Doubts cast on testimonies of prosecution witnesses at trial of John Soh and Quah Su-Ling

SINGAPORE (Apr 29): The penny stock crash trial resumed on April 22, with lawyers for the two alleged masterminds casting doubts on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Two witnesses, both brokers, have taken the stand so far. Jack Ng Kit Kiat and Alex Chew Keng Chiow are among the dozen or so brokers who executed trading orders in the shares that were allegedly manipulated. Over three days of hearings last week, they were also shown to have not followed proper procedures in managing clients’ accounts.

Malaysian businessman John Soh Chee Wen and his co-conspirator, former IPCO International CEO Quah Su-Ling, are on trial for orchestrating Singapore’s largest-ever case of share manipulation. Besides Ng and Chew, the prosecutors have lined up around 70 other witnesses in what is likely to be a long-drawn-out affair in court.

Procedures not followed

This past week, defence lawyers focused on the issue of third-party authorisation for executing trades. Philip Fong, managing partner of Eversheds Harry Elias, asked Ng, who was with OCBC Securities, if he had sent the third-party authorisation forms to his clients, Kuan Ah Ming, Lim Siew Hooi, Ng Su Ling and Goh Hin Calm.

Ng told the court he had personally mailed out the forms, but he did not keep copies of those forms. However, upon further probing from Fong, who is defending Quah, Ng admitted that he did not mail the forms.

Ng also admitted that it did not occur to him to obtain written authorisation from other account holders, because Quah, who was giving him the trading instructions, was his client as well. “I had the impression that she was a very good client because she always paid on time and appeared close to the account holders. They were fine with letting [Quah] place orders on their behalf,” he said.

Ng was also asked by Fong whether he colluded with UOB Kay Hian broker Alice Ang Cheau Hoon to layer trades. Layering is the practice of placing and then cancelling orders, which has the effect of influencing share price movements. Ng had received instructions for orders for the same counters and at similar volumes to the ones Ang placed in her accounts as well. For example, Ng was instructed by Ang to place a “buy” order of 300,000 Blumont Group shares at 45.5 cents each while Ang herself, over at UOBKH, placed a similar order too.

At this point, deputy public prosecutor Peter Koy objected to Fong’s argument, which he said was based on assumptions, and to which Justice Hoo Sheau Peng agreed. Ng also denied that he had a profit-sharing agreement with Ang.

Fong also got Ng to say he took trading instructions from Ang to be executed via an account held in the name of one Poh Sian Hong, who is Ang’s husband. Orders were made via another account held in the name of Yew Yong Mei. She is the wife of one Kent Ng Peng Huat, who is another UOBKH broker and a member of Ang’s trading team.

When asked whether the account holders had signed authorisation forms, Ng said it was actually not a common practice. He admitted to executing trades without written third-party authorisation.

Ng was then further probed on why he had only revealed the trades upon questioning by the defence lawyers. He replied that he only answered the questions that the Commercial Affairs Department officers had asked him, and nothing more. “[You are] trying to hide [your] own market misconducts by telling the CAD what they wanted to hear. You are insistent on distancing yourself from John Soh and Quah Su-Ling in hopes of hiding your acts,” asserted Fong.

Similarly, when Chew, the second witness took the stand, the issue of third-party authorisation was raised. In his conditioned statement, Chew, a broker with RHB Securities, said he thought that he should have obtained written third-party authorisation from his clients when he was giving his first statement to the CAD.

Were witnesses coached?

During their cross-examinations, both defence lawyers tried to show that the two prosecution witnesses had been coached by CAD officers on how to give their conditioned statements.

Fong asked Ng whether it was Kuan Ah Ming who introduced Quah to him as a client. In his conditioned statement, Ng said Kuan, another known associate of Quah and Soh, said he would introduce Quah to him. However, in his other statement to CAD, Ng said he was not sure who introduced Quah to him. In court, Ng stood by his statement that Kuan had introduced Quah to him.

However, on further questioning, Ng appeared to not know whether Kuan and Quah actually knew each other. Fong then accused Ng of lying in court by saying that Kuan introduced Quah to him. Fong asserted that Ng was merely saying that because that was what the CAD investigators wanted to hear.

Ng maintained that this was not the case. “[Kuan] said when he wanted to introduce Quah to me, [that] she was the CEO of IPCO and [that] she was very pretty. That’s what [Kuan] said to me,” he said. “When I met Quah the next day, I thought: ‘Yes, she is very pretty’,” said Ng.

In his conditioned statement, Chew, the other witness, said Soh first instructed him to execute trades on Dec 27, 2012. N Sreenivasan, Soh’s lawyer, pointed out that Soh had in fact first contacted Chew earlier via a phone call in September 2012.

Sreenivasan, managing director of K&L Gates Straits Law, then asked Chew whether he gave his testimony of when exactly Soh gave the instructions based on the evidence, or only after CAD investigators filtered the data, which then led to Chew to his conclusion.

In Chew’s statement, he cited examples of how Soh gave trading instructions to him via BlackBerry messages and calls, to which Chew then matched to the list of trades done. Chew later admitted that the CAD investigators had filtered the data, but he still had the same conclusion.

Chew admitted that his first two statements to CAD were not accurate. He only told the truth in his third statement, but that claim was disputed by Sreenivsan. “Your constantly changing version of how you told the truth means none of it is credible,” said Sreenivasan. Chew disagreed and maintained that he has told the truth ever since.

Chew was also asked about his dealings with former colleague Ken Tai Chee Ming. When Tai left the brokerage, Chew took over the accounts. The court was shown how Tai and Chew made numerous calls to each other. Sreenivasan tried to paint those calls as attempts at collusion or discussions about their clients Soh and Quah. Chew maintained that those calls were merely on “some mooncake thing”. Tai is slated to be one of the prosecution witnesses as well.

The trial resumes on April 29, when the prosecutors are expected to re-examine Chew.

2013 Penny Stock Crash

John Soh Chee Wen is the alleged mastermind behind the penny stock crash of 2013, which prosecutors have called “the most audacious, extensive and injurious market manipulation scheme ever in Singapore”.

Together with his alleged co-conspirator and girlfriend Quah Su-Ling, Soh and his associates are alleged to have been behind the massive rise and sudden collapse of shares in Blumont Group, LionGold Corp and Asiasons Capital (now Attilan Group), which wiped out some $8 billion in market value.

Subscribers can click here to read our 8-page special pullout on the penny stock crash trial.

For the latest updates on this developing story, visit http://dedge.news/crash

Don’t miss out on these highlights in the penny stock saga so far:

Doubts cast on testimonies of prosecution witnesses at trial of John Soh and Quah Su-Ling

Related News

Highlights

Changes in ICR, leverage to come into effect immediately, with additional disclosures in March

Related News

SGX RegCo reprimands former Magnus Energy board; existing directors leaving amid delisting notice

The Edge Says: Singapore gets it right — Severe punishment is the best deterrent against future commercial crimes

2013 penny stock crash mastermind and co-conspirator sentenced, drawing saga closer to closure