• 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.

Prosecution applies for charges against ex-Airocean chief to be quashed

Awake

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Jul 27, 2012
Messages
460
Points
0

Prosecution applies for charges against ex-Airocean chief to be quashed

Published on Oct 04, 2013

ThomasTay0410e.jpg


Six years after he was fined $240,000 for non-disclosure and false statement offences, former Airocean chief executive Thomas Tay (above), seen in this 2006 file photo, was on Friday, Oct 4, 2013, cleared of the charges - on the prosecution's initiative. -- ST FILE PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW

By Selina Lum

Six years after he was fined $240,000 for non-disclosure and false statement offences, former Airocean chief executive Thomas Tay was on Friday cleared of the charges - on the prosecution's initiative.

This came in the wake of various rulings last year by then-chief justice Chan Sek Keong when he acquitted three other former Airocean directors who appealed against their convictions.

Mr Tay who had pleaded guilty in 2007 to the charges under the Securities and Futures Act, did not take steps to set aside his own conviction. But the prosecution on Friday applied to the High Court for his conviction to be quashed "in the interest of justice".

The prosecution said that the circumstances of Mr Tay's case are based on the same set of facts as those of the other ex-directors. For Mr Tay to remain convicted while the other three were acquitted would result in "serious injustice". The court set aside Mr Tay's conviction and ordered the fine be refunded to him.


 
Back
Top