A Very Busy Relationship Manager

[Mdm Tang]

@



the writer is K C Vijayan ???? :(



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



@



check some of his writings here :


http://sg.search.yahoo.com/search;_...ijayan&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-712





@

 

[Mdm Tang]

.

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/rem...ml?utm_source=rss+subscription&utm_medium=rss

.

UOB personal banker acquitted

[2010] 10 Dec_ST​

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



Legal News Archive


IN 2003, Madam Tan Lay Har gave $10,000 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.



.

 

[jw5]

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

Thanks Dreamer1 for posting the article.

Looks like 2 things have been clarified from my original post. The customer signed on a brochure and not an application form. The funds were probably handed over in cash and not a cash cheque nor bearer cheque.

I reiterate the point made previously. Even if there is not enough evidence to convict the RM for misappropriation, should not the RM or the bank pay the customer back her money based on the evidence of the receipt?

 

[jw5]

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

Bro, it appears that the funds were handed over in cash, and not a cheque.

Hence when the article mentioned that the funds were not banked in, it means that the $10K cash was not banked in or at least cannot be tracked, and still remains missing.

 

[Mdm Tang]

.



THIS IS REAL MADNESS :(:(:(



SPENDING TENS OF THOUNSANDS TO

LOOK MISSING S$10,000/-



SUBJECT : MISSING S$10,000/-


COSTS OF LOOKING FOR THE CAUSE OF IT :


a ) Defendant Legal Fess = S$ xx , xxx , still running


b ) Govt Prosecution Fees , etc = S$ xx, xxx , still running

c ) Costs to Plaintiffs , etc = S$ xx, xxx , still running

d) Other Costs Witnesses , etc = S$ xx , xxx , still running

============

S$100,000.00 , still running

===========



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

 

[scroobal]

UOB would have paid out the amount. Bank were not built overnight. They have been in existence for 100 of years and handling cash in large amounts is second nature to them. The procedures are pretty much universal in approach across the world.

The argument that there was too much paperwork is rubbish. It is in essence a routine bank transaction.

 

[jw5]

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.

Agree with you on a few points: Customers should sign application forms, should not use cash if possible for large sums, should check their statements and policies.
Even the possibility you mentioned that some customers do try to pull a fast one is there.

But should not the relationship manager or any bank employee who knows the procedures, follow the procedures, even if they are "very busy" and in a hurry to make a sale and earn their commission? Do the bank and the RM not owe a duty of care to their customers? If the customer did not intend to or did not buy the product, why did they sign the brochure and get a receipt from the RM? Even if there is insufficient evidence of misappropriation, should not the RM or the bank pay the customer back her money?These are the key questions to this case, not the first para.

 

[jw5]

UOB would have paid out the amount. Bank were not built overnight. They have been in existence for 100 of years and handling cash in large amounts is second nature to them. The procedures are pretty much universal in approach across the world.

The argument that there was too much paperwork is rubbish. It is in essence a routine bank transaction.

Bro, what do you mean by "UOB would have paid out the amount"?

If the bank had paid the customer, why is she taking the case to court?

 

[scroobal]

Banking is a very pedantic institution as they have to be to handle cash and money. The procdedures are unbelievably anal for the same reason.

To a banker, this is straight forward case. Even if something failed along the way, there is a process to detect discrepancies and it is called reconcilition. Any banking staff after their orientation will know how to protect money handed over to them. Just see the teller when you are next at the branch. When they want certain notes from a colleague, they have to hand over the equivalent.

This is a straight forward case of fraud. A bank will not hesitate in reimbursing the client in such a case.

99.99% of banking disputes are over misrepresenting the product, wrong placement of funds, misinterpresentation of instructions etc. Where outright fraud is involved, it is usually unauthorised withdrawal of funds and short-changing the uneducated, crediting a lower amount and keeping the rest etc. Never the entire amount.

This is the first case where the money did not even go in. I have not heard of such a case before. The State is taking the bank to court, not the client.

Bro, what do you mean by "UOB would have paid out the amount"?

If the bank had paid the customer, why is she taking the case to court?

 

[Mdm Tang]

:(

Banking is a very pedantic institution as they have to be to handle cash and money. The procdedures are unbelievably anal for the same reason.

To a banker, this is straight forward case. Even if something failed along the way, there is a process to detect discrepancies and it is called reconcilition. Any banking staff after their orientation will know how to protect money handed over to them. Just see the teller when you are next at the branch. When they want certain notes from a colleague, they have to hand over the equivalent.

This is a straight forward case of fraud. A bank will not hesitate in reimbursing the client in such a case.

99.99% of banking disputes are over misrepresenting the product, wrong placement of funds, misinterpresentation of instructions etc. Where outright fraud is involved, it is usually unauthorised withdrawal of funds and short-changing the uneducated, crediting a lower amount and keeping the rest etc. Never the entire amount.

This is the first case where the money did not even go in. I have not heard of such a case before. The State is taking the bank to court, not the client.

any case that is "half-in , half-out " is not easy ...

maybe the judge is telling i want out ...

let the appeal judge decides :(:(

 

[jw5]

This is the first case where the money did not even go in. I have not heard of such a case before. The State is taking the bank to court, not the client.

Your point is that the bank has paid the customer and the state is prosecuting the RM on a criminal charge? Ok, got it, thanks.

Reconciliation would not have been able to detect this problem, only the customer complaint would.
But it seems that the bank's employees have testified on behalf of the defendent, that she was usually "very busy" and could have misplaced the money. This was a key factor to the ruling that there was insufficient evidence of misappropriation.

 

[Dreamer1]

Scro

It seems to me that the DPP has taken Ms Tham to court and not the UOB Bank.

"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."

Is there any difference?the judge has cleared Ms Tham of the charge

 

[Ramseth]

Many are too quick to assume that bankers are demons and clients are angels whenever such cases happen. The underdog must be victim mentality without remembering that sometimes underdogs do bite and yes, even from behind. The story is too ludicrous for any sane judge to believe. How can someone part with S$10,000 on a receipt and signature on a brochure, wait five years without policy document or statement, then return to reclaim?

My best conjecture is that the RM was doing bancassurance, authorised to issued temporary receipt (to be confirmed by bank or insurance company machinated statement). She did issue the receipt but somehow the case wasn't closed, i.e. the client changed her mind and took back her money. The RM didn't think S$10,000 such a big deal at all and forgotten to ask for the receipt back. That's the "busy" part, bigger clients and cases to attend to.

Signing on brochure is quite common practice to indicate that RM has explained and client understands and acknowledges certain material terms and conditions before signing the last dotted line on the application to close the case.

 

[scroobal]

The fact that it did not enter the system is a dead giveway and therefore could not be reconciled. Where did the money then go as it did not enter the system. The staff would have to explain. You can't keep it overnight. The point that it did not enter recon is a factor.

Asians are very poor witnesses by dna. They will prefer not to implicate person even if the truth does stare them in the face. They will only accurately testify when it is their money that is at stake. Asking an asian to stand in front of lecture room to articulate his position is already a big ask. Unless you point to them, good luck. Ever heard of an Asian starting an NGO of substance. Asokan is good crimninal lawyer and he went to the weakness if the system - asian witness. Ask any person and they will tell you that banks are always busy. It does not mean that there are no controls. There are controls. I think the DPP screwed.

Here is an analogy - a pilot has hundreds of instrumentation readings and procedures to follow. In a pilot error, the rest of us would have to wait for trained professioanals to investigate to make the decision on how it happenned. The same with internal workings of a bank.

Y

Reconciliation would not have been able to detect this problem, only the customer complaint would.
But it seems that the bank's employees have testified on behalf of the defendent, that she was usually "very busy" and could have misplaced the money. This was a key factor to the ruling that there was insufficient evidence of misappropriation.

 

[scroobal]

Yes, and I believe that the Bank lodged the complaint. This lady is toast anyway. They would have sacked her or going to sack her.

Scro

It seems to me that the DPP has taken Ms Tham to court and not the UOB Bank.

"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."

Is there any difference?the judge has cleared Ms Tham of the charge

 

[silverfox@]

Bro, it appears that the funds were handed over in cash, and not a cheque.

Hence when the article mentioned that the funds were not banked in, it means that the $10K cash was not banked in or at least cannot be tracked, and still remains missing.

cash or cheque wasn't stated but they mentioned money. So until now I think no one has a clue as to where the 10K end up in. Ms Tham, the bank or somewhere else?

 

[RealSingaporean]

Many are too quick to assume that bankers are demons and clients are angels whenever such cases happen. The underdog must be victim mentality without remembering that sometimes underdogs do bite and yes, even from behind. The story is too ludicrous for any sane judge to believe. How can someone part with S$10,000 on a receipt and signature on a brochure, wait five years without policy document or statement, then return to reclaim?

My best conjecture is that the RM was doing bancassurance, authorised to issued temporary receipt (to be confirmed by bank or insurance company machinated statement). She did issue the receipt but somehow the case wasn't closed, i.e. the client changed her mind and took back her money. The RM didn't think S$10,000 such a big deal at all and forgotten to ask for the receipt back. That's the "busy" part, bigger clients and cases to attend to.

Signing on brochure is quite common practice to indicate that RM has explained and client understands and acknowledges certain material terms and conditions before signing the last dotted line on the application to close the case.

Educated person mostly likely will not happen in this case. but honestly a lot of local bank customers are not educated. they are easy prey and trust the bank. many year ago i work for a local bank, i know how to prey them but i am not predator. i know it but i don't do it.

 

[Ramseth]

Educated person mostly likely will not happen in this case. but honestly a lot of local bank customers are not educated. they are easy prey and trust the bank. many year ago i work for a local bank, i know how to prey them but i am not predator. i know it but i don't do it.

What you refer to is taking advantage of uneducated clients to sell them investment schemes riskier than suitable for them, pulling wool over their eyes to earn a higher commission. This case is markedly different.

 

[Mdm Tang]

bros , which court will hear appeal ???

 

[Mdm Tang]

.


http://ithinkthere4im.blogspot.com/2010/12/uob-personal-banker-acquitted.html

,


Friday, December 10, 2010

Uob Personal Banker Acquitted

I was flipping the newspaper this morning when I flipped upon this interesting case- with an even more interesting verdict.

I will try to attached a copy of the article at the end of this entry [ Anyway, it's on page B15 on the Strait Times today, 10 December 2010] [ My note: manage to get hold of a file sharing site, the article link is here

Basically the premise is that the customer had gave $10,000 to a Personal Banker from a particular local bank for purchase of a particular life insurance product. But lo and behold 5 years later, she did not receive the money and at the same time, there was no record of this particular transaction at all. I mean at first glance, it seems to be a straightforward mishandling of the money which went into the banker's pocket in the first place.

But the interesting thing is that, the personal banker was acquitted and the judge said some interesting things in the judgement that I quote from the article:

"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 lapse, he added."

The defendant lawyer had earlier argued that she had showed no criminal conduct and I quote from the article: " Her finances were healthy, and the receipt she issued showed she had no criminal intent."

I do not know who this person is and I have no idea of the merit and demerit of this case and I have no idea whether she was guilty or not but the verdict shows that the courts was sympathetic towards extenuating circumstances of a single person arising from a supposed criminal act. I believe in previous cases, the judge be less sympathetic towards these factors and put the blame squarely on the employee. Because in any case, at first appearance, it seems to be an open and shut case of criminal misplacement of trust and it would be more "cumbersome" to judge otherwise.

Either, the banker hired a damn good lawyer or the courts are swinging towards the little guy working on the ground. It just puts a little more faith on the judicial system.

P/S: I believe the deputy public prosecutor know his chances, and he is going to appeal. We'll just wait and see.

Cheers,

Eugene


.