Lectures on fraud

I am a lawyer who practices in a small law firm but also provides legal training for different organizations.

My clients include the Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore, the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants, Real Estate Developers Association of Singapore and other multi-national corporations.

My lectures cover a wide range of topics including Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law, Procurement fraud and corruption, Investment and Corruption Fraud, and Protecting Company Secrets and Customer Databases.

These lectures are not theory classes but practical guides to real life problems and safeguards to avoid legal troubles.

If your organization or company requires lectures on employee fraud, etc, contact my assistant patricia@ndgsingapore.com for a no-obligation discussion on your training needs.

Dealing with post dated cheques

Paying a creditor with a post dated cheque which later bounces is normally not a criminal offence. Often, the issuer of the cheque is a company. When the cheque bounces, it is still difficult to sue the company directors.

Problem - company owes you money. The director issues a company cheque which is post-dated. What should you do?

Solution - get a promise from the director - he promises that the cheque will clear. In return, you promise not to sue the company at this time or you promise not to evict the company from its rental premises at this time (if you are the landlord).

This is called a collateral contract. You have promised something to the director and he has promised something in return, If the cheque later bounces, you have a good case in court to sue the director personally.

If you have legal queries, you are welcome to contact me - Terence Tan, Alpha Law
email - my gmail account is terencebctan - fill in the rest yourself.

Accountant jailed for major fraud - Ewe Pang Kooi case

In 2019, Ewe Pang Kooi, a chartered accountant in Singapore, was jailed for about 25 years for criminal breach of trust. The main charges related to his work as a liquidator of several companies. His duty was to collect the assets and pay the company debts. Any surplus would belong to shareholders. Instead, he stole over $40 million. Some might think that this means he has so much money in the bank. However, he was a hardcore gambler, gambling hundreds of thousands of dollars in the local casinos. At first he stole a few million. But later, to cover up the theft, he stole from another client to replace the first loss. This procedure was repeated many times.

The court in following the City Harvest Church case reasoning, held that Ewe was guilty of the more serious form of criminal breach of trust (CBT). This was because he was acting in his professional capacity when he committed the crimes. On the other hand, the 6 City Harvest Church leaders were not acting as professionals when they were directors in charge of the church building fund money. As a result, they were guilty only of the basic offence of CBT and not the more serious form.

Ewe, is about 65 years old. With a 25 year jail term, he will be about 90 years old when he is released. However, with good behaviour, nearly all prisoners can get a 1/3 discount on their jail sentence. This is called remission.

This is the 2nd major fraud case carried out by an accountant, after the Chia Teck Leng case.