Skip to main content
Best News Website or Mobile Service
WAN-IFRA Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022
Best News Website or Mobile Service
Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022
Hamburger Menu
Advertisement
Advertisement

Singapore

Billion-dollar money laundering case: High Court rejects lawyers' bid for man to be released

Vang Shuiming, who is implicated in a case which has since ballooned to S$1.8 billion, had failed in previous attempts in the State Courts to get his remand revoked.

Billion-dollar money laundering case: High Court rejects lawyers' bid for man to be released

Vang Shuiming turned to the High Court in a bid to revoke his remand. (Illustration, Photo: CNA)

SINGAPORE: Lawyers for a man implicated in a sprawling billion-dollar money laundering case in Singapore - which has since ballooned to S$1.8 billion (US$1.3 billion) - turned to the High Court on Tuesday (Sep 5) in a bid to have their client released on bail, after previous attempts in the State Courts failed.

If his remand was not revoked, the Drew & Napier lawyers for Vang Shuiming sought to have "liberal" access to their client, instead of that which was subject to the Commercial Affairs Department's (CAD) operational constraints.

But the High Court rejected all the applications sought by Mr Wendell Wong, Mr Andrew Chua and Ms Yang Xinyan, finding there was nothing wrong with orders made by the lower court.

The lawyers for Vang, a 42-year-old Turk who has had more than S$200 million assets seized in relation to his case, argued for a criminal revision against related orders made by the State Courts.

Vang currently faces five charges - one of using a forged document and four of possessing criminal benefits worth S$2.4 million from unlicensed moneylending in China.

DEFENCE ARGUMENTS

Lead defence counsel Mr Wong argued the prosecution had not given any evidence in asking for further remand for Vang.

Instead, the prosecutor had relied on "evidence from the bar", making "bare assertions" and pointing to the risk of collusion when the prosecutor was not party to investigations himself, said Mr Wong.

For Tuesday's hearing, the prosecution had acquired an affidavit from an investigating officer, which Mr Wong said gave merit to his case that this should have been done in the lower courts.

Mr Wong also argued for "liberal access" to his client, pointing to the constraints he had when meeting the remanded Vang.

He asked why this case was so different from others that it required such a long period of remand.

He said his team's research showed "this case and this remand is unprecedented".

"We cannot find and know of no other cases involving anti-money laundering cases where the prosecution said they need more than ... three weeks of further remand in order to conduct further investigations," said Mr Wong.

He argued for his client's "fundamental liberties and presumption of innocence".

PROSECUTION PRODUCES AFFIDAVIT

The prosecution, a three-person team led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Ng Yiwen, urged the judge to dismiss the defence's applications.

Mr Ng said that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander", pointing to how Mr Wong himself gave evidence from the bar by telling the court previously that his client had given 13 statements and denied any involvement in online gambling syndicates.

Mr Ng's reply, along with information taken from the investigating officer's affidavit produced for Tuesday's hearing, revealed nuggets of new information on the wider case.

He said more than S$1.8 billion worth of assets have been seized by the police so far, with 10 arrested, 12 assisting in investigations and eight wanted by the police and "out of jurisdiction".

In Vang's case, more than S$200 million assets have been seized. More than S$962,000 in cash was seized from his residence; and he had purchased 11 properties, said Mr Ng.

The "sheer amounts of assets" held by Vang, the number of people involved and the "interconnectedness of accused persons" mean that further statements need to be recorded from Vang, said the prosecutor.

From the financial institutions that have thus far responded to requests for information, it has been revealed that Vang had more than S$120 million in banks, said Mr Ng.

CAD has requested for more information from these banks, such as specific transactions, and needs more time to review the details to question Vang effectively and comprehensively, said Mr Ng.

The investigating officer also wrote in his affidavit that Singapore police had acted on intelligence provided by "a foreign authority", that allowed them to uncover US$30 million in assets they did not know about.

CAD is also waiting for information from foreign authorities on whether Vang is wanted by them, said Mr Ng, without revealing which authorities these were.

"It is on public record that this is one of the largest money laundering cases ever investigated in Singapore," said Mr Ng. "It is precisely because this case is so complex and so large-scale that the police have requested the amount of time to conduct investigations."

According to the affidavit, Vang is closely related to co-accused Su Haijin and Su Baolin.

Vang and his brother, Mr Wang Shuiting, are wanted by the Chinese authorities for illegal gambling activities.

Vang's brother is one of the eight people wanted by the Singapore police.

On top of all this, Vang was also in communication with another suspect, dubbed Suspect X, who is similarly wanted by the police and no longer in Singapore, the court heard.

These communications appear to be related to other illegal activities, and about S$260 million worth of assets linked to Suspect X has been seized, said Mr Ng.

Suspect X is also wanted by Chinese authorities for illegal gambling activities.

Given these links, the risk of collusion and contamination of any evidence is "quite clear", said Mr Ng. He said it was "simply not practicable for limitless unfettered access" to counsel to be given, adding that CAD has acceded to all of Mr Wong's requests.

Justice Vincent Hoong dismissed the defence's applications, saying they did not meet the high threshold for a criminal revision.

To do so, there must have been "a serious injustice".

All 10 accused in the case, including Vang, will appear in court tomorrow for further mentions.

Source: CNA/ll(jo)
Advertisement

Also worth reading

Advertisement