A bankrupt cannot be a professional practitioner in any field.
-
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.
Breaking: High Court rules former prime minister’s son Goh Jin Hian liable for losses of up to US$146million
- Thread starter Hightech88
- Start date
A bankrupt cannot be a professional practitioner in any field.
Strange that til now for so many hours...our main 158th media still have not publish his court case news..
Something's amiss here.
Did GCT personally write to all the media outlets to request not to publish their 丑事 smelly news to the public? LOL
Something's amiss here.
Did GCT personally write to all the media outlets to request not to publish their 丑事 smelly news to the public? LOL
Pap people are scheming and bad
Gutzy news is real cause government has yet to issue pofma. So I believe it is real
Probably will get a pardon.
.
Now then 158th media willing to release the news but under Business section, LOL:
https://www.straitstimes.com/busine...-us146m-losses-suffered-by-company-high-court
Goh Jin Hian outside the State Courts on Sept 20, 2023. Goh was on Jan 24 found liable for breach of director’s duties, statutory duties and losses suffered by IPP. PHOTO: SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS FILE
UPDATED 24 MINS AGO
SINGAPORE - The High Court has found Goh Jin Hian, a former director of insolvent marine fuel supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP), liable for breach of director’s duties, statutory duties and losses suffered by the firm amounting to US$146 million (S$196 million) plus interest.
The liquidators of IPP had sued Goh to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of “sleepwalking through his time as a director” and failing to discover and stop drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019 to fund alleged non-existent or sham transactions.
The 55-year-old served as a director of IPP from June 28, 2011, to Aug 20, 2019.
According to the liquidators, the trade financing came from IPP’s two largest creditors – Malayan Banking (Maybank) and the Singapore branch of Societe Generale (SocGen).
It consisted of US$146 million drawn down for cargo trading operations, and US$10.5 million drawn from SocGen’s facility for IPP’s bunkering operations allegedly when IPP was balance-sheet insolvent.
High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah, in brief remarks issued on Jan 24, detailed the responsibilities of a company director. He noted that while a director is not an internal auditor checking every singular detail, the obligation is to monitor the affairs of the corporation.
“This entails, among others, at least broad level supervision of the activities of the officers of the corporation, for the protection of the company, shareholders and creditors,” the judge said.
Get the highlights right after the speech on Feb 16. You will also get the Evening Update newsletter.
He found that Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, had “breached the fiduciary duty owed to the company to take into account the interests of the creditors”.
“It is not necessary for the company to be actually insolvent; the duty arises when the company is in parlous state.
“I do find that the company was in difficulties at the least by June 2019, as indicated by it being balance-sheet insolvent then, and that it was in financial difficulties,” he said.
But the judge said the claim for the loss of US$10.5 million “has not been made out” as IPP has “not sufficiently shown how this claim arose out of the breach in question”.
In response to The Straits Times’ questions, Goh said: “I am considering an appeal against the judgment and will discuss this with my lawyers.”
According to Goh’s opening statement, IPP’s cargo trades and its books and records were directly managed out of its Hong Kong office by Ms Zoe Cheung, a former director and 85 per cent shareholder, and former chief financial officer Wallace To.
“If Dr Goh (was suspicious about) IPP’s finances, and was inclined to investigate, he would require Zoe and Wallace’s cooperation,” it said.
The judge found that the defendant played an active role in the management of the company, adding that the evidence did not show he reduced his role to a purely non-executive one after July 2015.
“The defendant in his specific circumstances owed the duty to be fully apprised of the affairs of the company, especially those relating to its profitability or otherwise.
“That thus entailed a need for him to be aware of and to monitor all the activities, including the cargo trading business.”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Directors in breach of fiduciary duties can face severe liabilities
New Silkroutes Group ex-CEO Goh Jin Hian, three others charged with market manipulation
Justice Abdullah said Goh showed a lack of knowledge of IPP’s cargo trading business, which was a significant portion of the company’s activity.
“What was adduced by the plaintiff did sufficiently make out ignorance,” the judge said.
During the High Court trial in April 2023, Senior Counsel Lok Vi Ming, who represents Deloitte & Touche, IPP’s judicial managers turned liquidators, questioned why Goh failed to inquire about and investigate a large amount of receivables – US$132 million – allegedly owed to IPP by Mercuria Energy Trading.
Had he done so, he would have learnt that the invoices IPP issued to Mercuria from September 2017 to February/March 2018 were for bogus transactions, and he would have prevented IPP from drawing down on the trade financing with SocGen and Maybank in June 2019 and July 2019.
The liquidators also alleged that Goh missed another opportunity to investigate IPP’s affairs in June 2019, when its bunker operator craft licence was suspended after the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore detected operational irregularities during an inspection.
They said that while Goh told the authority that IPP was “under tremendous financial strain”, he did so “without bothering to check IPP’s financial position”.
This is because if he had done so, he would have “discovered that there were receivables amounting to about US$964.9 million as of June 2019”.
And if he had checked on the validity and accuracy of these receivables, “the sham transactions would have been exposed”, the liquidators argued.
The judge found that due to Goh’s failure to act on several red flags that had emerged around Feb 7, 2018, “the full extent of the losses claimed by IPP should be allowed”.
“Loss was caused to the plaintiff through the transactions and drawdowns which should not have been carried out and would not have been had the defendant performed his duties,” the judge ruled.
On Goh’s defence relating to the adequacy of information provided within IPP, Justice Abdullah found the information insufficient to answer the queries “that should have been pursued by the defendant as a director, given both the magnitude and the circumstances of these financial issues”.
“An honest and reasonably diligent director would have persisted and probed further,” he noted, adding that on the balance of probabilities, the fraud would have been discovered had Goh inquired.
“In particular, once (Goh) appreciated the large amount supposedly owed to (IPP) by Mercuria, he would have uncovered things that would have triggered... if not an immediate call to the authorities, at least one soon after, staunching any loss to the company.
“This was, as noted by the plaintiff, something that he discovered fairly promptly in reality when he eventually realised that there was cargo trading being undertaken,” the judge noted.
Goh held 36 concurrent directorships between 2017 and August 2019.
In 2020, he stepped down as non-independent, non-executive chairman of healthcare and energy firm New Silkroutes Group and resigned as independent director of cord-blood banking firm Cordlife Group.
In September 2023, Goh and three other men were handed a total of 132 charges related to false trading offences in the State Courts.
Goh himself faced 39 charges under the Securities and Futures Act over allegations including manipulating the share price of New Silkroutes over various periods in 2018.
-----------------------
https://www.straitstimes.com/busine...-us146m-losses-suffered-by-company-high-court
Former IPP director Goh Jin Hian liable for US$146m losses suffered by company: High Court
Goh Jin Hian outside the State Courts on Sept 20, 2023. Goh was on Jan 24 found liable for breach of director’s duties, statutory duties and losses suffered by IPP. PHOTO: SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS FILE
UPDATED 24 MINS AGO
SINGAPORE - The High Court has found Goh Jin Hian, a former director of insolvent marine fuel supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP), liable for breach of director’s duties, statutory duties and losses suffered by the firm amounting to US$146 million (S$196 million) plus interest.
The liquidators of IPP had sued Goh to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of “sleepwalking through his time as a director” and failing to discover and stop drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019 to fund alleged non-existent or sham transactions.
The 55-year-old served as a director of IPP from June 28, 2011, to Aug 20, 2019.
According to the liquidators, the trade financing came from IPP’s two largest creditors – Malayan Banking (Maybank) and the Singapore branch of Societe Generale (SocGen).
It consisted of US$146 million drawn down for cargo trading operations, and US$10.5 million drawn from SocGen’s facility for IPP’s bunkering operations allegedly when IPP was balance-sheet insolvent.
High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah, in brief remarks issued on Jan 24, detailed the responsibilities of a company director. He noted that while a director is not an internal auditor checking every singular detail, the obligation is to monitor the affairs of the corporation.
“This entails, among others, at least broad level supervision of the activities of the officers of the corporation, for the protection of the company, shareholders and creditors,” the judge said.
Get the highlights right after the speech on Feb 16. You will also get the Evening Update newsletter.
He found that Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, had “breached the fiduciary duty owed to the company to take into account the interests of the creditors”.
“It is not necessary for the company to be actually insolvent; the duty arises when the company is in parlous state.
“I do find that the company was in difficulties at the least by June 2019, as indicated by it being balance-sheet insolvent then, and that it was in financial difficulties,” he said.
But the judge said the claim for the loss of US$10.5 million “has not been made out” as IPP has “not sufficiently shown how this claim arose out of the breach in question”.
In response to The Straits Times’ questions, Goh said: “I am considering an appeal against the judgment and will discuss this with my lawyers.”
According to Goh’s opening statement, IPP’s cargo trades and its books and records were directly managed out of its Hong Kong office by Ms Zoe Cheung, a former director and 85 per cent shareholder, and former chief financial officer Wallace To.
“If Dr Goh (was suspicious about) IPP’s finances, and was inclined to investigate, he would require Zoe and Wallace’s cooperation,” it said.
The judge found that the defendant played an active role in the management of the company, adding that the evidence did not show he reduced his role to a purely non-executive one after July 2015.
“The defendant in his specific circumstances owed the duty to be fully apprised of the affairs of the company, especially those relating to its profitability or otherwise.
“That thus entailed a need for him to be aware of and to monitor all the activities, including the cargo trading business.”
Directors in breach of fiduciary duties can face severe liabilities
New Silkroutes Group ex-CEO Goh Jin Hian, three others charged with market manipulation
Justice Abdullah said Goh showed a lack of knowledge of IPP’s cargo trading business, which was a significant portion of the company’s activity.
“What was adduced by the plaintiff did sufficiently make out ignorance,” the judge said.
During the High Court trial in April 2023, Senior Counsel Lok Vi Ming, who represents Deloitte & Touche, IPP’s judicial managers turned liquidators, questioned why Goh failed to inquire about and investigate a large amount of receivables – US$132 million – allegedly owed to IPP by Mercuria Energy Trading.
Had he done so, he would have learnt that the invoices IPP issued to Mercuria from September 2017 to February/March 2018 were for bogus transactions, and he would have prevented IPP from drawing down on the trade financing with SocGen and Maybank in June 2019 and July 2019.
The liquidators also alleged that Goh missed another opportunity to investigate IPP’s affairs in June 2019, when its bunker operator craft licence was suspended after the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore detected operational irregularities during an inspection.
They said that while Goh told the authority that IPP was “under tremendous financial strain”, he did so “without bothering to check IPP’s financial position”.
This is because if he had done so, he would have “discovered that there were receivables amounting to about US$964.9 million as of June 2019”.
And if he had checked on the validity and accuracy of these receivables, “the sham transactions would have been exposed”, the liquidators argued.
The judge found that due to Goh’s failure to act on several red flags that had emerged around Feb 7, 2018, “the full extent of the losses claimed by IPP should be allowed”.
“Loss was caused to the plaintiff through the transactions and drawdowns which should not have been carried out and would not have been had the defendant performed his duties,” the judge ruled.
On Goh’s defence relating to the adequacy of information provided within IPP, Justice Abdullah found the information insufficient to answer the queries “that should have been pursued by the defendant as a director, given both the magnitude and the circumstances of these financial issues”.
“An honest and reasonably diligent director would have persisted and probed further,” he noted, adding that on the balance of probabilities, the fraud would have been discovered had Goh inquired.
“In particular, once (Goh) appreciated the large amount supposedly owed to (IPP) by Mercuria, he would have uncovered things that would have triggered... if not an immediate call to the authorities, at least one soon after, staunching any loss to the company.
“This was, as noted by the plaintiff, something that he discovered fairly promptly in reality when he eventually realised that there was cargo trading being undertaken,” the judge noted.
Goh held 36 concurrent directorships between 2017 and August 2019.
In 2020, he stepped down as non-independent, non-executive chairman of healthcare and energy firm New Silkroutes Group and resigned as independent director of cord-blood banking firm Cordlife Group.
In September 2023, Goh and three other men were handed a total of 132 charges related to false trading offences in the State Courts.
Goh himself faced 39 charges under the Securities and Futures Act over allegations including manipulating the share price of New Silkroutes over various periods in 2018.
-----------------------
https://www.straitstimes.com/busine...-fiduciary-duties-can-face-severe-liabilities
A High Court judge pointed out that a directorship is “not a sinecure, nor an honorary function. The obligation is to monitor the affairs of the corporation”.
UPDATED 45 MINS AGO
SINGAPORE - A recent High Court ruling has sent a strong warning that those who are not good stewards of the businesses in their care can face severe liabilities under the Companies Act.
High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah on Jan 24 found Goh Jin Hian, a former director of insolvent marine fuel supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP), liable for US$146 million (S$196 million) in financial losses due to his breach of fiduciary and statutory duties under the Companies Act.
Justice Abdullah pointed out that a directorship is “not a sinecure, nor an honorary function. The obligation is to monitor the affairs of the corporation”. This entails, among other things, at least broad-level supervision of the activities of the officers of the corporation, for the protection of the company, shareholders and creditors, he added.
The judge said the financial position of the company was suspect, and should have primed Goh to look further and obtain a picture of the true state of the affairs of the company and monitor what was happening within it.
“That was his duty as a director,” added Justice Abdullah.
For his failure to act on several red flags that had emerged around Feb 7, 2018, “the full extent of the losses claimed by IPP should be allowed”, the judge ruled.
Mr Robson Lee, senior corporate lawyer and partner at Kennedys Legal Solutions, said a director has the fiduciary duty to manage and conduct the affairs of the company with due care.
He added that if a director is found wanting in his fiduciary duty, he can be responsible for compensating the company for losses that it had suffered under his mismanagement or negligence.
“A director cannot be a sleeping director and raise the defence that he was not an active director but merely a nominee director, when the company is in trouble and the enforcement agencies take action or when faced with a lawsuit for negligence or mismanagement.
“The law imposes statutory and fiduciary duties on all directors to act with due care, irrespective of their executive or non-executive positions,” Mr Lee said.
Professor Mak Yuen Teen of the National University of Singapore Business School noted that directors may be “protected by the business-judgment rule if their decisions turn out to be wrong and the company suffers losses”.
But he stressed that this protection is available only if they make a business judgment honestly for the benefit of the company, do not have a material personal interest, are appropriately informed about the matter, and reasonably believe that it is in the best interest of the company.
Even if directors are non-executive directors, and not closely involved in the company’s management, it does not mean that they will not be held responsible if they do not exercise reasonable diligence, Prof Mak added.
As such, directors should make sure they are properly informed and exercise their own judgment before signing documents or agreeing to decisions, he said.
“They should not just sign documents or agree to decisions based on the word of others, or if they do not understand,” he added.
-------------
Directors in breach of fiduciary duties can face severe liabilities
A High Court judge pointed out that a directorship is “not a sinecure, nor an honorary function. The obligation is to monitor the affairs of the corporation”.
UPDATED 45 MINS AGO
SINGAPORE - A recent High Court ruling has sent a strong warning that those who are not good stewards of the businesses in their care can face severe liabilities under the Companies Act.
High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah on Jan 24 found Goh Jin Hian, a former director of insolvent marine fuel supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP), liable for US$146 million (S$196 million) in financial losses due to his breach of fiduciary and statutory duties under the Companies Act.
Justice Abdullah pointed out that a directorship is “not a sinecure, nor an honorary function. The obligation is to monitor the affairs of the corporation”. This entails, among other things, at least broad-level supervision of the activities of the officers of the corporation, for the protection of the company, shareholders and creditors, he added.
The judge said the financial position of the company was suspect, and should have primed Goh to look further and obtain a picture of the true state of the affairs of the company and monitor what was happening within it.
“That was his duty as a director,” added Justice Abdullah.
For his failure to act on several red flags that had emerged around Feb 7, 2018, “the full extent of the losses claimed by IPP should be allowed”, the judge ruled.
Mr Robson Lee, senior corporate lawyer and partner at Kennedys Legal Solutions, said a director has the fiduciary duty to manage and conduct the affairs of the company with due care.
He added that if a director is found wanting in his fiduciary duty, he can be responsible for compensating the company for losses that it had suffered under his mismanagement or negligence.
“A director cannot be a sleeping director and raise the defence that he was not an active director but merely a nominee director, when the company is in trouble and the enforcement agencies take action or when faced with a lawsuit for negligence or mismanagement.
“The law imposes statutory and fiduciary duties on all directors to act with due care, irrespective of their executive or non-executive positions,” Mr Lee said.
Professor Mak Yuen Teen of the National University of Singapore Business School noted that directors may be “protected by the business-judgment rule if their decisions turn out to be wrong and the company suffers losses”.
But he stressed that this protection is available only if they make a business judgment honestly for the benefit of the company, do not have a material personal interest, are appropriately informed about the matter, and reasonably believe that it is in the best interest of the company.
Even if directors are non-executive directors, and not closely involved in the company’s management, it does not mean that they will not be held responsible if they do not exercise reasonable diligence, Prof Mak added.
As such, directors should make sure they are properly informed and exercise their own judgment before signing documents or agreeing to decisions, he said.
“They should not just sign documents or agree to decisions based on the word of others, or if they do not understand,” he added.
-------------
Father ownself check ownself
Son ownself checkmate ownself.
Son ownself checkmate ownself.
For financial crimes you can’t get a better judge than Audit Abdullah.
His parents saw the future when they named him.
His parents saw the future when they named him.
Dr Goh Jin Hian has been trained since young as a scammer and hard core criminal 官二代
How come Woody's wife never cum out to say 146-million loss is just peanuts ? 
Her old flame TT Durai will pay for Her son penaltyHow come Woody's wife never cum out to say 146-million loss is just peanuts ?
The Bayi lawyer can get ah Goh Jnr out of anything
hope he has a chiobu daughter by the name of awrah?
Similar threads
