Connect with us

Court Cases

How shameless can AGC be to accuse a lawyer of abusing the court process, while misleading the public with its allegations?

Published

3 years ago

on

Dr Yeo Sow Nam, a well-respected anaesthetist in Singapore, was charged with four counts of molestation on 7 Feb 2020 stemming from a complaint made by a woman in her thirties.

He was accused of committing these offences on the 12th storey of Mount Elizabeth Hospital near Orchard Road in the evening of 9 Oct 2017.

The woman, who cannot be publicly identified due to a gag order by the court, is neither Dr Yeo’s patient nor staff or a fellow doctor.

Dr Yeo was called up by the police in mid-Oct 2017 and was told that a woman had alleged that he molested her four times at his clinic a week prior to the questioning.

Close to four years after undergoing investigations, being charged and the court holding hearings on the case, Dr Yeo was cleared of all charges on 16 Aug this year after the prosecution applied for a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DATA).

It was during a hearing in March this year that Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, Dr Yeo’s defence counsel, had the complainant confess in a number of instances under cross-examination that she had lied to the court under oath and had given false evidence.

Dr Yeo told TODAY in an interview after his acquittal that prior to the prosecution’s decision, his ordeal with the case was “painful”.

“I was stopped at customs (over passport issues), asked to report to the police and procedurally, they had to handcuff me before I was bailed out,” he recounted, his expression grave as he sat behind his desk in his clinic.

“It was humiliating; a lot of ignominy, public shame, a feeling of persecution by the country I love when I haven’t even done anything wrong.”

The case also resulted in Dr Yeo’s dismissal from his position as a visiting consultant at a public hospital, which took place shortly after he was charged.

He also lost a few patients at his own clinic, The Pain Specialist.

Dr Yeo had to fork out over S$600,000 for his legal expenses, hiring a few lawyers before having Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and his team onboard his defence.

The amount spent for his defence will not be able to be claimed from anyone — even from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

Instead of doing the right thing by charging the complainant who had confessed to lying on oath, the public service agency is turning around to allege Dr Yeo’s defence lawyer of abusing the court process and threatening him of disciplinary action.

On Tuesday (31 Aug), AGC issued a press statement alleging Eugene Thuraisingam LLP of issuing “misleading and regrettable” remarks.

In its statement — which has been regurgitated by Singapore local media almost word for word by most — the AGC also declared that it will not charge the complainant for providing false evidence.

“Critically, there is no finding by the Court in this case that the complainant had lied or had even given inconsistent evidence,” said the AGC.

This statement by the AGC is ridiculous and disingenuous, as its prosecutors were the ones who had filed an application to withdraw the charges.

How could the court have issued its findings on whether the complainant gave false evidence under oath when AGC had prematurely terminated the proceedings?

Had the proceedings been allowed to carry on till the end, it would have not been hard for the court to make findings on the false evidence she gave, since the complainant had already confessed to doing so herself at the stand.

AGC might go on to argue that it was Mr Thuraisingam who sought to withdraw an application to have the gag order for the complainant lifted as it did in its statement.

This is yet another example of how AGC is misleading the public, for its prosecutors had cited the Section 153(4) of the Women’s Charter and Section 425A of the Criminal Procedure Code as their argument against the application.

The defence withdrew the application after agreeing that the gag order can only be removed if the woman is charged for perjury.

However, they sought to reserve Dr Yeo’s rights to apply for the gag order to be lifted in the event that the complainant is charged and convicted.

That is, however, not possible now, as the AGC has declared that it will not charge the complainant.

It is also outrageous that the AGC said that there is no evidence to suggest that the complainant had fabricated her account of events regarding the alleged outrage of modesty, when the defence has pointed out instances where the complainant confessed to perjury or providing false information under cross-examination by Mr Thuraisingam.

Mr Thuraisingam in a Facebook post also pointed to how the prosecution objected to the transcripts of court proceedings to be made public.

The judge had overruled the prosecutors’ objection and ordered that redacted versions be made public.

AGC also objected to the recording of the public hearing for Dr Yeo’s acquittal. The court, however, held that it should be made public.

What is AGC and its prosecutors afraid of, with all its objections? Are they afraid of the public knowing the truth of the matter, seeing how it seems to be misleading the press and the public with their half-baked statement and what appears to be their concealment of facts?

Furthermore, something must be very wrong with the prosecutors’ abilities if it is really the case where the complainant’s evidence was judged by several prosecutors to be very convincing, and that the charges against Dr Yeo could be proven.

This is especially so since the prosecution had to apply to withdraw the charges even before the defence could run its case in court.

Why didn’t the prosecutors discover the inconsistencies of the complainant’s evidence years before the hearing took place? Why did it take the defence lawyer making the complainant confess in court for them to do so?

Contrary to what people are speculating about AGC protecting the complainant by not charging her with perjury, I am more of the view that the AGC is protecting its own skin in doing so.

Who knows if it would be revealed during the perjury hearing of the complainant that the prosecution or police, for example, had only conducted one round of interview with the complainant — without any double-checking on their end — to conclude that the charges can be successfully brought against Dr Yeo?

With what transpired from the Parti Liyani case, Dr Yeo’s case, and many others’ ongoing cases that have yet to come to the public’s attention, it can be said that AGC under the leadership of Mr Lucien Wong — who was re-appointed when he was 67, beyond the age of retirement for Attorney-General of 60-years-old — has slipped to standards that are beyond redemption.

Go to top

The instances of the complainant’s admissions where she provided false evidence.

  • The complainant’s evidence was that Dr Yeo molested her by touching her breasts with his palms facing outwards. She later agreed under cross-examination that it was impossible for Dr Yeo to have done so as he was standing behind her.
  • The complainant testified that when Dr Yeo molested her, she raised her arms up towards the ceiling to try and get away from him. She also physically demonstrated this in Court. She later agreed under cross-examination that despite having no actual recollection of this (i.e., raising her arms towards the ceiling), she was nevertheless prepared to say and demonstrate this to the Court.
  • She admitted that when she told the Court that she remembered Dr Yeo resting his hand on her hip, she was telling a lie.
  • She admitted that she told the Court things that she did not have any recollection of, and that by doing so she was knowingly giving false evidence in Court. She also admitted that she had lied so many times that she could not remember when she was telling the truth and when she was lying.
  • She admitted that the evidence she gave in Court in relation to her movements in the room after Dr Yeo allegedly cupped her breasts was false because she did not have any independent recollection of where she moved to.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
32 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
32 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Court Cases

3 Chinese nationals linked to global cybercrime syndicate face new charges in Singapore

New charges were filed on 8 October against three Chinese nationals linked to an alleged global cybercrime syndicate in Singapore. One suspect faces allegations of receiving S$11.6 million from “Biao Ge,” purportedly used for the upkeep and expenses of the group. The nationals entered Singapore on construction work passes but reportedly did not stay at their registered workplaces.

Published

2 days ago

on

9 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: New charges were tendered on Tuesday (8 October 2024) against three Chinese nationals implicated in an alleged global cybercrime syndicate based in Singapore.

The latest revelations indicate a flow of funds amounting to approximately S$11.6 million (US$8.9 million) dedicated to the upkeep of the group and its connections to South Korea.

As reported by CNA, the court records, charge sheets, and a prior press statement jointly issued by the police and the Internal Security Department (ISD) outline that the trio is part of a larger group of seven men, all Chinese nationals except one Singaporean.

According to a police statement issued on 10 September, The group is accused of operating from a bungalow in Mount Sinai and is believed to be linked to a global syndicate involved in cybercrime activities.

Authorities seized laptops and devices from the suspects, which contained credentials to access Internet servers associated with known hacker groups, stolen data belonging to foreign victims, computer hacking tools exploiting vulnerabilities in Internet servers, and specialised software to control malware.

The Chinese nationals reportedly gained entry into Singapore with work passes intended for construction work but allegedly did not stay at their registered employer’s workplace.

The suspects were apprehended on 9 September in simultaneous island-wide raids conducted by approximately 160 officers from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and ISD.

The seven accused men are: Sun Jiao, 42, Zhang Qingqiao, 38, Chen Yiren, 42, Yan Peijian, 38, Huang Qin Zheng, 35, Liu Yuqi, 32, and Singaporean Goh Shi Yong, 34. The three men receiving fresh charges on Tuesday are Sun, Zhang, and Chen.

Chen Allegedly Received S$11.6 Million for Criminal Group’s Expenses

Chen’s new charge alleges he received S$11.6 million from an individual known as “Biao Ge”, which he purportedly spent on the rent, upkeep, and expenses of an organised criminal group, including Yan, Huang, Liu, and Sun.

This allegedly covers funding for the Mount Sinai bungalow. Of the total amount, Chen is accused of having “expended” about S$399,000 on 11 occasions between 2022 and 2024, under the Organised Crime Act.

Zhang faces new accusations of abetting two individuals—Lim Clovis Leslie and Lee Kok Leong—to obtain the personal information of unknown individuals on 28 July 2023.

Meanwhile, Sun has been charged with sending a file containing the personal information of 1,055 unknown individuals from South Korea to a WhatsApp chat group on 12 August 2023, while he was in Singapore.

Additionally, he is accused of receiving 772,500 USDT in cryptocurrency from a wallet belonging to co-accused Liu, which allegedly stemmed from criminal conduct.

Suspects Accused of Targeting Websites to Exploit Vulnerabilities and Trade Stolen Personal Data

Previous charges against the suspects depict them as targeting websites to scan for open ports and exploit vulnerabilities, offering to purchase personal information of Indian nationals from gambling websites, and sending a file containing the personal information of 9,369 individuals from Thailand to other parties.

According to a prosecutor’s submissions in unsuccessful bail reviews on 1 October, the Chinese nationals involved are foreigners engaged in syndicated, transnational offences, with amounts involved “in excess of S$1 million”.

The public hearing list indicates that Sun is defended by Mr Hong Qibin, Ms Elaine Cai, and Mr Daniel Chia from Coleman Street Chambers. Yan is represented by Mr Ong Kelvin from Contigo Law, while Chen is defended by Mr Steven John Lam from Templars Law.

Both Huang and Liu are represented by Mr Lee Teck Leng from Legal Clinic.

Zhang is defended by Mr Sunil Sudheesan and Ms Joyce Khoo from Quahe Woo & Palmer, and Goh is represented by Mr Soon Wei Song from Goh JP & Wong.

Sun and Chen are scheduled for bail reviews on 10 October. They have been remanded for approximately a month, while the other five men are set to return to court later this month.

In addition to the main group, two Malaysian men, Seow Gim Shen (42) and Kong Chien Hoi (39)  are facing charges in Singapore for conspiring to supply the personal information of 9,369 individuals from Thailand in a file sent from Singapore. They are expected to plead guilty next week.

Continue Reading

Court Cases

AGC announces no charges against businessman Lum Kok Seng in Iswaran case

In a statement on 4 October, the Attorney-General’s Chambers announced no charges against businessman Lum Kok Seng. This follows the sentencing of former Minister S. Iswaran, who pleaded guilty to five charges, including receiving gifts from Lum such as wine, whisky, and a Brompton T-Line bicycle.

Published

7 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) announced on 4 October 2024 that no charges will be filed against businessman Lum Kok Seng  (林國城).

Mr Lum, the managing director of Lum Chang Holdings, had been named in March this year as one of two businessmen involved in a case concerning former transport minister S Iswaran.

The AGC had previously stated that it would take a decision regarding Mr Lum following the conclusion of Iswaran’s case.

On 24 September, Mr Iswaran pleaded guilty to a total of five charges, including receiving luxury items from Mr Lum between November 2021 and November 2022.

The items, allegedly given without any compensation, included several bottles of high-end whisky and wine, expensive golf equipment, and a premium bicycle.

The specific gifts from Mr Lum to Mr Iswaran were detailed as follows:

  • Four bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky valued at S$1,084.46
  • Fourteen bottles of whisky and wine worth S$3,255.75
  • A TaylorMade golf driver valued at S$749
  • Two more bottles of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky, priced at S$542.23
  • A set of Honma Beres BE-08 Black AQ MX golf clubs worth S$4,420
  • A Brompton T Line bicycle worth S$7,907.50
  • Two bottles of M&H Elements Sherry Cask whisky worth S$198
  • A Scotty Cameron Phantom golf putter and two golf chippers valued at S$800

In total, these gifts amounted to approximately S$18,956.94.

These items were given during a period when Lum Chang Holdings was involved in a contract for construction work at Tanah Merah MRT station.

Attorney-General’s Chambers cites evidentiary risks in reducing Iswaran’s corruption charges

On 3 October, Iswaran has been sentenced to 12 months in jail after pleading guilty to four amended charges under Section 165 of Singapore’s Penal Code and one charge of obstructing the course of justice under Section 204A(a) of the Penal Code.

Iswaran admitted to accepting valuable gifts from prominent businessmen, including Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and Mr Lum, while holding public office.

These gifts, which included private flights and other benefits, were worth over S$400,000 in total.

The 35 charges against Iswaran were amended by the prosecution on 24 September from corruption to lesser offences under Section 165, which pertains to public servants receiving valuable items in connection with their official duties.

The court also took into account Iswaran’s admission of obstructing the course of justice, for which he had repaid over S$5,000 to Singapore GP for a business-class flight he had taken at Ong’s expense.

The remaining 30 charges were taken into account during sentencing.

Iswaran had originally faced 35 charges, including two counts of corruption.

The charges were amended from two counts of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) to offences under Section 165.

This section, unlike Section 8 of the PCA, does not include a presumption of corruption, which would have placed the burden on the accused to prove the gifts were not given as inducements.

The AGC in an explanation cited substantial evidentiary risks in proving the original corruption charges, which involved  Ong Beng Seng and Lum Kok Seng.

The AGC noted that proving the original corruption charges under PCA would have been difficult due to the involvement of both Iswaran and Ong as primary parties.

Both would have had to implicate themselves to establish corrupt intent.

The AGC explained that “there are two primary parties to the transactions, and both would have an interest in denying corruption in the transactions.” This made securing a conviction for corruption highly uncertain.

In light of these risks, the AGC amended the charges to offenses under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which carries a lower evidentiary threshold and a reduced maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

According to AGC, the amendment was made to ensure a fair and just outcome while considering public interest.

 

Continue Reading

Trending