A Very Busy Relationship Manager

[jw5]

There was an interesting article in the ST recently. However, I couldn't find the whole report on the internet, including ST interactive. Would be much appreciated if someone can help.

The gist of the case was something like this.
A woman and her daughter went to a bank to buy a financial product from a relationship manager (RM). The woman handed S$10,000 to the RM, it wasn't clear from the report whether it was in cash or a cash cheque. The woman customer signed an application form for the product and the RM gave her a receipt.

Later the woman found that the money was not used to invest in the product and apparently brought the RM to court.
The ruling was that there was not enough evidence to prove that the RM took the funds and kept them. Several witnesses were called up to give evidence that the RM was usually very busy and the funds could have been misplaced.

What I don't understand is why shouldn't the RM or the bank be liable to pay the woman customer, since she signed an application form and got a receipt.

Anyone read the report or have any comments?

 

[silverfox@]

There was an interesting article in the ST recently. However, I couldn't find the whole report on the internet, including ST interactive. Would be much appreciated if someone can help.

The gist of the case was something like this.
A woman and her daughter went to a bank to buy a financial product from a relationship manager (RM). The woman handed S$10,000 to the RM, it wasn't clear from the report whether it was in cash or a cash cheque. The woman customer signed an application form for the product and the RM gave her a receipt.

Later the woman found that the money was not used to invest in the product and apparently brought the RM to court.
The ruling was that there was not enough evidence to prove that the RM took the funds and kept them. Several witnesses were called up to give evidence that the RM was usually very busy and the funds could have been misplaced.

What I don't understand is why shouldn't the RM or the bank be liable to pay the woman customer, since she signed an application form and got a receipt.

Anyone read the report or have any comments?

I haven't read the report,
But
If you write a cheque to me, my argument will be you give it to me, you lend it to me or whatever reasons I can think of. So in order not to have such misunderstandings, it is best to write the purpose behind the cheque.

In this case, "For the purchase of XX financial product"

This is very common because when you buy properties, you also write the reason why you are issuing this cheque to that particular person.
"For the purchase of XX property s(xxxxxx) 5% deposit"

If there is any dispute, cheques can be retrieved and used as evidence.

I ever heard before that in some cases where those receipt books you buy from bookstores and use as personal receipts might not be accepted as evidence in cases of dispute.

 

[KuanTi01]

It's just a whole load of crap! So very busy until the money entrusted to the RM can run away by itself? Zero accountability and utter lack of responsibility-it's as plain as that. Banks just want to protect their reputation at all costs and the ruling is a business-friendly and politically-correct one considering that there was not enough evidence. For goodness sake, someone is clearly derelict and the bank must assume overall responsibility as the RM is their employee! The victim is right to sue! The ruling just not gel with logic and common sense.

 

[po2wq]

... Anyone read the report or have any comments?

who has pocketed dat cheq? ... tis 1 can cheq 1 wat ...

 

[jw5]

I haven't read the report,
But
If you write a cheque to me, my argument will be you give it to me, you lend it to me or whatever reasons I can think of. So in order not to have such misunderstandings, it is best to write the purpose behind the cheque.

In this case, "For the purchase of XX financial product"

This is very common because when you buy properties, you also write the reason why you are issuing this cheque to that particular person.
"For the purchase of XX property s(xxxxxx) 5% deposit"

If there is any dispute, cheques can be retrieved and used as evidence.

I ever heard before that in some cases where those receipt books you buy from bookstores and use as personal receipts might not be accepted as evidence in cases of dispute.

The news report didn't specify but I guess that the money was handed over in cash or in the form of a cash cheque, otherwise the bearer cheque would have been traced. If a cash cheque, doubtful that the reason was written behind.

You would think that signing an application form and getting a receipt from the RM would be sufficient evidence that the money was handed over.

 

[jw5]

It's just a whole load of crap! So very busy until the money entrusted to the RM can run away by itself? Zero accountability and utter lack of responsibility-it's as plain as that. Banks just want to protect their reputation at all costs and the ruling is a business-friendly and politically-correct one considering that there was not enough evidence. For goodness sake, someone is clearly derelict and the bank must assume overall responsibility as the RM is their employee! The victim is right to sue! The ruling just not gel with logic and common sense.

Firstly, don't see what relevance whether the RM was busy or not has to do with whether she misappropriated the money.
Secondly, even if there is not enough evidence of misappropriation, shouldn't the signed form and the receipt issued be enough evidence that the money was handed over and hence should be refunded to the customer?

Bro, did you read the news report? Any idea how to get the full report to post here?

 

[silverfox@]

The news report didn't specify but I guess that the money was handed over in cash or in the form of a cash cheque, otherwise the bearer cheque would have been traced. If a cash cheque, doubtful that the reason was written behind.

You would think that signing an application form and getting a receipt from the RM would be sufficient evidence that the money was handed over.

It's words against words in today's society. So writing the reason behind the cheque cannot do any harm to the issuer. Even if cash cheque also must write. Especially for those who pay for their insurance premium, property deposits etc.

Receipt can be disputed especially one without a company stamp on it.

 

[david]

What I don't understand is why shouldn't the RM or the bank be liable to pay the woman customer, since she signed an application form and got a receipt.

Strange case, the customer should be able to get her money back with receipt, if not she should take legal action.

Why would anyone issue a cash cheque in the first place?

Likewise why would any honest company insist on receiving cash cheques, if they do not intend to cheat?

 

[Dreamer1]

Title: UOB personal banker acquitted
Source: Straits Times
Author: K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent

www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/.../70050.html?...




Legal News Archive


IN 2003, Madam Tan Lay Har gave $10,000(CASH) to United Overseas Bank personal banker Sylvia Tham for a life insurance product with a guaranteed return.

Five years later, in 2008, when it was to mature, she returned to the bank. To her horror, she found there were no records of her investment.

Ms Tham was arrested and eventually charged with misappropriating the amount - an offence punishable with a jail term of up to 10 years or a fine.

However, after an eight-day trial, District Judge Kessler Soh acquitted her. In doing so, he noted that while the prosecution is not required to prove its case 'beyond all doubts', in Ms Tham's case, it had failed even to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.

The $10,000 remained missing, but that did not mean that Ms Tham was the one who had taken the money, he said.

Just because an accused person was unable to give a credible explanation why the money went missing did not mean she was the one who had taken the cash, he said in a 26-page judgment released on Wednesday.

The court heard how Madam Tan, 64, and her daughter, Ms Lim Hwee Hoon, had gone to the bank and met Ms Tham in December 2003. The banker issued a receipt made out to Ms Lim although Madam Tan was the one who paid the money. Ms Lim was also asked to sign, not an application form, but on a brochure about the policy.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Luke Tang argued, among other things, that Ms Tham had processed the application in a 'dubious manner'.

However, her lawyer, Mr P. E. Ashokan of KhattarWong, told the court that the sheer volume of her daily work could have led to a slip-up.

Among other things, she could have forgotten to bank in the (CASH), but this did not mean she was guilty of criminal conduct, the lawyer said.

Her finances were healthy, and the receipt she issued showed she had no criminal intent, he added.

The district judge noted that Ms Tham, whom he described as a truthful witness, was a 'high-performing personal banker who had much paperwork to do' - a point which was confirmed by several prosecution witnesses, including her branch manager.

It was possible that on the day in question, she could have failed to process the application form or bank in the money, and then forgot all about it later because of her heavy workload, he said. The money subsequently was misplaced and lost because of the lapse, he added.

The prosecution is appealing.

[email protected]

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


Up

 

[Dreamer1]

Deputy Public Prosecutor Luke Tang is a righteous lawyer.

If you go to police,they would normally tell you that this is a civil case,you can suit the bank.

But DPP Luke Tang took it upon himself to help the 64 yeats old madam Tan to get a refund.

Is UOB bank responsible for such error?

It is interessting to follow this case and know the higher court's verdict.

 

[KuanTi01]

Firstly, don't see what relevance whether the RM was busy or not has to do with whether she misappropriated the money.
Secondly, even if there is not enough evidence of misappropriation, shouldn't the signed form and the receipt issued be enough evidence that the money was handed over and hence should be refunded to the customer?

Bro, did you read the news report? Any idea how to get the full report to post here?

Like many, I found out from the newspapers but it's a scanty report. It lacks vital details perhaps deliberately so. Anyway the matter is going on appeal by the Prosecution, as reported. So Judge Kessler Soh's decision may be overturn by the appellate judge.

 

[Mdm Tang]

.

Like many, I found out from the newspapers but it's a scanty report. It lacks vital details perhaps deliberately so. Anyway the matter is going on appeal by the Prosecution, as reported. So Judge Kessler Soh's decision may be overturn by the appellate judge.

.



Questions :


1) what is United Overseas Bank personal banker Sylvia Tham
full name ?


2) is she a white horse ?


3) is she still working in uob or in the banking line ?


4) why the judge not focus on the dpp's view " Ms Tham
had processed the application in a 'dubious manner'. "

5) eg . S$ and product from/to mdm Madam Tan Lay Har .
but : "The banker issued a receipt made out to Ms Lim
although Madam Tan was the one who paid the money.
Ms Lim was also asked to sign, not an application form,
but on a brochure about the policy. "

6) no mentioned at all whether uob sacked
or retained her ?


7) what is meaning of this one : "Her finances
were healthy, and the receipt she issued showed
she had no criminal intent, he added "

8) u need to be in "unhealty" finances to do certain things ?
issue Receipt is lame because to another person ,
her daughter . but how come uob kept silence on
this receipt thing ?



my 2 cents worth is she is a "white horse"

even the bank agreed to her mistakes made.

 

[Mdm Tang]

dear bro and sis,




roughly how much was her legal fees for


the 8 days trial ???


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


@@@However, her lawyer, Mr P. E. Ashokan of KhattarWong, told the court that the sheer volume of her daily work could have led to a slip-up. @@@


@@@However, after an eight-day trial, District Judge Kessler Soh acquitted her. @@@

 

[Logisex]

Brochures are just for info only and will not have a space for customers to sign. Customers can only sign on the seperate application form attached to the brochure.

RMs cannot issue receipt and banks do not have such receipts. Cheques will have to be make out to the bank and crossed. Customer can bank the cheque at the counter to get a slip or view it in their statement if they hand it to the RM/mail it. If you are paying in cash, your RM will have to lead you to the counter to bank in the cash and get a slip. RMs cannot handle cash.

And............customers have the duty to check their statements and revert to the bank if there are any errors within a reasonable period. If they buy an insurance product, they should at least receive a policy/letter from the bank. They should check with the bank if they did not receove a confirmation.
Its just like withdrawing money from the bank counter, you are suppose to take your time to check the cash before you leave the counter. Once you walk away, it would be assumed that you have checked and has no furtheer issues.

So this is not the case about the RM being busy or the RM trying to con the customer. The customer could have realised their mistake but try to put the blame on the bank. It happens all the time. The customer could have forged the application forms and brochures. They might have signed the application form but did not pay, maybe they forgot to bank in the cheque so the application form was not processed.

 

[Mdm Tang]

the clients : mdm Madam Tan Lay Har and her daughter

were there at the bank .

The court heard how Madam Tan, 64,
and her daughter, Ms Lim Hwee Hoon,
had gone to the bank and met Ms Tham in
December 2003


u mean mother and daughter not truthful ??? :(



how come no mentioned of the bank cctv recording


for that day ??? :(:(:(

 

[silverfox@]

Like many, I found out from the newspapers but it's a scanty report. It lacks vital details perhaps deliberately so. Anyway the matter is going on appeal by the Prosecution, as reported. So Judge Kessler Soh's decision may be overturn by the appellate judge.

This newspaper report really no head no tail. So $10000 is missing, and where is the $10000?

But it was said she forgotten to bank in the cheque, so the $10000 is still around right? Frankly, I think I am lost on this.

 

[Dreamer1]

This newspaper report really no head no tail. So $10000 is missing, and where is the $10000?

But it was said she forgotten to bank in the cheque, so the $10000 is still around right? Frankly, I think I am lost on this.

The way I look at it

The mother & daughter gave S$10,000.00 cash to Ms Taham on that day.Ms Tham was busy,Ms Tham issued a receipt made out to Ms Lim although Madam Tan was the one who paid the money. Ms Lim was also asked to sign, not an application form, but on a brochure about the policy.

Mother & daughter went home happily.

Five years later,mother & daughter went back to bank and found out no record of their investment.

They reported to police,DPP Luke decide to bring Ms Tham to court,but failed to convince the judge District Judge Kessler Soh .

The judge based her decision primarily on her judgement that Ms Tham appeared trust worthy and no financial burden,plus she was usually very busy.

My question would be:If mother & dauthter suited UOB instead,is the bank responsible?

I hope some lawyers would comment.

 

[Mdm Tang]

.



the solution was a simple one :


a) since there was a official UOB receipt .

and miss tham is or was its employee at that

time and empowered to receive money . the

bank should just return the S$10k to

the receipt holder and case closed !!!


b) why UOB like that ???


c) why make miss tham go through all this ???


d) why make customers acted in good faith go

through all this ???


e ) and why is the MAS quiet on this

10k court case ???

 

[silverfox@]

The way I look at it

The mother & daughter gave S$10,000.00 cash to Ms Taham on that day.Ms Tham was busy,Ms Tham issued a receipt made out to Ms Lim although Madam Tan was the one who paid the money. Ms Lim was also asked to sign, not an application form, but on a brochure about the policy.

Mother & daughter went home happily.

Five years later,mother & daughter went back to bank and found out no record of their investment.

They reported to police,DPP Luke decide to bring Ms Tham to court,but failed to convince the judge District Judge Kessler Soh .

The judge based her decision primarily on her judgement that Ms Tham appeared trust worthy and no financial burden,plus she was usually very busy.

My question would be:If mother & dauthter suited UOB instead,is the bank responsible?

I hope some lawyers would comment.

If there is proof of submission to bank but after 5 years no record of investment, is the 10K still around and who has it? Is the cheque being cleared or not cleared? There is no mention on where the $10K end up. I believe they should have all the evidences before they go to court, but no info was given.

That's why poor newspaper reporting makes us readers also blur. :o

 

[Mdm Tang]

.



is this " HALF - IN , HALF - OUT "


reporting or what ...:(:(:( ,