• 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.

A Very Busy Relationship Manager

a receipt was issued by the bank. The bank has acknowledged the money.
if the money is missing, isnt it the bank's responsible to retrieve the money?

Ms Tham is a uob staff and she represents the bank rite?

busy cant be a reason. who wan to visit a bank where their staff are so forgetful handling the client cash?
wat happen this is not juz 10K?

altho there is no concrete proof, there is still chance that Ms Tham pocketed the money.

wth is this report?:confused:
 
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.
No, we cannot always assume that the bankers are demons and the clients are angels.
But if this case had possibly happened as you suggested, why didn't the defendent and her lawyer used that as their defence, rather than the funds being misplaced becaause she was "very busy"?

Moreover, if there was any chance that the client had taken back her money, especially in cash, how was it handed over? Surely, someone remembers it, if not the RM then someone else. Why sign the brochure if the deal wasn't closed? They could always take the brochure back and come back when they made up their minds.

It's also not correct to say that the clients were experienced investors. The fact that they used cash says a lot. It's also extremely unusual that a mother and daughter will suddenly after 5 years, think that hehehe, let's go back to the bank and get some money.
 
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'
=======================================================

If you are rich, you are a truthful witness who "have too much paperwork to do"
If you are poor, you must have misappropriated the money, CBT.

If you drive a lexus, the soundproofing is so good that you thought it is a tree branch
If you drive a chery QQ, it is hit and run.

If the rich steals, they must be suffering kleptomania
When the poor steals, it is a felony.
 
.



Sample of A Good Reporting worth reading



here is a interesting story of a really

very busy customer service bank officer
:


.

http://www.cad.gov.sg/serv/inv/cad/A+Case+of+4D+and+fraud.htm

.



A Case of 4D and fraud


Reports by

Wong Wei Kong (Business Times 9 Feb 2004)



CASE SUMMARY: Fraud on bank



CHONG Seah Wee was a customer service officer at HSBC's Tanglin Branch in charge of the banking counter operations and cash section.

Authorised to approve withdrawals of up to $100,000, Chong would write the names and particulars of either existing bank customers or fictitious ones on the back of debit vouchers and then hand the vouchers to the cashier on the pretext of making withdrawals for clients.

In all, he systematically siphoned $12.6 million over a period of close to five years from 1997 to January 2002. After taking the money, Chong, a compulsive gambler, would bet heavily on 4D, spending as much as $500,000 a week. He was convicted and sentenced to 12 years' jail in 2002.


A bank was cheated of millions, the evidence filled an entire room from floor to ceiling, and over 1,400 counts of cheating charges were filed against one person - a record in the history of the Commercial Affairs Department. In many ways, the Chong Seah Wee and HSBC case was a landmark, and a challenge to crack, as WONG WEI KONG finds out.

COULD anyone be so lucky? Chong Seah Wee, also known as David Chong, was defying the odds. During a two-year span beginning from 1999, he collected over $20 million in 4D winnings from Singapore Pools. It seemed too good to be true. And sometime in 2001, CAD was informed of Chong's huge winnings, and decided to investigate.

The job was given to Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Richard Wong and his team of officers from the Financial Investigation Division of CAD, supervised by Ian Wong. Other members of the team were Lim Huey Yong, Chan Tuck Wei, Koo Maylyn, Christopher Liu and Ismail Othman.

As the team got together to conduct a preliminary analysis of the case, they knew right from the start that the investigation would not only be interesting but also challenging.

The first task was to compile a profile of Chong, a customer service officer with the Tanglin Branch of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). He had been with HSBC since 1984, having joined the bank as a clerical staff. The check on Chong's background quickly raised a red flag with the investigating team. Despite his large 4D winnings, Chong lived humbly. A father of two young children, Chong and his family stayed in a 5-room HDB resale flat in Pasir Ris. He was not involved in any company or business, and his lifestyle was far from lavish.

Surely someone who had won large amounts of money would be spending the money on property, cars and other luxury items? In Chong's case, his family did not even own a car. Can someone be winning so much money from 4D and not be spending it? The investigating team was convinced that something was amiss and felt that Chong's lucky streak at 4D could be connected to some sort of criminal conduct.

There was still a million-dollar question confronting the CAD team: was it possible for someone to win so much money from 4D on a weekly basis? Chong had certainly proved that it was possible. The challenge faced by the team was thus to establish how Chong managed to do so.



Many theories
Several theories were considered and debated. The first theory, which was eliminated quickly, was that the 4D lottery run by Singapore pools was rigged. However, after an in-depth review of the procedures in place at Singapore Pools and numerous discussions with Singapore Pools officers, ASP Wong and his team came to the conclusion that there were simply too many checks and balances in the lottery system for it to be rigged.

The second theory was that Chong was part of a money laundering or underground betting syndicate who purchased winning tickets from the public. This was a strong possibility but money laundering is usually for the purpose of legitimising wealth. In this case, Chong had no obvious signs of wealth. Furthermore, investigations into Chong's background and personal life did not suggest that he was linked to any underground betting syndicates.

Since the lottery was not rigged, and Chong's winnings were not linked to syndicated betting or money laundering, the team was faced with the possibility that he was a genuinely lucky person. At that point in time, the investigating team had yet to confront Chong and there were no indications to suggest that Chong was in fact cheating HSBC of millions of dollars. Therefore, as suspicious as Chong's 4D winnings appeared to be, it could not be ruled out that Chong was truely lucky, or that he had somehow managed to predict winning lottery numbers.

Still, despite the lack of evidence, ASP Wong was convinced that there was something fishy. As much as everyone would like to believe that it was possible to strike it rich at the lottery, common sense indicated that it was simply not possible for this to be happening. The investigating team decided to interview Chong. In January 2002, Chong was asked to come down to CAD for an interview, which was conducted by ASP Wong.

Chong seemed to sense the reason behind the interview and came prepared, bringing a thick stack of 4D betting slips. During the interview, he appeared calm and explained to ASP Wong that he had chanced upon a winning formula for the 4D lottery and would bet on a set of 'lucky numbers' for each draw.

ASP Wong did a quick mental calculation of the 4D bets and estimated that the stack of 4D betting slips Chong brought was worth over $50,000. Being a seasoned police officer with over 15 years of investigative experience, he sensed that Chong was evasive and was withholding the truth.

Following his instincts, ASP Wong played a cat-and-mouse game with Chong, asking tough questions which Chong simply could not answer. In the end, Chong confessed that he had siphoned money from HSBC to bet on 4D and was immediately arrested by CAD. In fact, Chong was cheating the bank up to the very day that CAD arrested him.

At first, ASP Wong and his team estimated that Chong had probably took a couple of million dollars from the bank. To uncover what took place, the investigative team obtained all the credit and debit vouchers issued at HSBC Tanglin Branch from 1997 to 2002. Those documents, when delivered from the warehouse, occupied an entire operations room at CAD, from ground to ceiling.

Over three long weeks, ASP Wong and the investigating team painstakingly ploughed through the voluminous bank records and documents. The findings were staggering. In all, Chong had systematically siphoned off $12.6 million over a period close to five years from 1997 to January 2002.

After taking the money, Chong, a compulsive gambler, would then bet heavily in 4D, spending as much as $500,000 a week on bets. That was why he could win so much money from 4D.

But how did he do it? The investigators found that Chong had worked his way up the bank and knew how to beat the system. As a customer service officer at HSBC's Tanglin Branch, he was in charge of the banking counter operations and cash section.

Authorised to approve withdrawals of up to $100,000, Chong would write the names and particulars of either existing bank customers or fictitious ones on the back of debit vouchers and then hand the vouchers to the cashier on the pretext of making withdrawals for clients. He knew that the counter staff would not verify the particulars on the vouchers.

To cover his tracks, he also made out credit vouchers to balance the books. As Chong had to issue these fictitious credit vouchers on a daily basis, he worked almost all the time during the five-year period, seldom taking any vacation leave. Chong began small by taking relatively small amounts of between $1,000 and $2,000. However, caught in a vicious circle of needing more money to cover his gambling losses, he started taking larger sums, about $200,000 a day.

After his arrest, the investigating team managed to trace and recover more than $680,000 worth of shares, $205,000 in six bank accounts and $160,000 in two fixed deposits. The shares and money came from his lottery winnings and were repaid to HSBC. Still, the bank lost some US$5.6 million.



12 years in jail
In total, Chong was slapped with 1,415 counts of cheating and a money-laundering charge of converting some of the stolen funds to shares. This was by far the most number of charges against an accused person in the history of CAD. He was eventually prosecuted with 19 charges of cheating and one money-laundering charge. Chong was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment on May 10, 2002.

While CAD's timely intervention stopped the audacious bank fraud by Chong and prevented further losses to HSBC, the case exposed several internal auditing weaknesses in the banking sector.

According to CAD, bank officers were generally given too much autonomy without adequate checks and balances in place - Chong's knowledge of the inner workings of the bank's counter operations enabled him to come up with a scheme to beat the system.

To deter frauds by employees, CAD said banks should re-examine their internal control systems to prevent any losses through employee frauds, assign two signatories, instead of one, for approving accounting vouchers, conduct periodic surprise checks to ensure that bank officers are not in possession of unnecessary pre-signed documentation, provide appropriate job training for staff, increase audit checks, and train internal auditors to detect fraud.

For their part in cracking the case, ASP Wong and the investigating team received the Commissioner of Police Commendation. 'The fact that this case was solved owed no small part to the expertise and competence of the investigating team led by ASP Wong,' said CAD.

'Chong led a miserable life trying to sustain his crime spree and support his gambling habit. For almost five years, he was caught in a vicious circle of siphoning money from his company to cover his ever rising gambling losses,' said ASP Wong.

'If he had not attempted to beat the system in the first instance, he wouldn't be caught in such a plight.'






.
 
It is actually an overhyped report written by the Police to show how "sophisticated" this case is for the commendation ceremony. It is basically bullshit. Who ever wrote the commendation report did not realise that it was going to be used for the press. It is a straight forward case. Such cases are quite common and does not require much skills.

The biggest bank case is the Deputy Branch Manager from the World Trade Branch that emptied 2/3 of the branch deposits to gamble in Star Cruise. She fled the country and was never prosecuted. It was Davinder Singh's first landmark case as the bank recovered all the money from Star Cruise as they knew her and her position and as she was handling their account and that she could no way could have spent millions gambling on their ships.

In both cases, they began emptying the accounts of the elderly and dormant accounts. of people who seldom check. When they queried they will debit another dormant and credit the account holder who complained. And this carries on.

Typically, when the Police or the Bank receive information about a staff, Audit will run a report on thar particular staff's ID for system access. It will immediately run all transactions done by the staff. They then run credit and debit of similar amounts from the original list. Even a 3 year rookie auditor will get the answer and the staff will have to explain. The whole things take a few hours or if the report is batch run, it takes the following day to get the answers.

The Police sometimes think that the whole world is stupid.

Anyway the record for the most number of charges is close to 10,000 held by the Japanese who ran a boiler room operations in either Bayshore Condo using a telex.
 
Bank 'did not follow control procedures'


The Straits Times, 29 January 1999, Page 66

Bank 'did not follow control procedures'
HOW FRAUD WAS COMMITTED .

AN ASSISTANT manager managed to defraud Overseas Union Bank of $18.7 million for more than two years because the bank's "critical control element" was not followed, the High Court heard yesterday. Mr Alvin Yeo, lawyer for Star Cruise Services, said .
 
.


Making Star Cruise pay OUB's loss 'unfair"

The Straits Times, 30 January 1999, Page 56

Making Star Cruise pay OUB's loss 'unfair THE lawyer for Star Cruise said yesterday that it would be unfair to make the company repay millions to Overseas Union Bank because the bank's loss was caused by a dishonest OUB employee Mr Alvin Yeo said.



.


THE CASE THAT STARTED IT ALL 'Clash of the Titans'


The Straits Times, 7 May 1999, Page 4


THE CASE THAT STARTED IT ALL 'Clash of the Titans' DUBBED
"the clash of the Titans" by a High Court judge,
the $10-million suit fought by the Overseas Union Bank and Star Cruise Services was the result of dishonesty on a big scale by an OUB employee. Between 1995 and ...
 
Note no commendation for the Police as she disappeared hours after the Police report was lodged. No smell, no sound and no sight of her. Only her husband was charged.

Interestingly, Star Cruise had an itchy backside. They sued OUB for withholding funds on the last few cashier's order. The Bank then decided to countersue for the entire amount and won. Not a cent lost.
 
Between the customer and the bank, receipt is the key thing to this case. If not what is the purpose of having receipts. The bank should verify is the receipt genuine, if it is, they shuld pay her back the 10k, thats all le so simple..all these people study banking till cannot think logically lol:rolleyes:
 
That why it was a police case - the receipt is genuine. They are not disputing the customer's story.
Between the customer and the bank, receipt is the key thing to this case. If not what is the purpose of having receipts. The bank should verify is the receipt genuine, if it is, they shuld pay her back the 10k, thats all le so simple..all these people study banking till cannot think logically lol:rolleyes:
 
That why it was a police case - the receipt is genuine. They are not disputing the customer's story.

Wa knn then everyone better be careful liao..usually when i bank in cashier cheque to any bank for e.g.Fix deposit, I will only get a slip of receipt and nothing else, anytime the bank can say I never give them the money.
 
Wa knn then everyone better be careful liao..usually when i bank in cashier cheque to any bank for e.g.Fix deposit, I will only get a slip of receipt and nothing else, anytime the bank can say I never give them the money.
Cashier's cheque should be safer since they are issued by a bank to your name, try to make a note of the issuing bank and the cheque number. Even if the bank claims that they did not receive money from you, this cheque can be traced via the issuing bank, if not the deposit bank.

Another tip is to always check your balances online, via paper statement, atm or passbook as soon as possible. If you are served by an RM or CS officer, get their name card, if served by a teller, make a note of their name and face and the time and date you visited the bank.

The receipt they give you is always key. Even if they dispute it, you can always ask them how you managed to get the receipt if they claim no transaction took place.

A general question for everyone:
I'm sure nobody will deposit a cash cheque via the cheque deposit slot. :o
But even if it's a bearer cheque to your name, how comfortable are you to just write your account number and name at the back and deposit it into the cheque deposit slot?
 
... A general question for everyone:
I'm sure nobody will deposit a cash cheque via the cheque deposit slot. :o
But even if it's a bearer cheque to your name, how comfortable are you to just write your account number and name at the back and deposit it into the cheque deposit slot?
wat 2 do? ...

dey dun wanna c ur face wif ur cheq @ their counter ...
 
I would suggest banking cheques with the teller. The issue is not loss of money as it is not cash and it can always be reconciled. Its the hassle, phone calls etc that you have to endure over days and weeks to resolve a simple case of a misplaced cheques and wrong details punched in.

On the odd occasion if in a rush, use it. Anyway cheques will be done away with in the near future as in Europe by 2017.


A general question for everyone:
I'm sure nobody will deposit a cash cheque via the cheque deposit slot. :o
But even if it's a bearer cheque to your name, how comfortable are you to just write your account number and name at the back and deposit it into the cheque deposit slot?
 
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.

Oh, so now you are a banker.......
 
Have you found the intervention meachanisms in the 2 Acts for the authorities?

I don't have to find them. I have been around long enough to know how the GSB and anti-vice unit operate.

So, what have you to say about your 2-table theory? Your switch and bait tactics don't impress me one bit.

Those who did not go to school do not usually pose any problems. It is those who have some education and some knowledge who act and talk as if they know everything. There are lots of wannabe doctors, lawyers, economists and political scientists around nowadays.

You remind me of cheapjustice from the old forum.
 
wat 2 do? ...

dey dun wanna c ur face wif ur cheq @ their counter ...
You're right, even if you try to bank in a cheque at the counter, they'll always remind you to use the cheque deposit box. Some remind more nicely than others.
Of course, they will conveniently forget to mention the hassles if the cheque is lost.
 
I would suggest banking cheques with the teller. The issue is not loss of money as it is not cash and it can always be reconciled. Its the hassle, phone calls etc that you have to endure over days and weeks to resolve a simple case of a misplaced cheques and wrong details punched in.

On the odd occasion if in a rush, use it. Anyway cheques will be done away with in the near future as in Europe by 2017.
Normally, I won't use the cheque deposit slot if the cheque/funds are urgent, the amount is more than $10K, or if the cheque is issued by a third party from whom it may be difficult to explain any loss or to ask them to re-issue.
Cashier's cheques issued by other banks of fairly small amounts should be easier to resolve and not be so worrying.
 
Back
Top