Missing S$33 million case: Lawyer Jeffrey Ong struck off the rolls in disciplinary hearing

SINGAPORE: Lawyer Jeffrey Ong Su Aun, who faces multiple charges over S$33 million that went missing from a client's escrow fund, has been struck off the rolls in a disciplinary hearing sought by The Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc).

Drew and Napier lawyers representing LawSoc said a striking off is the only appropriate sanction for Ong, saying his dishonesty and actions fall short of the integrity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor.

The Court of Three Judges, comprising the Chief Justice as well as Justices Judith Prakash and Tay Yong Kwang, agreed and ordered Ong to be struck off on Wednesday (Sep 14).

Ong was a solicitor of 15 years and the managing partner of JLC Advisors at the time. The firm was engaged to hold monies on escrow in its client's account. An escrow account is one where funds are held while two or more parties complete a transaction.

In a disciplinary tribunal, Ong admitted to all seven charges against him in relation to his failure to deal appropriately with the escrow account and money within.

On Wednesday, Drew and Napier lawyer Adam Maniam asked the court to strike Ong off the rolls. He said Ong's conduct was dishonest, not just on one occasion but on a number of occasions over a prolonged period.

This includes allowing funds in the escrow account to be paid out to parties other than the client without receiving the authorisation and without informing the client.

Ong admitted that he gave instructions for the issue of 15 escrow notices between November 2017 and January 2019 that did not state the true balance in the escrow account, said Mr Maniam.

"The false balances in these escrow notices meant that the fact that there were unauthorised transactions by (Ong) went undetected by the client until much later on in 2019, and again LawSoc's position is that this was dishonest conduct," he said.

Ong also sent a series of emails that gave the impression that the full amount of S$33 million would be released from the escrow account, even though he knew it could not be as there were insufficient funds.

"When a client places funds with a lawyer or law firm, there is a certain relationship there. The client will of course expect those funds to be protected and only dealt with in accordance with the terms of the escrow agreement," said Mr Maniam.

"When this is not done and communications are done to mask the fact that funds have been paid out, our submission is that this clearly falls short of the standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness expected of a solicitor."

Ong was unrepresented. When asked to speak, he said he had no submissions.

"I agree with LawSoc's submission," he said via Zoom from his place of remand. "While there were underlying reasons and circumstances surrounding the fact, I don't think those are relevant for these proceedings so I have no submissions to make on my part, I just apologise for taking up your honours' time, that's all."

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said there was "no doubt at all" that there was due cause for sanctions and that the only appropriate sanction was to strike Ong off.

Ong still faces pending criminal charges in the State Courts.

The hearing in the Court of Three Judges on Wednesday opened with Mr Maniam telling the judges that Ong's lawyer for the criminal case wanted to "update" the court a few minutes before the hearing began.

"She informed me that she acts for Mr Ong in some criminal proceedings and she says there are some material updates that she wishes to speak to Mr Ong about," said Mr Maniam. "She asked if she could have 10 minutes to speak to him. I understand she is physically in the court, I told her there will be difficulties."

The Chief Justice said: "This is nothing to do with this matter (of disciplinary sanction) right."

Mr Maniam agreed, as Ong was unrepresented for the case brought against him by LawSoc.

"I think she should know the (court) is not some kind of bus where you hop on and ask for a ride," Chief Justice Menon replied. The lawyer was not allowed to speak to Ong before the hearing.