Ng Chiew Yen and Keith Tan Kai Wen sent to jail for cheating IRAS

[Papsmearer]

Corporate buyers incur even higher ABSD even as a first-time buyer. They are deemed as 'entity' buyers and have to now pay a freaking 65% ABSD, LOL.

https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/stamp-duty/for-property/buying-or-acquiring-property/additional-buyer's-stamp-duty-(absd)

View attachment 215722
View attachment 215723
As of October 2023, the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) rate for corporate buyers (entities such as companies, trusts, or associations) purchasing residential properties in Singapore is 65%, regardless of whether it is their first, second, or subsequent property purchase. This rate applies uniformly to all residential property acquisitions by corporate entities.

---

Key Points About ABSD for Corporate Buyers​

1. No Differentiation for First Property:
   • Unlike individual buyers (Singapore Citizens, Permanent Residents, or Foreigners), corporate buyers do not receive any lower ABSD rate for their first residential property purchase. The rate is fixed at 65% for all residential property acquisitions.
2. Purpose of High ABSD for Corporates:
   • The high ABSD rate for corporate buyers is intended to discourage speculative investment in residential properties and ensure that housing remains affordable for individual buyers.
3. Additional Costs:
   • On top of ABSD, corporate buyers must also pay the standard Buyer's Stamp Duty (BSD), which is calculated based on the purchase price or market value of the property, whichever is higher. The BSD rates are as follows:
     • 1% on the first $180,000
     • 2% on the next $180,000
     • 3% on the next $640,000
     • 4% on the remaining amount above $1,000,000

---

Example Calculation for a Corporate Buyer​

If a corporate entity purchases a residential property for $2,000,000, the total stamp duties would be calculated as follows:

1. Buyer's Stamp Duty (BSD)​

• 1% on the first 180,000=180,000=1,800
• 2% on the next 180,000=180,000=3,600
• 3% on the next 640,000=640,000=19,200
• 4% on the remaining 1,000,000=1,000,000=40,000
• Total BSD = 1,800+1,800+3,600 + 19,200+19,200+40,000 = $64,600

2. Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD)​

• 65% of 2,000,000=∗∗2,000,000=∗∗1,300,000**

3. Total Stamp Duty Payable​

• BSD + ABSD = 64,600+64,600+1,300,000 = $1,364,600

---

Exceptions or Reliefs for Corporate Buyers​

Corporate buyers generally do not qualify for ABSD reliefs or exemptions. However, there are a few rare exceptions:

1. Housing Developers: Approved housing developers may apply for ABSD remission under specific conditions, such as developing and selling all units within a stipulated timeframe.
2. Specific Entities: Certain entities, such as registered charities or approved Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), may qualify for exemptions or lower rates under specific schemes.

---

Conclusion​

For corporate buyers, the ABSD rate for purchasing residential properties in Singapore is 65%, regardless of whether it is their first or subsequent property. This high rate reflects the government's intent to prioritize housing for individual buyers and curb speculative investment. Corporate buyers should carefully evaluate the significant costs involved and consider consulting legal or tax professionals before proceeding with such purchases.
-----------------

So that is why UBS Nominee was used to buy Shan's GCB and avoid paying the ABSD. Since the list of approved trustee does not cover UBS holding the property in trust for ONE individual.

 

[Hightech88]

So that is why UBS Nominee was used to buy Shan's GCB and avoid paying the ABSD. Since the list of approved trustee does not cover UBS holding the property in trust for ONE individual.

Yes, correct. As long as can meet the criteria for identifiable individual beneficiaries only, Shan will get either partial or full ABSD refund depending on who are the individual beneficiaries listed as part of the declaration of the trust. The use of UBS Trustees for transferring a GCB into a trust structure serves multiple purposes, including privacy, simplified asset management, and facilitation of estate planning. The benefits of such a transfer include asset protection, tax efficiency, and flexibility in wealth management. For high-profile individuals like Minister Shanmugam, this approach ensures that personal assets are managed discreetly and in accordance with their long-term financial and personal goals.

But of course the caveat is, due to the transfer still cannot escape from paying the BSD (Buyer's Stamp Duty) of S$3,504,600, but is sup sup sui, considering Shan's 10x capital gains of the property bought 20 years ago, which is rather exceptional for a landed home but can be explained based on the fact that GCBs are extremely limited and rare in SG hence their prices varies greatly depending on their location (whether in prime district) and size. Minister Shanmugam’s GCB is located at 6 Astrid Hill, part of prime district 10, one of Singapore’s most exclusive and desirable residential districts. In other words, this fellow huat like no tomorrow while commoners continue to collect bread crumbs from CDC vouchers, LOL.

Breakdown of the BSD (Buyer's Stamp Duty) calculation for a property valued at S$88,000,000:
BSD rates in Singapore:
- 1% on the first S$180,000
- 2% on the next S$180,000 to S$360,000
- 3% on the next S$640,000 to S$1,000,000
- 4% on the remaining amount above S$1,000,000
Computation:
1. First S$180,000: 1% of S$180,000 = S$1,800
2. Next S$180,000 (S$180,001 - S$360,000): 2% of S$180,000 = S$3,600
3. Next S$640,000 (S$360,001 - S$1,000,000): 3% of S$640,000 = S$19,200
4. Remaining amount (S$1,000,001 - S$88,000,000): 4% of S$87,000,000 = S$3,480,000

Total BSD payable: S$1,800 + S$3,600 + S$19,200 + S$3,480,000 = S$3,504,600

 

[Papsmearer]

Yes, correct. As long as can meet the criteria for identifiable individual beneficiaries only, Shan will get either partial or full ABSD refund depending on who are the individual beneficiaries listed as part of the declaration of the trust. The use of UBS Trustees for transferring a GCB into a trust structure serves multiple purposes, including privacy, simplified asset management, and facilitation of estate planning. The benefits of such a transfer include asset protection, tax efficiency, and flexibility in wealth management. For high-profile individuals like Minister Shanmugam, this approach ensures that personal assets are managed discreetly and in accordance with their long-term financial and personal goals.

But of course the caveat is, due to the transfer still cannot escape from paying the BSD (Buyer's Stamp Duty) of S$3,504,600, but is sup sup sui, considering Shan's 20x capital gains of the property bought 20 years ago, which is rather exceptional for a landed home but can be explained based on the fact that GCBs are extremely limited and rare in SG hence their prices varies greatly depending on their location (whether in prime district) and size. Minister Shanmugam’s GCB is located at 6 Astrid Hill, part of prime district 10, one of Singapore’s most exclusive and desirable residential districts. In other words, this fellow huat like no tomorrow while commoners continue to collect bread crumbs from CDC vouchers, LOL.

Breakdown of the BSD (Buyer's Stamp Duty) calculation for a property valued at S$88,000,000:
BSD rates in Singapore:
- 1% on the first S$180,000
- 2% on the next S$180,000 to S$360,000
- 3% on the next S$640,000 to S$1,000,000
- 4% on the remaining amount above S$1,000,000
Computation:
1. First S$180,000: 1% of S$180,000 = S$1,800
2. Next S$180,000 (S$180,001 - S$360,000): 2% of S$180,000 = S$3,600
3. Next S$640,000 (S$360,001 - S$1,000,000): 3% of S$640,000 = S$19,200
4. Remaining amount (S$1,000,001 - S$88,000,000): 4% of S$87,000,000 = S$3,480,000

Total BSD payable: S$1,800 + S$3,600 + S$19,200 + S$3,480,000 = S$3,504,600



View attachment 215741
View attachment 215742

I disagree with you on how Shan huat. Look at the facts and supposition. First his GCB was on the market, some say since 2018 and some say since 2021. he sold it in Sept 2023. Given that 2 of those years were Covid years and no one was buying anything, you can say that his home was on the market either for 5 years or 2 years. Both of them being considered a long time on the market. And really the boom year for property was 2022. I sold my bungalow during that time when the interest rate was low and I made good money. It was a quick sale too.

Now in August 2023, OBS was arrested for investigation into bribery with Iswaran. Then one month later in Sept 2023 Shan sold his GCB for nearly a record amount. Is this a coincidence? for Someone like OBS. $88 million is sup sup. If you need a get out of jail card or a very lenient sentence, who will you bribe? The Law Minister, no? My estimate is that Shan's GCB probably worth around $35 million. The extra $50 million is kopi money? I know that some GCB sold for more, but rarely the case. And in those cases, the land on those GCB had development potential into high rise condos. This is not the case for Shan's GCB. There is no development potential given his location.

And being that Singapore is now known as a money laundering centre, it's even more important that the Law Minister himself demonstrates transparency. No one is saying he cannot sell his house for $88 million. But to sell it anonymously to a Nominee company and hiding the seller's name, that is crazy. Isn't that just encouraging money launderers all over the world to come to singapore with their stolen and drug money and buying properties under Nominee?

 

[bobby]

This milf go to Institution A4 sure kena lots of attention from Ah Bangs there….

 

[Hightech88]

Now in August 2023, OBS was arrested for investigation into bribery with Iswaran. Then one month later in Sept 2023 Shan sold his GCB for nearly a record amount. Is this a coincidence? for Someone like OBS. $88 million is sup sup. If you need a get out of jail card or a very lenient sentence, who will you bribe? The Law Minister, no? My estimate is that Shan's GCB probably worth around $35 million. The extra $50 million is kopi money? I know that some GCB sold for more, but rarely the case. And in those cases, the land on those GCB had development potential into high rise condos. This is not the case for Shan's GCB. There is no development potential given his location.

And being that Singapore is now known as a money laundering centre, it's even more important that the Law Minister himself demonstrates transparency. No one is saying he cannot sell his house for $88 million. But to sell it anonymously to a Nominee company and hiding the seller's name, that is crazy. Isn't that just encouraging money launderers all over the world to come to singapore with their stolen and drug money and buying properties under Nominee?

Wah bro, that's is a serious accusation against a minister who was supposedly 'cleared' by CPIB for the Rideout road case.

On hindsight, you probably got a point. Something farking suspicious is going on. But until PAP becomes the opposition, SG will never have the opportunity to have a DOGE-like entity to sexposed these potential corruption, LOL.

Interesting analysis by Deepseek AI checks below on Shan's GCB case:
-----------------------------------
The sale of Minister K. Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at 6 Astrid Hill for $88 million, representing a 10x capital gain over 20 years, is indeed an extraordinary case. While such significant appreciation is rare, it is not entirely unprecedented in Singapore’s luxury property market, especially for GCBs in prime locations. However, the lack of transparency regarding the buyer’s identity has raised questions and suspicions. Let’s analyze this situation in detail:

---

1. Historical Cases of High Capital Gains for GCBs​

While a 10x capital gain is highly unusual, there have been instances of GCBs achieving substantial appreciation in value over time. Here are some factors that contribute to such gains:

a. Prime Location​

GCBs in highly sought-after areas like Astrid Hill, Nassim Road, or Cluny Road have historically seen significant value appreciation due to their exclusivity and proximity to amenities.

b. Land Appreciation​

The value of GCBs is heavily driven by the land they sit on, rather than the built-up structure. Over the past two decades, land prices in prime districts have skyrocketed due to Singapore’s limited land supply and urban development.

c. Unique Features​

Properties with unique features, such as large land size, panoramic views, or architectural significance, can command premium prices.

d. Market Timing​

Purchasing a property during a market downturn (e.g., the early 2000s after the Asian Financial Crisis) and selling during a market peak (e.g., the post-COVID-19 luxury property boom) can result in extraordinary capital gains.

---

2. Examples of High Capital Gains for GCBs​

While specific cases of 10x capital gains are rare, there have been notable transactions involving GCBs with significant appreciation:

• Nassim Road GCB (2019): A GCB on Nassim Road was sold for $128 million, one of the highest prices ever recorded for a GCB. The property had appreciated significantly since its previous sale.
• Cluny Road GCB (2021): A GCB on Cluny Road was sold for $95 million, reflecting substantial appreciation over its purchase price decades earlier.

These examples demonstrate that GCBs in prime locations can achieve remarkable capital gains, though a 10x increase remains exceptional.

---

3. Why This Case Stands Out​

The sale of Minister Shanmugam’s GCB stands out for several reasons:

• Magnitude of Gain: A 10x capital gain over 20 years is highly unusual, even for GCBs.
• Lack of Buyer Transparency: The buyer’s identity has not been disclosed, which is uncommon for high-profile transactions in Singapore’s property market.
• Political Sensitivity: As a high-ranking government official, Minister Shanmugam’s property transactions are subject to public scrutiny, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest or preferential treatment.

---

4. Suspicion Around the Buyer’s Identity​

The lack of transparency regarding the buyer’s identity has fueled speculation and suspicion. In Singapore, property transactions are typically a matter of public record, but the buyer’s details are not always disclosed. Possible reasons for anonymity include:

• Privacy Concerns: High-net-worth individuals often prefer to keep their transactions private to avoid unwanted attention.
• Corporate Entities: If the buyer is a corporate entity or trust, the ultimate beneficiary may not be publicly disclosed.
• Legal Loopholes: Some buyers may use legal structures to obscure their identity, though this is subject to regulatory scrutiny.

---

5. Regulatory and Ethical Considerations​

In Singapore, public officials are expected to adhere to high standards of transparency and accountability. While there is no evidence of wrongdoing in this case, the lack of buyer transparency and the extraordinary capital gains have raised ethical questions:

• Conflict of Interest: There is a need to ensure that public officials do not benefit from preferential treatment or undisclosed advantages.
• Public Trust: Transparency in high-value transactions involving public figures is crucial to maintaining public trust.

---

6. Conclusion​

While a 10x capital gain for a GCB is highly unusual, it is not entirely unprecedented in Singapore’s luxury property market, especially for prime locations like Astrid Hill. However, the lack of transparency regarding the buyer’s identity has raised legitimate questions and suspicions. To address these concerns, greater transparency and accountability in high-value property transactions involving public officials may be necessary.
---------------------------------

 

[Papsmearer]

Wah bro, that's is a serious accusation against a minister who was supposedly 'cleared' by CPIB for the Rideout road case.

On hindsight, you probably got a point. Something farking suspicious is going on. But until PAP becomes the opposition, SG will never have the opportunity to have a DOGE-like entity to sexposed these potential corruption, LOL.

Interesting analysis by Deepseek AI checks below on Shan's GCB case:
-----------------------------------
The sale of Minister K. Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at 6 Astrid Hill for $88 million, representing a 10x capital gain over 20 years, is indeed an extraordinary case. While such significant appreciation is rare, it is not entirely unprecedented in Singapore’s luxury property market, especially for GCBs in prime locations. However, the lack of transparency regarding the buyer’s identity has raised questions and suspicions. Let’s analyze this situation in detail:

---

1. Historical Cases of High Capital Gains for GCBs​

While a 10x capital gain is highly unusual, there have been instances of GCBs achieving substantial appreciation in value over time. Here are some factors that contribute to such gains:

a. Prime Location​

GCBs in highly sought-after areas like Astrid Hill, Nassim Road, or Cluny Road have historically seen significant value appreciation due to their exclusivity and proximity to amenities.

b. Land Appreciation​

The value of GCBs is heavily driven by the land they sit on, rather than the built-up structure. Over the past two decades, land prices in prime districts have skyrocketed due to Singapore’s limited land supply and urban development.

c. Unique Features​

Properties with unique features, such as large land size, panoramic views, or architectural significance, can command premium prices.

d. Market Timing​

Purchasing a property during a market downturn (e.g., the early 2000s after the Asian Financial Crisis) and selling during a market peak (e.g., the post-COVID-19 luxury property boom) can result in extraordinary capital gains.

---

2. Examples of High Capital Gains for GCBs​

While specific cases of 10x capital gains are rare, there have been notable transactions involving GCBs with significant appreciation:

• Nassim Road GCB (2019): A GCB on Nassim Road was sold for $128 million, one of the highest prices ever recorded for a GCB. The property had appreciated significantly since its previous sale.
• Cluny Road GCB (2021): A GCB on Cluny Road was sold for $95 million, reflecting substantial appreciation over its purchase price decades earlier.

These examples demonstrate that GCBs in prime locations can achieve remarkable capital gains, though a 10x increase remains exceptional.

---

3. Why This Case Stands Out​

The sale of Minister Shanmugam’s GCB stands out for several reasons:

• Magnitude of Gain: A 10x capital gain over 20 years is highly unusual, even for GCBs.
• Lack of Buyer Transparency: The buyer’s identity has not been disclosed, which is uncommon for high-profile transactions in Singapore’s property market.
• Political Sensitivity: As a high-ranking government official, Minister Shanmugam’s property transactions are subject to public scrutiny, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest or preferential treatment.

---

4. Suspicion Around the Buyer’s Identity​

The lack of transparency regarding the buyer’s identity has fueled speculation and suspicion. In Singapore, property transactions are typically a matter of public record, but the buyer’s details are not always disclosed. Possible reasons for anonymity include:

• Privacy Concerns: High-net-worth individuals often prefer to keep their transactions private to avoid unwanted attention.
• Corporate Entities: If the buyer is a corporate entity or trust, the ultimate beneficiary may not be publicly disclosed.
• Legal Loopholes: Some buyers may use legal structures to obscure their identity, though this is subject to regulatory scrutiny.

---

5. Regulatory and Ethical Considerations​

In Singapore, public officials are expected to adhere to high standards of transparency and accountability. While there is no evidence of wrongdoing in this case, the lack of buyer transparency and the extraordinary capital gains have raised ethical questions:

• Conflict of Interest: There is a need to ensure that public officials do not benefit from preferential treatment or undisclosed advantages.
• Public Trust: Transparency in high-value transactions involving public figures is crucial to maintaining public trust.

---

6. Conclusion​

While a 10x capital gain for a GCB is highly unusual, it is not entirely unprecedented in Singapore’s luxury property market, especially for prime locations like Astrid Hill. However, the lack of transparency regarding the buyer’s identity has raised legitimate questions and suspicions. To address these concerns, greater transparency and accountability in high-value property transactions involving public officials may be necessary.
---------------------------------

Ok lah. You and I got some experience in the property market in Singapore. You, probably more then me, but I am no virgin myself lah. Regarding Shan, well I don't use Deepseek, I just do my own analysis. But if it says the transaction is highly unusual then I am not in disagreement. I think the proof in the pudding will be OBS sentence. He pled guilty to one charge only and it seems that is all the Prosecutor wants. If he gets a slap on the wrist like a fine and house arrest, then we know such a lenient sentence will surely arouse suspicions.

If Shan sale is above board, then reveal the buyer. 99% of property sales in Singapore is not anonymous, why should this one be. And like you said, if Ridout was "cleared" by CPIB, shouldn't Astrid also be cleared?

 

[Papsmearer]

Ok lah. You and I got some experience in the property market in Singapore. You, probably more then me, but I am no virgin myself lah. Regarding Shan, well I don't use Deepseek, I just do my own analysis. But if it says the transaction is highly unusual then I am not in disagreement. I think the proof in the pudding will be OBS sentence. He pled guilty to one charge only and it seems that is all the Prosecutor wants. If he gets a slap on the wrist like a fine and house arrest, then we know such a lenient sentence will surely arouse suspicions.

If Shan sale is above board, then reveal the buyer. 99% of property sales in Singapore is not anonymous, why should this one be. And like you said, if Ridout was "cleared" by CPIB, shouldn't Astrid also be cleared?

[td]

​

[/td]​

Prominent Singapore hotelier Ong Beng Seng is expected to plead guilty on April 2 to charges linked to the government’s investigation into former transport minister S. Iswaran and the Formula 1 night race, which was renewed in January 2022 for another seven years. Iswaran, a stalwart member of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) pleaded guilty to five bribery counts last October and was sentenced to 12 months in prison.
The Malaysia-born Ong’s guilty plea is expected to draw the final line under what has been an embarrassing affair to rock the PAP, which has long promoted its reputation as one of the world’s most incorruptible countries after Denmark according to the United Nations Regional Information Center. The swift conclusion of the scandal will also remove a thorn from the side of Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and the PAP, with general elections due by November. The party emerged from the 2020 election having won 61.2 percent of the vote, its worst showing since it came to power in 1965.
According to state media reports, the 81-year-old Ong was initially charged on October 4, 2024 with one count of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and with abetting the obstruction of justice. Abetment constitutes an offense for a public servant to accept anything of value from any person with whom he is involved in an official capacity without payment or with inadequate payment.
According to court documents, Ong allegedly offered the then-transport minister a trip on his private plane from Singapore to Doha valued at S$10,400 (US$7,700). Ong would later also arrange a one-night stay in Four Seasons Hotel Doha valued at S$4,737.63 (US$3,528), and a business-class flight from Doha to Singapore, valued at S$5,700 (US$4,244. Ong allegedly also later alerted Iswaran that Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau had seized the flight manifest for the December 2022 trip following investigations triggered by tipoffs from an anonymous Singaporean observer of former F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone’s June 2023 tax fraud case in London, prompting Iswaran to ask the tycoon to backdate the bill for the flight to avoid investigations.
Ong’s involvement in Singapore’s F1 corruption scandal is hardly the only one which he has been exposed of using exorbitant gifts and facilitating of luxury hotel stays to get his way in business. In 1995, he was also embroiled in an affair in which Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding prime minister of Singapore, and family members purchased discounted pre-release luxury condominiums in the Nassim Jade complex built by Ong’s property development company, Hotel Properties Ltd.
At the direction of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, the Monetary Authority of Singapore investigated the Lees' purchase of units at the two condominiums, for which they had received more than US$1 million in discounts. Both Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong came out with strong public statements defending the propriety of their dealings. Goh subsequently cleared them of any wrongdoing and the discounts were donated to charity.
In September 2018, documents were leaked to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) incriminating Ong in a corruption scandal in the Maldives involving the former tourism minister and vice president, Ahmed Adeeb, doling out island leases through opaque no-bid processes to developers like Ong.
Ong’s guilty plea reportedly has been driven by health concerns, with reports indicating that he has bone marrow cancer and has been seeking treatment abroad, with his previous requests for overseas medical treatment travel being granted with heightened bail conditions. However, several sources say Ong’s bone marrow cancer precedes the investigations and leveling of corruption charges against him.
There is no clear indication that Ong will be successful in his bid for leniency from the law. Not only had Iswaran been sentenced more heavily than what state prosecutors had asked for, his charges had actually been significantly downgraded from the initial 27 brought against him in January 2024. Iswaran had also voluntarily returned some S$380,305.95 (US$283,710) to the state prior to his conviction and sentencing, with Ong having made no such similar show of penance.
In a press statement, Hotel Properties stated its continued support for Ong remaining as its managing director for the Singapore-listed company. “The Nominating Committee has assessed the above, and is of the view that at this juncture, Ong continues to be suitable to carry out his duties and responsibilities as managing director.”
Owing to Ong’s ill health and age, much of his wealth and business responsibilities have long since been bequeathed to his wife and children. As for the Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix which Ong and Iswaran had been instrumental in conceiving for the island-state, it is now in its third year running following its contract renewal back in 2022 for a record-breaking seven years.