Karl Liew charged with giving false evidence and information in Parti Liyani case
Karl Liew at the State Courts on Thursday, Nov 5, 2020. (Photo: Jeremy Long)
SINGAPORE: Karl Liew Kai Lung, the son of former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong, was charged on Thursday (Nov 5) with giving false evidence and false information in the case of Ms Parti Liyani, his family's former maid.
Karl Liew, 43, was given one count each of giving false evidence and furnishing false information to a public servant.
He is accused of intentionally giving false evidence on Jul 17, 2018, at the State Courts before District Judge Olivia Ho.
According to charge sheets, he testified at a trial, while legally bound by oath, that a cream polo T-shirt and a red blouse belonged to him, when he did not believe those statements to be true.
He is also accused of giving a statement at his home to a public servant on Dec 10, 2016, saying that he found "119 pieces of clothings" belonging to him, in boxes packed by Ms Parti.
This was when he was legally bound to state truly what he knew regarding an alleged offence of theft by a servant.
Karl Liew, who was limping and accompanied by a woman, was defended by lawyer Adam Maniam from Drew & Napier.
His lawyer asked for six weeks to make representations on the case, saying that the matter took place quite some time ago in 2016 and 2018.Â
Karl Liew was offered bail of S$15,000 and will return to court on Dec 17.
This comes after Ms Parti was convicted then acquitted of stealing S$34,000 worth of items from the Liews. She subsequently took further actions by seeking an investigation for alleged misconduct by the prosecutors in her case and turning to court for a compensation order, estimating her losses to be about S$71,000 over four years.
READ:Â Parti Liyani seeks compensation order for theft trial, says she suffered losses of about S$71,000
Karl Liew was among a few of his family members who testified in Ms Parti's trial in a district court, which found her guilty and sentenced her to 26 months' jail.
Some of the allegedly stolen items belonged to Karl Liew, whom the court said had disputes at times with Ms Parti over her household chores.
When he told Ms Parti that she was fired, she purportedly said to him: "I know why. You angry because I refused to clean up your toilet." Ms Parti had been made to do additional cleaning work at Karl Liew's home and office, the High Court said in its judgment.
Justice Chan Seng Onn said in his verdict acquitting Ms Parti that aspects of Karl Liew's evidence "cast serious doubts on Karl's credibility". He had overestimated the value of a watch allegedly stolen from him by S$15,000 and claimed to wear women's clothes that were supposedly filched from him.
READ: Maid acquitted of stealing S$34,000 worth of items from Changi Airport Group chairman's home
"Karl’s testimony that he had in his possession multiple female items that Parti allegedly stole from him is also highly suspect," said Justice Chan in his Sep 4 judgment.
After Ms Parti was acquitted, Liew Mun Leong announced that he was retiring from his public service and business roles with Changi Airport Group, Surbana Jurong, Temasek Foundation and Temasek International.
READ: Liew Mun Leong retires from CAG, other public service and business roles after court's decision on Parti Liyani case
The police said in a statement on Wednesday that they were directed by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) to conduct further investigations after the High Court judgment and comments on Ms Parti's case, to assess if the Liews committed any offences.
After completing investigations and consulting AGC, the police announced Karl Liew's charges. The charging comes a day after Law Minister K Shanmugam said in a ministerial statement that Karl Liew was investigated for potential criminal offences including perjury, which refers to giving false evidence in court.
If convicted of furnishing false information to a public servant, and if that information is with respect to the commission of an offence, he could be jailed for up to three years, fined, or both.
If found guilty of intentionally giving false information in any stage of a judicial proceeding, he could be jailed for up to seven years and fined.
