Do you have trust in the Singapore legal system?

[Balls2U]

Another low SES coolie genes shitskin lawyer got into trouble for misappropriating $4000 in excess legal fees.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...llegedly-made-off-with-4k-belonging-to-latter

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jail for 2 lawyers who tried to obstruct course of justice with contraband cigarette message​

Lawyers Wee Hong Shern (left) and Ong Peng Boon were both sentenced to jail. ST PHOTOS: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent

Sep 30, 2024

SINGAPORE - Two lawyers who attempted to obstruct the course of justice were each sentenced to jail on Sept 30.
Wee Hong Shern, 37, who had sent another lawyer, Ong Peng Boon, his direct supervisor at the time, a text message relating to contraband cigarettes in May 2019, was given seven months’ jail.
Ong, 68, who forwarded the message to a third man, identified as Tan Hock Ann, was sentenced to a year in jail. Tan was arrested in August 2019 for dealing in duty-unpaid cigarettes.
In February, District Judge Marvin Bay convicted Wee and Ong of one count each of attempting to intentionally obstruct the course of justice.
Before handing down the sentences on Sept 30, the judge said: “The factual matrix, in my judgment, shows Mr Ong to have been far more deeply invested in the criminal activity than his junior colleague.
“The evidence shows Mr Ong to have maintained a tight veil of secrecy in respect of his dealings with (Mr Tan)... Given the obvious secrecy, I sense Mr Wee’s involvement had been for a far shorter term.”
However, Judge Bay stressed that the current case involved two legal professionals who have a duty to uphold justice and facilitate judicial processes.

He said: “They have instead exploited their privileged statuses during court proceedings to transmit and relay encrypted communications to a criminal organisation, in a bid to assist the group (to) avoid law enforcement action.”
According to court documents, Wee sent what had been described as a “cryptic” message to Ong at 11.52am on May 10, 2019.
The message said: “I talked to Ah Boon to update. Basically: Buffalo is busted. Factory is safe for now, but he warns it’s only a matter of time before they find out where it is as they have the SD (card) of Ah Boon’s vehicle.

“They can trace buffalo and find factory eventually. So he said to clear everything from Factory ASAP. Evidence has come out that ST has been paid by China man. His Zello phone was seized, and he didn’t have time (to) delete convos. Bail opened at 55K.”
The court heard that at the time, Wee had just attended a court mention of his then client, Selva Kumar Subramaniam, who had been charged with dealing in duty-unpaid cigarettes. He then sent the message to Ong.
A minute later, Ong forwarded the message to Tan, who had earlier hired him to represent Selva. Ong followed up with another message: “Delete after read.”

The prosecution said it is undisputed that Wee had sent the message to Ong, who then forwarded it to Tan.
Referring to it as the “buffalo message”, deputy public prosecutors Timotheus Koh and Etsuko Lim stated in court documents: “The key question before the court is what Ong and Wee intended when they each sent (it).”
During the trial, one Toh Chin Wen, a syndicate member who was convicted of dealing in duty-unpaid cigarettes, testified that “Ah Boon” was his nickname.
In its submissions, the prosecution said Selva, another syndicate member who had also testified, told the court that “buffalo” referred to a Malaysia-registered lorry carrying duty-unpaid cigarettes.
The DPPs also said: “Tan identified the ‘factory’ as the place where the duty-unpaid cigarettes were unloaded and handled... Selva testified that the SD card of Ah Boon’s vehicle had been seized by Customs.”
However, the DPPs said it is unclear who the “he” in this portion of Wee’s message referred to.
Meanwhile, the court heard that “ST” refers to one Lim Chee Siang, who was a member of the contraband cigarette syndicate.
The DPPs said: “Selva testified that the line, ‘His Zello phone was seized, and he didn’t have time (to) delete convos’, was what he had told Wee on May 10, 2019.
“In other words, Selva’s Zello phone had been seized before he could delete the conversations.”
As for the final line of the message which mentioned “55K”, the prosecution told the court it was undisputed that this was a reference to Selva having been offered bail of $55,000.
Court documents did not disclose the outcome of the cases involving Tan, Toh, Selva and Lim.
The DPPs told Judge Bay that there were clear links between the message and a syndicate dealing in duty-unpaid cigarettes.
Ong is represented by lawyers Eugene Thuraisingam and Suang Wijaya, while Wee is represented by lawyer Ramesh Tiwary.
On Sept 30, the court heard that Ong and Wee intend to appeal against the convictions and sentences.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Prisons, AGC acted unlawfully, in breach of confidence over death-row inmates’ letters: Court of Appeal​

The letters were written by 13 prisoners on death row who were seeking damages for unlawful practice, breach of confidence and copyright infringement. ST PHOTO: GIN TAY

Samuel Devaraj

Oct 12, 2024

SINGAPORE – The Court of Appeal found that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and Singapore Prison Service (SPS) were in breach of confidence and acted unlawfully over the exchange of a number of letters belonging to 13 death-row inmates.
The court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Senior Judge Judith Prakash and Justice Steven Chong, affirmed on Oct 11 the importance of a prisoner’s ownership over his correspondence and his right, within the bounds of the law, to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of his communications.
In a written judgment, the court noted that the AGC and the SPS, which is under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), have since taken steps to remedy the situation.
The letters were written by 13 prisoners on death row who were seeking damages for unlawful practice, breach of confidence and copyright infringement.
They had filed a civil case against the AGC in July 2021.
The prisoners were mostly drug offenders, but also included former policeman Iskandar Rahmat, who was convicted of the 2013 Kovan double murders of a businessman and his son.
The inmates had sent correspondence to various parties, including the Singapore Police Force and their lawyers.

The Court of Appeal said almost all the documents concerned past, pending or contemplated proceedings arising from the inmates’ convictions and sentences, and the dismissal of their appeals.
The documents included complaints against former counsel, requests for legal assistance, or were related to correspondence over clemency applications.
In an affidavit, Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong said that at the time when the documents were shared, the SPS and MHA would generally keep the AGC – as the Government’s legal adviser – informed of developments regarding inmates awaiting capital punishment.

They would also seek the AGC’s advice on whether there were any relevant pending proceedings, or issues which could give rise to such proceedings, that would require the capital punishment to be temporarily suspended.
“Given that the SPS and the MHA officers handling such matters were not legally trained, if they came across any document that appeared to be legal in nature, they would send it to the AGC for advice,” said Mr Tai.
Almost all the 68 documents sent by the SPS to the AGC were for this reason, the judges noted.
The practice led to a wholesale passing of the inmates’ correspondence to the AGC without either party assessing if anything in the correspondence even required the AGC to give the SPS legal advice.
The judges noted that the law allows prison officers to read all correspondence from or to prisoners and make copies of the letters, unless they are to or from the prisoner’s legal adviser.
However, this does not extend to permitting the SPS to make copies of letters to or from lawyers, or to give copies of any letters at all to anyone, including the AGC.

The judges said they recognised the possibility that the contents of the prisoners’ correspondence read by the SPS might require it to obtain legal or other advice to ensure the safety and good order of the prison or the public.
However, the SPS and AGC did not say the letters belonging to the 13 inmates required advice of such a nature.
The court said that in urgent matters, the SPS must make it clear to the AGC that the disclosure was only for the purpose of obtaining urgent advice.
Said the judges: “The AGC, for its part, would have to have systems in place to maintain the confidentiality of any documents disclosed for this purpose so that such documents are only disclosed to the officers tasked with providing the necessary advice to the SPS.”
The court accepted that although the AGC had not properly considered the importance of prisoners’ confidentiality when it obtained correspondence from the SPS, this was an oversight and not an attempt to seek an advantage in court proceedings.
“The AGC had also promptly destroyed its copies of the correspondence upon being informed of the proper procedure it ought to adopt in relation to correspondence from or to prisoners,” the judges added.
The judges upheld $10 nominal damages to three prisoners granted earlier by the High Court for breach of copyright. No damages were awarded to the 13 prisoners for breach of confidence.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jail for woman who cheated cycling buddy of $4,000 despite knowing victim was bankrupt​

The victim raised funds after pawning her gold bracelet and handed $4,000 in cash to Rozita Mohamed Rosli (pictured) in July 2022. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent

Nov 13, 2024

SINGAPORE – An officer from the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office (IPTO) of the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) made an unauthorised search on her workplace computer system and found out her cycling buddy was a bankrupt.
Despite this, Rozita Mohamed Rosli went on to cheat the 46-year-old woman of $4,000 by claiming that the money was for a so-called “top-up” which was purportedly required as part of a process to discharge herself from bankruptcy.
Rozita even suggested the victim borrow money from her brother-in-law when she said she did not have enough cash at the time.
The victim managed to raise the funds after pawning her gold bracelet and handed $4,000 in cash to Rozita in July 2022.
On Nov 13, the 42-year-old offender was sentenced to 15 months’ jail after she pleaded guilty to one count each of cheating and misusing a computer system.
Rozita, who has since returned the full amount to the victim, was an individual insolvency administrator at IPTO at the time of the offences.
Responding to queries from The Straits Times, MinLaw said it found out about Rozita’s case in January 2023.

The ministry was notified in March 2024 that Rozita would be charged in court for offences disclosed during police investigations. She was then suspended on half-pay in accordance with civil service guidelines.
“While police investigations were ongoing, the officer was redeployed to a role with no access to bankruptcy or other sensitive information,” said its spokesperson, adding that MinLaw is initiating disciplinary proceedings against her after the conviction.
Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) June Ngian said the victim was declared a bankrupt in June 2017.

Under a certain scheme, she had to make monthly payments of $120 over five years for a total payment of $6,000.
Rozita got to know her in around February 2022 and the pair became cycling buddies soon after.
In May 2022, Rozita suspected the victim was a bankrupt and decided to find out more about it.
Rozita was at her workplace when she unlawfully used her computer to look for the victim’s information in an internal computer system. She then found out the victim was a bankrupt.
In June 2022, she called and told the victim that she knew about her bankruptcy.
They were with a group of friends later that month when Rozita asked the victim if they could speak in private. She then duped the victim into believing that a $4,000 top-up was required as part of a process to discharge herself from bankruptcy.

The DPP said: “The accused... told the victim that she spoke to the victim’s individual insolvency administrator... about the victim’s case and that the victim would need to stand-by an additional $4,000 in cash.
“The accused explained that the $6,000 repaid was insufficient and that an additional $4,000 would be required for her to be successfully discharged as a bankrupt if any of her creditors objected to her discharge.”
Rozita claimed the additional $4,000 was “part of a scheme for all bankruptcy cases”.
She told the victim that if her creditors objected to her being discharged from being a bankrupt, MinLaw would use the $4,000 as a “counter proposal” to help her become a discharged bankrupt.
Rozita also told her the $4,000 would be refunded in full if the creditors rejected the proposal.
The victim fell for the lies and handed her $4,000 in cash on July 10, 2022.
On Dec 13, 2022, the victim received an e-mail from MinLaw involving her certificate of discharge in bankruptcy. She asked Rozita for the refund but failed to receive the money.
The truth finally emerged when the victim called the MinLaw hotline and spoke to an attending officer about the matter.
She confronted Rozita who returned the $4,000 on Jan 5, 2023. The victim also spoke to a friend and found out that Rozita had told the friend about her bankruptcy status.
The victim then wrote an e-mail to MinLaw alleging that Rozita had divulged personal information relating to her bankruptcy to a third party.
In its statement, MinLaw said it was alerted about the case in January 2023 and an internal investigation panel looked into the matter, which was referred to the police two months later.
Rozita’s bail was set at $15,000 on Nov 13 and she is expected to begin serving her sentence on Dec 4.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Singapore judge chides lawyer for convoluted mitigation filled with grammatical errors​

District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation. PHOTO: PIXABAY

Samuel Devaraj

Nov 19, 2024

SINGAPORE - A judge chided a criminal lawyer for the poor quality of a written mitigation plea the latter submitted to the court on behalf of a client who admitted to a cheating charge.
In a judgment dated Nov 11, District Judge Lim Tse Haw said he told Mr A. Revi Shanker that his mitigation was “so convoluted and verbose” and filled with grammatical errors, that he had difficulty understanding what the lawyer was trying to submit.
The judge said: “Lawyers and prosecutors would do well to prepare their written submissions in plain English and (an) easy-to-read manner. This would save much valuable judicial time in reading and understanding the submissions.”
In order to understand the mitigation, he asked Mr Shanker to make an oral presentation in court.
Mr Shanker’s client Jeremy Francis Cruez was sentenced to six months’ jail in October. The 60-year-old Sri Lankan national had admitted to cheating his former company, Major’s Pest Management Services.
The prosecution had asked for a jail term of between 14 and 16 months, while Mr Shanker asked for a fine.

While both sides appealed the sentence, court records show that Cruez has since discontinued his appeal.

As a fumigation manager, Cruez was responsible for ensuring that the supplies required for fumigation works were obtained.
Between April 13, 2017 and Oct 22, 2019, he submitted fake or forged invoices to his company for fumigation-related supplies from six suppliers, seeking a total of $190,455.60. The amount was to be paid in cash.
In fact, Cruez had bought the supplies from other sources and marked up the prices in the fake or forged invoices by 5 per cent. He had intended to pocket the difference.

When he was questioned by the company’s managing director why the suppliers required cash payment, he explained that they had been paid in cash under Major’s previous managing director.
He provided e-mails from the suppliers who purportedly requested for payment in cash or for the cheque to be made out to a person called Myrna, who was stated to be an “executive in charge of accounts” in the e-mails. However, Myrna was his close friend who was working as a domestic helper.
Believing the ruse, the company disbursed $190,455.60 as payment for the supplies to either Cruez or Myrna.
In the judgment, District Judge Lim highlighted the first paragraph of Mr Shanker’s mitigation, which comprised a single sentence of 176 words.
In the paragraph, among many other points, Mr Shanker said his client had to “live at the mercy of friends and relatives whose assistance is only, not unexpectedly, thinning away such that his queues for food (breakfast, lunch and dinner) on a daily basis at religious place of worship and other organisations have become more frequent”.
District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation.
To avoid any misunderstanding of the mitigation, the judge asked the lawyer to summarise orally at a hearing on Oct 22, 2024, what he was trying to submit.
Mr Shanker said during the hearing that Cruez was not qualifying his plea of guilt.
He added that his client had offered to make full restitution to Major’s Pest Management Services of the sum of $12,953.73, which was Cruez’s personal gains from the offence. But the offer was declined by the pest control company.
While rejecting the defence’s submission for a fine, District Judge Lim said the prosecution’s submission for 14 to 16 month’s jail was manifestly excessive.
“Had the accused pocketed the entire sum of $190,455.60 and left the company in a lurch by not carrying out any of the fumigation works, then perhaps a sentence of 14 to 16 months’ imprisonment as sought for by the prosecution would be appropriate,” he said.

The first paragraph of the mitigation plea that District Judge Lim Tse Haw deemed convoluted and verbose. PHOTO: COURT DOCUMENTS

 

[NanoSpeed]

Singapore judge chides lawyer for convoluted mitigation filled with grammatical errors​

District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation. PHOTO: PIXABAY

Samuel Devaraj

Nov 19, 2024

SINGAPORE - A judge chided a criminal lawyer for the poor quality of a written mitigation plea the latter submitted to the court on behalf of a client who admitted to a cheating charge.
In a judgment dated Nov 11, District Judge Lim Tse Haw said he told Mr A. Revi Shanker that his mitigation was “so convoluted and verbose” and filled with grammatical errors, that he had difficulty understanding what the lawyer was trying to submit.
The judge said: “Lawyers and prosecutors would do well to prepare their written submissions in plain English and (an) easy-to-read manner. This would save much valuable judicial time in reading and understanding the submissions.”
In order to understand the mitigation, he asked Mr Shanker to make an oral presentation in court.
Mr Shanker’s client Jeremy Francis Cruez was sentenced to six months’ jail in October. The 60-year-old Sri Lankan national had admitted to cheating his former company, Major’s Pest Management Services.
The prosecution had asked for a jail term of between 14 and 16 months, while Mr Shanker asked for a fine.

While both sides appealed the sentence, court records show that Cruez has since discontinued his appeal.

As a fumigation manager, Cruez was responsible for ensuring that the supplies required for fumigation works were obtained.
Between April 13, 2017 and Oct 22, 2019, he submitted fake or forged invoices to his company for fumigation-related supplies from six suppliers, seeking a total of $190,455.60. The amount was to be paid in cash.
In fact, Cruez had bought the supplies from other sources and marked up the prices in the fake or forged invoices by 5 per cent. He had intended to pocket the difference.

When he was questioned by the company’s managing director why the suppliers required cash payment, he explained that they had been paid in cash under Major’s previous managing director.
He provided e-mails from the suppliers who purportedly requested for payment in cash or for the cheque to be made out to a person called Myrna, who was stated to be an “executive in charge of accounts” in the e-mails. However, Myrna was his close friend who was working as a domestic helper.
Believing the ruse, the company disbursed $190,455.60 as payment for the supplies to either Cruez or Myrna.
In the judgment, District Judge Lim highlighted the first paragraph of Mr Shanker’s mitigation, which comprised a single sentence of 176 words.
In the paragraph, among many other points, Mr Shanker said his client had to “live at the mercy of friends and relatives whose assistance is only, not unexpectedly, thinning away such that his queues for food (breakfast, lunch and dinner) on a daily basis at religious place of worship and other organisations have become more frequent”.
District Judge Lim said he had checked and confirmed with Mr Shanker that he himself had drafted the mitigation.
To avoid any misunderstanding of the mitigation, the judge asked the lawyer to summarise orally at a hearing on Oct 22, 2024, what he was trying to submit.
Mr Shanker said during the hearing that Cruez was not qualifying his plea of guilt.
He added that his client had offered to make full restitution to Major’s Pest Management Services of the sum of $12,953.73, which was Cruez’s personal gains from the offence. But the offer was declined by the pest control company.
While rejecting the defence’s submission for a fine, District Judge Lim said the prosecution’s submission for 14 to 16 month’s jail was manifestly excessive.
“Had the accused pocketed the entire sum of $190,455.60 and left the company in a lurch by not carrying out any of the fumigation works, then perhaps a sentence of 14 to 16 months’ imprisonment as sought for by the prosecution would be appropriate,” he said.

The first paragraph of the mitigation plea that District Judge Lim Tse Haw deemed convoluted and verbose. PHOTO: COURT DOCUMENTS

The lawyer will do well as a food connoisseur. He can write good reviews

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer disbarred over using injured worker’s settlement sum to pay his own fees​

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Nov 25, 2024

SINGAPORE - Lawyer Joseph Chen has been struck off the rolls for professional misconduct relating to two separate cases in which he acted for migrant workers who were seeking compensation for workplace injuries.

In one case, Mr Chen entered into a settlement agreement without the client’s knowledge and consent, and used the $6,000 settlement sum he received to pay his firm’s fees and his employees.

In the other case, Mr Chen’s inaction for nine months caused the client’s lawsuit to be automatically discontinued.

The striking-off was handed down on Nov 25 by the Court of Three Judges, which has the power to suspend or disbar errant lawyers.

The court, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, said it will give written reasons at a later date.

Mr Chen, who was called to the Bar in 1998, was the sole proprietor of Joseph Chen & Co.

In 2016, the lawyer was hired by Mr Jony Advaita Sarkar, who was injured on April 6, 2016, while working for his then-employer, GSI Offshore.

The Bangladeshi national was struck by a large metal pipe at the premises of Dyna-Mac Engineering Services and fell backwards. He was given about 70 days’ medical leave and suffered a 2 per cent permanent disability.

Mr Jony returned to Bangladesh in August 2017, after appointing the law firm to act for him and signing a power of attorney that allowed Mr Chen to act on his behalf.

In November 2017, the firm filed a lawsuit against GSI Offshore and Dyna-Mac on Mr Jony’s behalf, claiming damages of at least of $172,070.63.


The suit was settled in late 2018. Under the terms of the settlement, Mr Jony was to receive the total sum of $11,000, with $6,000 to be paid by Dyna-Mac and $5,000 to be paid by GSI Offshore.

The cheque for $6,000 issued by Dyna-Mac was eventually used to pay the law firm’s fees and expenses, and to reimburse two employees.

In January 2020, the law firm filed a notice to discontinue the suit against Dyna-Mac. GSI Offshore did not pay the $5,000.

Mr Jony found out about the settlement in November 2020. He lodged a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore against Mr Chen the following month.

In May 2022, Chief Justice Menon appointed a disciplinary tribunal to investigate 11 charges brought by the Law Society against Mr Chen.
More On This Topic
Second jail term for ex-lawyer who deceived company director into giving him $13,400
All 14 charges withdrawn for ex-lawyer accused of alleged links to illegal moneylending business
The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Tan Tee Jim and Mr Manoj Pillay Sandrasegara, found him guilty of 10 charges for breaches of various legal profession rules.

In its report, the tribunal said Mr Chen’s misconduct was especially egregious in relation to his failure to inform the client and seek his consent regarding the settlement, the discontinuance of the suit, the receipt of the settlement sum, and the use of the money.

“He kept the complainant totally in the dark regarding these matters. This misconduct demonstrates his complete dereliction of the duties to his client and is inexcusable and wholly unmitigated,” said the tribunal.

The other case involved Mr Masud Rana Abdul Jalil Hawlader, who allegedly suffered an injury in August 2012 when he was seated in a lorry.

Mr Masud initially hired another firm to act for him. After he returned to Bangladesh, the firm filed a suit on his behalf in August 2014.

In 2015, Mr Masud authorised his relative, Mr Md Alamin, to appoint Mr Chen’s firm as his new lawyers.

In October 2016, the suit was deemed discontinued under court rules, as no steps had been taken within a year of the last step.

Mr Masud returned to Singapore in July 2018.

After learning that the suit had been discontinued, he lodged a complaint to the Law Society, which brought three charges against Mr Chen.

The Law Society argued that Mr Chen had breached legal profession rules by failing to contact Mr Masud between February 2016 and October 2016.

A disciplinary tribunal was appointed by the Chief Justice in January 2023 to look into the case.


Mr Chen argued that he did not owe any duty to Mr Masud and did not breach legal profession rules.

He alleged that the retainer was invalid because he had reason to believe that Mr Masud’s claim was “bogus” and that “no accident happened”.

The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Thio Shen Yi and Mr Wong Siew Hong, rejected this argument.

In its report, the tribunal noted the formation of the solicitor-client relationship was independent of the merits of the client’s claim.

The tribunal found him guilty of misconduct for failing to act with reasonable diligence and competence, failing to provide timely advice to Mr Masud, and failing to supervise his staff.

 

[Balls2U]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...ed-workers-settlement-sum-to-pay-his-own-fees