the accountants for process but appoint in-house liquidator. So some1 insider still hold the purse strings
 
He is one of the partners of Ewe Loke & Partners i guess.
Have dealt with Loke before but never met Ewe... quite surprise to hear this.
Holding clients' monies is something lawyers do all the time. Lawyers were so guilty in this that the law society had to take over the role of holding clients' money in property conveyancing from their lawyers.

I see this case as pure jealousy on the part of lawyers who is making use of the clients to screw the accountant.
The lawyers are jealous of the accountants for grabbing a big pie of the liquidation business which lawyers also fight for a share.
Fucking bastard lawyers !!! :oIo:
 
Last edited:
No need to charge or take away his passport.

Even if found guilty our courts are very understanding especially when it involves white collar crime. Also he is a FT(Malaysian) that's another plus for him. We all know how much the PAP values FT.
Spore is also averse to spending $$ to keep someone locked up for years.

At most he will just get a few months.
 
Can do liquidation one is not many in sinkieland:o

My uncle said he is very well known in corporate restructuring and was highly sought after during the Asian financial crisis.

He is filthy rich and supposedly one of those whose salary is used for top benchmarking.
 
He is one of the partners of Ewe Loke & Partners i guess.
Have dealt with Loke before but never met Ewe... quite surprise to hear this.
Holding clients' monies is something lawyers do all the time. Lawyers were so guilty in this that the law society had to take over the role of holding clients' money in property conveyancing from their lawyers.

:

who is loke?
 
Last edited:
OK, someone pm me explained to me.

The police can require bail to ensure a suspect turns up for further investigation

This is quite common for white collar cases

Not necessary that suspect is charged before bail is required

He said this case is very complex involving liquidation funds and even the experts may be confused

The point is whether the funds are still around and whether the violation is a technicality or real fraudulent transfer
 
Back
Top