Back

Latest Forum Topics / Others

Post Reply

ABL Post Reply Rate topic
happyharvest Elite	26-Sep-2021 05:17        happyharvest About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	The ABL trial still not finish? lol
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	12-May-2021 01:50        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Opening submissions by MR SREENIVASAN MR SREENIVASAN: Your Honour, we are past day 170, which makes this the longest High Court criminal trial, the previous record having been held by Melvin Seet. John Soh is giving evidence on his behalf, on his own behalf, and it' s interesting when one looks at the general evolution of criminal cases as well as this case specifically. Your Honour, generally there' s a school of thoughts that says there' s a jurisprudential approach of factual guilt when you are charged. It' s been documented, former CJ Chan Sek Keong, when he was AG, wrote an article on it. About 10, 15 years ago there was a kerfuffle on it, on whether if you are acquitted, it just means you are legally innocent but not necessarily factually so. Why do I raise this? Not because I want to start any controversial debate on this point. The reason why I want to raise this is all of us, including defence counsel, when somebody is charged, we have a certain state of mind. I mean, even as a defence counsel of some experience, I always challenge my clients, " Why this, why that" , and I actually walk in looking at a client as the accused, which he is. When we do that, in most cases, when it' s a simple case where there are not many alternate explanations, it' s quite okay because the process evens itself out. But in some cases, more complex cases, cases such as the present one, the original perspective is like one of those optical illusion artworks: from one side, you see a young woman, one side, you see an old lady. I highlight this to make my first substantive point of the morning. The prosecution witnesses can fall into two categories. All of them share one common characteristic, and that common characteristic -- I do apologise. I entirely forgot that I was not gowned, your Honour. COURT: That' s fine, Mr Sreenivasan, take your time. Or if you want to do it after, it' s fine. MR SREENIVASAN: No. My sincerest apologies on that. With that rather awkward interruption to what I intended to say, the prosecution witnesses have one common characteristic: all of them gave statements at the beginning that were exculpatory of themselves and exculpatory of the accused. It' s very interesting, because very often many of my clients get convicted on the basis of statements. The law on statements has evolved. We' ve got impeachment, we have section 147(3), we have Chin Seow Noi that says you can be convicted on the unrebutted, uncorroborated evidence of a co-accused. So statements are very, very important in our jurisprudence now. The first question your Honour has to say is are we going to excuse, are we going to be an apologist, which my learned friend will ask you to do, for these witnesses who said one thing in CAD statements and come to court and say another thing? This leads me to my second point about what categorises this group of people. Some of them abandoned their statements entirely, gave new statements in the conditional statements and gave entirely different evidence in court. Some of them stuck to their statements as the truth and gave the same evidence in court under oath or affirmation. So it' s very interesting, everybody has said one story in their statements, some of them change it in court, some of them don' t change it in court, and we have this very odd situation: whenever they changed it in favour of the prosecution, the defence applies to impeach them. Whenever they stick by it against the accused, the prosecution applies to impeach them. So we hardly have a material witness who has not been inconsistent either in the eyes of the prosecution or the eyes of the defence. That, your Honour, is quite remarkable, because quite apart from the protraction of this trial and the complexity, it is actually quite remarkable that so many witnesses are changing their stories. I highlight this, and this is where I come back to my original point. You know, when so many witnesses are changing their stories, then we have to scratch our heads and say, " Actually, what' s going on here?" And there will be two versions of what' s going on here. The prosecution' s version, John Soh was orchestrating a cover-up, tampering with witnesses, et cetera. Prosecution version 2A will be that the witnesses are, in fact, guilty people who were initially covering up their own involvement but have suddenly seen the light, so you should believe them. The defence version, I will touch on it in a moment. But the problem with the prosecution approach &ndash and again, I come back to where I started -- is it works on the assumption -- I won' t use a word as strong as " presumption" , but it works on the assumption that these people are telling the truth, and once somebody is charged, the factual guilt through investigations has been ascertained. If that is purely technically an academic mind exercise on jurisprudence, I don' t mind. I mean, when I read that article in 1997, if it' s pitched at that, I don' t mind. Unfortunately, it doesn' t work that way. The way it works is, well, if you' re innocent, you wouldn' t have been charged. I' ve heard that being said so many times. So when we have a situation like the present one, then we have to be a bit more careful. Which then leads me to my second theme, and my second theme is a theme that is specific to the present case. I' m going to read the prosecution' s opening address, introduction, because this is where we were about 170 hearing days ago. These were the bold assertions that the prosecution made. Paragraph 2 of their intro: " The first and second accused persons are Soh Chee Wen, also known as John Soh ... and Quah Su-Ling ... For more than a year, from 1 August 2012 to 3 October 2013, the pair masterminded and carried out a massive scheme of market manipulation ... 3. Together, they artificially inflated the liquidity and manipulated the price of the shares in ... [BAL] over this prolonged period. 4. The accused ... did so by controlling [188] accounts ... for trading and holding BAL shares. These Controlled Accounts were in the names of Quah, Goh and 58 other individuals ... (the &lsquo Controlled Accountholders' ). 5. John Soh and Quah dominated the market for BAL shares throughout the respective periods referred to in the charges ... [they] were responsible for trades in 1.1 billion Blumont ... 3.4 billion Asiasons ...4.3 billion LionGold shares ... representing 60%, 88% and 90% of all trades ..." So let' s look at the story when the prosecution started, because if they could not sustain that story, and if the evidence very, very clearly shows that that story was debunked, then we need to really say do we now take the prosecution' s case as it started, look at how it evolved, see what' s left over, and see whether it sustains a conviction, which is the normal process in most criminal cases. Or given the somewhat unique circumstances of the evidence here, do we say I step back, I look at all the evidence, and then I see what this evidence shows? Your Honour will recall at various points in time in the trial, I talked about the Lakeview members and I said, quite openly, where we are going to land on that remains to be seen, because that' s the approach. When I first took on the matter, I read this opening statement and all these conditional statements and, of course, I viewed my client' s instructions with a degree of scepticism that experience gives. But as we moved along, then we realised that there is another thread, there are other aspects to the story, and I' ll come to that. What else does the prosecution say? Paragraph 6: " John Soh and Quah created a false and misleading appearance with respect to the market ... price ... through a variety of manipulative means, including a practice known as &lsquo wash trading' ." I pause here. Your Honour will recall where we were with wash trading, and your Honour will recall in the end we landed 37 trades out of 800-over trades of wash trading actually being on the door of John Soh. I will pause here, because I don' t need to do my closing yet. But let' s now look at some key aspects of the evidence, because this is the case that the accused has to answer. One, the Manhattan House angle. You know, we started, the first witness, key witness was Ken Tai, and of course he is the witness who has flip-flopped so many times, and on the stand, he admitted to being dishonest and actually cheating John and John' s associates. He said that point blank. He' s an accomplice if the prosecution is right, he' s a primary player if we are right. At that point in time, things were still not very clear, because it was Ken Tai by himself. But your Honour will recall that the real point in time when the alternatives became clear was actually during Prof Aitken' s evidence because suddenly, wholly absent from the prosecution' s opening address, we saw two, three seconds apart trades, wash trades between Ken Tai, Gabriel Gan, Henry Tjoa and Dick Gwee. We saw the price being ramped up between -- amongst these people. My learned friend will at some point in time say, " Yeah, of course, the defence have sat down and have cherry-picked these instances" . Your Honour, we have gone through it manually, and to that extent, we have picked, but what we have done is not what they have done, of having a preconceived idea and then, of course, fitting all the pieces to get the picture they want. What we have done is we have actually separated the wheat from the chaff, because if it was just some smart alec defence counsel and a mastermind of some sort creating this defence, the objective evidence wouldn' t have supported it. So let' s look at the objective evidence that we got from Aitken, and that objective evidence was very, very clear. To be fair to Professor Aitken, he had his parameters and limitations, but he did acknowledge what we pointed out to him. That in itself then leads to the question: in the light of that, what do we make out of the prosecution' s case and Ken Tai' s evidence? In the light of that, what do we make out of Gabriel Gan' s case? Then we go to Dick Gwee. What' s Dick Gwee' s role in this? Your Honour, I really have no idea that I can put forward as a fact, but I do know one thing, I have a far better idea of Dick Gwee' s role than the prosecution and the IO have because when I read this opening statement, his name is not there when I read the list of  witnesses, his name was not there and then we made the discovery, quite apart from the legal issue of privilege, that his statement was not even given to the IO. I mean, I feel good about it, because if I was deprived of it, but if the IO is also deprived of it, then I do know one thing: we have had a CAD investigation where the IO has not been given access to something we have shown in court as an important part of it. Because the IO gave us the figure 50 million. Your Honour will recall, I did my back-of-the-envelope calculation, Dick Gwee made 30 million. IO says no, it' s 50. I will take the IO' s number. Now I come back to where I started. When we say that jurisprudentially, the investigations revealed all the facts at the onset, and I concede, as an academic idea, as the norm, it may be true, but in this case, I can put my hand on my heart and say that at the close of investigation, huge chunks of this story was not known. And I will admit quite candidly, the defence team itself, and maybe even the accused, I believe, because otherwise they would have given us instructions earlier, we discovered things as we went along, because it is with the access to the materials, the statements, the data that we could then see the wash trades, the patterns. So one aspect of this case which Mr Soh will give evidence on is the Manhattan House players. I' ll put them aside. I come to Mr Leroy Lau. His evidence, as a prosecution witness, was, " Look, John Soh didn' t give me detailed instructions or specific instructions" . So we have Mr Lau, whose trading patterns are quite amazing, yet there' s no mention of Mr Lau' s trading patterns being what they are in Aitken' s report. There' s no mention of it in the prosecution' s opening statement. So the analysis there was simply not done. So again we don' t have a situation, the perfect situation of factual guilt and we know everything before we charge the accused, and Leroy Lau, we will see, as we will point out in our closing submissions, was a significant player in his own right. Then we come to the not-so-significant players like XY. We' ll deal with that in closing because that one becomes a bit more detailed and a bit more -- requires a bit more analysis to show which accounts were at the side wings, et cetera, that he was doing. But numerically, the moment we deal with Manhattan House syndicate and Leroy Lau, a huge percentage of the trades are dealt with. So my learned friend will, in his closing, say, " Yes, all sounds very good picking holes but we have all these contacts where John Soh knows them and we' ve got all these phone calls" . I' ll deal with the contacts. John Soh was associated with LionGold. He was the advisor to the chairman. COURT: Right. MR SREENIVASAN: When he gives evidence, your Honour will hear him connect himself more to these counters than the prosecution has in their case. He will tell your Honour exactly what he was doing and why. COURT: To these three counters rather than just LionGold? MR SREENIVASAN: I will start with LionGold. The other two, your Honour, if we look at it, your Honour will see that Asiasons was a significant shareholder in LionGold, so the connection is there. When it comes to Blumont, the chairman of Blumont was Neo Kim Hock, and Mr Soh has a long history with Mr Neo that the market knows about, and that evidence will come out. So there' ll be some nuances there. But when we want to look at the real world, there are people who trade for a living. They look for information, they look for what they believe will happen, they look for what they think the story is, and they try to make money on it. That' s what Leroy Lau does, and that' s what 25 the Manhattan House syndicate did. Of course they would hang around John Soh, like bees next to a pot of honey, but whether or not that contact amounted to market manipulation, I will let Mr Soh give his evidence, and to quote a biblical phrase, by his own words, let him be saved or damned. Similarly for the phone calls. I now come to the last part of my opening, and I go back to the prosecution' s opening statement at paragraph 7: " Another way in which the scheme was funded was by deceiving financial institutions ... into extending share financing to the Controlled Accounts. This was done by offering BAL shares as collateral, which [the] FIs accepted, not knowing that the trading volume and price ... had been manipulated and was false." This is actually a conflation of two different sets of charges, because when they say " FIs" here, it' s not clear whether it' s Goldman and the private banks, the cheating charges, or is it the deception charges where financing was given by way of margin financing. But it really makes no difference because there are two aspects to this. Was there a deception point? Your Honour had called the defence on it, but at the lower Haw Tua Tau standard, but the more important point is, if the volume in the trades were actually being done by other people, the Manhattan House syndicate or Leroy, then of course their underpinning of these charges is removed. I will sum up this part as this. Can your Honour say, " Okay, I take into account X, Y, Z, I don' t take into account A, B, C, I look at what is left and can I say there' s some market manipulation?" Your Honour can' t, because the prosecution has chosen to make it impossible for your Honour to do so, and let me explain that. The typical market manipulation charge deals with a specific instance or a specific act that creates a specific appearance. So it would say, " You, on this date, this time, placed a one lot order at 4.59 to drive up the closing price" . So on that basis, if we look at it, other things don' t count. But the way these charges are drafted, and that' s why we had asked for particulars and the prosecution gave us their annex table, the prosecution says that kind of generality is sufficient, and I would concede it is sufficient if they make out their entire case, meaning if they say, " You don' t need to take a granular approach because Manhattan House syndicate, Leroy are all your sins" , then they are right. But if that granular -- if a granular approach has to be taken, the state of the evidence is such that I don' t think your Honour can break it down. But I will reserve this again because let' s see where all the evidence lands. I come to the last part &ndash COURT: By that, you mean the analysis by Prof Aitken to tie it together or just generally that it cannot be separated? MR SREENIVASAN: In fact, the analysis by Prof Aitken, even with the best of efforts, cannot be split into a granular basis, but I am being cautious because, when my client is being cross-examined, my learned friend may get admissions or may make points that allow that kind of granular approach. Alternatively, my analysis of the evidence at this point is not done properly, and if one drills down, there might be a granular approach. COURT: All right. MR SREENIVASAN: I' m not in a position to boldly say it cannot be done for sure. COURT: All right. MR SREENIVASAN: Your Honour, I now come to paragraph 8 of the prosecution' s opening. I' m not going to go through the whole thing this is the last paragraph I' m going to refer to: " The appearance as to the market and price for BAL shares that was created by the accused persons was so utterly false that when the music eventually stopped and the bubble burst ... the share prices ... collapsed ..." That is an extremely bold assertion, and that assertion is one that the prosecution does not have the guts, does not have the confidence to test, because they were openly challenged throughout the trial. This is not the problem. The problem was SGX. The real problem here were the panicked measures taken, and your Honour will hear other evidence on this from Mr Soh, bringing in Ellison with his -- forgive me, your Honour -- almost Mickey Mouse comparables doesn' t show a bubble. We have experienced prosecution witnesses who were not called. They gave statements, in their statements clearly telling CAD, " Look into short selling, look into the conduct of some of the FIs" . Never mind. They produced a stock exchange witness, the one who gave evidence about the announcement. Your Honour will recall there were two things that triggered the whole thing: the statement from SIAS, who actually are no more than a private organisation, which was mirrored and echoed by the SGX. Forget what I say about the SGX. Let' s listen to what the prosecution' s expert witness, Professor Aitken, said about the SGX announcement. He has never, ever come across a situation where the SGX makes a price -- any exchange, and he' s a worldwide expert, makes a query about what has happened to the share price over the last nine months. That' s in the transcript. It was not covered in the re-examination, because there was no answer to that. Now, what then happens? The only SGX witness who was called is Mr Lek, who came into the picture in 2017, who has no idea. We asked him one simple question. The query was signed up by one Mr Kelvin Koh and we asked Lek, " Is he still there, does he still work in SGX?" The answer is, " Yes, he does" , but, of course, instead of getting the guy who made the query, who can be cross-examined on it, they gave us somebody else. I' m normally suspicious, I' m normally not paranoid, but then we have the situation that when Dick Gwee is interviewed after giving his self-recorded statement, CAD is excluded. Why do I say this? John Soh will give evidence about what was told to SGX immediately before the designation, how it was told and what the consequence would be if SGX proceeded with what they wanted to do. Now, that really doesn' t affect the guilt or otherwise, because paragraph 8 of the opening is entirely superfluous, because if you manipulate the market and the market doesn' t crash, you manipulate the market and it crashes, you manipulate the market and it goes up, you' re still guilty. It doesn' t matter. But paragraph 8 is important for two reasons. If your Honour eventually chooses to convict on the evidence, then this becomes very much in play. But more importantly, the fact that this is the position that the prosecution takes, so utterly false that when the music eventually stopped and the bubble burst, it means this was the blinkers that had been worn in presenting all the evidence, starting from the CAD. Why do I say starting from the CAD? Because your Honour has seen the press announcement, the joint announcement by CAD and AGC at the beginning. The prosecution is so invested, the CAD was so invested in its case that they couldn' t see left or right, and in the case of the CAD officer, the CAD officer was deprived of the statements of Dick Gwee so she couldn' t see left or right anyway. So if we now look at that context, I would respectfully ask your Honour that we put the prosecution' s case into a suspense account, we listen to John Soh, fresh sheet of paper, and then do the comparison. Now, there will be parts in his evidence which actually shows him communicating with some of the shareholders, giving them advice, being close to them, and whether that makes out the ingredients of the charge, we' ll have to wait and see. Your Honour, that' s my opening. I have taken great pains to address the prosecution' s case because I want it to be clear, the case that we started with is not the case that John Soh has to answer. The case that John Soh has to answer is the case where Aitken has given his concessions on wash tradings, it' s the case where Dick Gwee has, on the CAD' s own evidence, made $50 million, it' s the case where we can show wash trades for millions of shares three, four, five seconds apart. It' s the case where Ken Tai has admitted churning and being dishonest and cheating. It' s the case where the Bangla phone network is only amongst the Manhattan House syndicate people, where John and Su-Ling had no &ndash and did not use a Bangla phone. It' s the case where James Hong has come and said, despite strenuous attacks, that he is responsible for his own trades. It' s the case where not one of the account holders have denied any of the trades and said it' s done without authorities. It' s a case, your Honour, where the prosecution has impeached far more of its own witnesses than, I think, any other trial in Singapore has had. Because you may have one or two being impeached, here we -- I don' t know whether we have hit a dozen, your Honour. COURT: No, I' m sure that' s not true. I don' t think we have hit a dozen impeachment applications in total. MR SREENIVASAN: Yes, your Honour.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Thi654321ABCDEF Master	12-Jul-2020 17:33        Thi654321ABCDEF About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Basically selling and buying all through authoriesed platforms. They allowed all these transactions , how come this one wrong zhongkui      ( Date: 12-Jul-2020 15:08) Posted: No ' comeback' for John Soh despite ' over-abusing' the word after crash The Edge Singapore SINGAPORE (July 9): John Soh, who is at the centre of a trial for allegedly manipulating three penny stocks in 2013 that subsequently led to their crash, made a couple of attempts to stage a " comeback" from losses incurred in the wake of their spectacular collapse. According to former broker Gabriel Gan Tze Wee, who helped to carry out some of Soh' s trade orders, the latter tried to convince people around him that he had a " comeback story" and that they could all make a " solid" comeback. Gan, who is taking the stand as the latest prosecution witness, told the court that the term " comeback" was " over-abused" by Soh three to four years after the crash. The court also heard that a couple of " comeback" attempts were also made with two other listed companies, Sino Construction (since then renamed MMP Resources) and ISR Capital (now called Reenova Investment Holding) as well as a privately-held company called Greatronics. However, before the schemes could gain traction and make enough money, Soh was arrested in November 2016 and has been held in remand ever since. He is now facing trial together with his lover and fellow accused Quah Su-Ling. " Yeah. Nobody came back. Not even him. None of us," Gan told the court on July 1. Gan was one of the " generals" Soh depended on to help coordinate and execute the trades of the three penny stocks &mdash Blumont Group, Asiason Capital (now renamed Attilan Group) and LionGold Corp, also collectively known as BAL &mdash between 2010 and 2013. Others include Ken Tai Chee Ming and Henry Tjoa, as well as Soh' s long-time associate Dick Gwee. In his earlier statements and testimonies, Gan recalled how he helped Soh seek new ways to increase the combined trading limit of the accounts under their control. When selling pressure piled on just before the crash, Gan took on bigger risks, using trading accounts belonging to his family to help Soh support BAL' s stock prices. The risks taken were so large that when the crash happened, Gan, like many others involved, suffered losses. A few were even made bankrupt, including Gan. According to Gan, Soh' s relationships with his network of brokers and individuals who traded on his behalf, was not always amicable, especially after the crash. One of them was Leroy Lau, Gan' s colleague at DMG Securities (since then part of RHB Securities), who lost close to $30 million. " I was informed, but I cannot confirm, that Mr Soh didn' t make good the losses to Leroy. That' s why Leroy was very angry with him, and he was very, very rude to Mr Soh, so much so that Leroy would call him for no apparent reason and then scold him vulgarities and things like that," said Gan. On the other hand, Soh apparently took the trouble to reassure Gan. While Soh could not make good for all the losses, Gan told the court that Soh not only kept in contact but tried to make good by paying for Gan' s shares in another company that Soh wanted to use to make a comeback. According to the transcript of one of the many recordings of conversations between Soh and Gan, Soh called Gan a " vital" associate. " Firstly, you have proven your toughness &mdash your mental toughness. Two, you have your reach and your ability to spin," Soh was recorded as saying to Gan. Gan told the court these were " very comforting words" . " Yeah, a vital cog in the next new scheme. Mental toughness, of course. I' ve helped him to evade lots of losses, yeah, fended off lots of people asking for money, and followed by my reach &mdash oh, because I was a public figure," said Gan, referring to his years of being a prolific stock commentator including very frequent appearances on radio. " He probably thought that I' m very good at spinning, maybe writing stories, articles," he added. More than just taking orders? But what Soh did not know was that Gan had secretly made around 100 audio recordings of many conversations between the two as well as that involving other individuals. Gan told the court that although he did not fully cooperate with the investigators initially, he had already started recording the conversations and also the numbers of the unregistered phone lines used by the group. During cross examination on July 2, Soh' s lawyer N Sreenivasan of K& L Gates Straits Law asked Gan the reason behind this. Gan explained he was then beholden to Soh, and was hoping that Soh would make good the trading losses incurred while using accounts belonging to Gan, his family and his friends. " I was beholden to John because of the financial issues. I was willing to be very loyal to him, but since he was already remanded, I saw no ways, no means of recovering the money, so when the authorities came knocking on my door, I just had to surrender," said Gan. Sreenivasan tried to make Gan agree that during the alleged manipulation of shares, Gan was playing a more active role than just taking trading orders from Soh and Quah. Gan, the court was told, helped get prepaid SIM cards for various other individuals involved. Gan denied that he was in charge of logistics and operational security. " I wanted everybody to stay safe," said Gan. " It' s not Covid, so what were they staying safe from?" asked Sreenivasan. " It' s my own initiative. Safe from the authorities. Like I said yesterday [July 1], I was trying to protect John, all the way until he was remanded," said Gan. The making of a perfect storm? In Gan' s conditioned statement, BAL shares came under " selling pressure" from Goldman Sachs a few days before the crash and he was told by Gwee to help " defend" its share price. Sreenivasan said that at the committal hearing back in 2018, representatives of the US financial firm flatly denied short selling the shares. Goldman had loaned money to Quah using BAL shares held by her and other related parties as collaterals. Gan explained that he knew it was Goldman selling because traders could see the house code on their systems and that there were " a lot" of sellers with the Goldman house code unloading large chunks of BAL shares of between 500,000 and one million units each. Gan also heard from Tai that Interactive Brokers was making margin calls too. In his cross examination, Sreenivasan also made Gan agree that the crash of the shares in early October 2013 was caused by other parties. When BAL prices were surging, the Securities Investors Association of Singapore (SIAS) had called on Blumont to give an acceptable explanation for the unusual price hike in the shares, failing which an investigation could be launched. But when Blumont asked for a trading halt, the request was denied by Singapore Exchange, which Gan agreed was an unusual response. " So we' re looking at a perfect storm: Selling pressure from Goldman, SIAS' s announcement, denial of trading halt. Agreed?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes," said Gan. Sreenivasan added that other known associates such as Lim Kuan Yew and Nelson Fernandez were already up to their trading limits holding BAL shares. " So, it makes absolutely no sense for a group of people, allegedly acting in concert, to do things to bring the price down. Right?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes, I would agree," said Gan. The trial continues.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	12-Jul-2020 15:08        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	No ' comeback' for John Soh despite ' over-abusing' the word after crash The Edge Singapore SINGAPORE (July 9): John Soh, who is at the centre of a trial for allegedly manipulating three penny stocks in 2013 that subsequently led to their crash, made a couple of attempts to stage a " comeback" from losses incurred in the wake of their spectacular collapse. According to former broker Gabriel Gan Tze Wee, who helped to carry out some of Soh' s trade orders, the latter tried to convince people around him that he had a " comeback story" and that they could all make a " solid" comeback. Gan, who is taking the stand as the latest prosecution witness, told the court that the term " comeback" was " over-abused" by Soh three to four years after the crash. The court also heard that a couple of " comeback" attempts were also made with two other listed companies, Sino Construction (since then renamed MMP Resources) and ISR Capital (now called Reenova Investment Holding) as well as a privately-held company called Greatronics. However, before the schemes could gain traction and make enough money, Soh was arrested in November 2016 and has been held in remand ever since. He is now facing trial together with his lover and fellow accused Quah Su-Ling. " Yeah. Nobody came back. Not even him. None of us," Gan told the court on July 1. Gan was one of the " generals" Soh depended on to help coordinate and execute the trades of the three penny stocks &mdash Blumont Group, Asiason Capital (now renamed Attilan Group) and LionGold Corp, also collectively known as BAL &mdash between 2010 and 2013. Others include Ken Tai Chee Ming and Henry Tjoa, as well as Soh' s long-time associate Dick Gwee. In his earlier statements and testimonies, Gan recalled how he helped Soh seek new ways to increase the combined trading limit of the accounts under their control. When selling pressure piled on just before the crash, Gan took on bigger risks, using trading accounts belonging to his family to help Soh support BAL' s stock prices. The risks taken were so large that when the crash happened, Gan, like many others involved, suffered losses. A few were even made bankrupt, including Gan. According to Gan, Soh' s relationships with his network of brokers and individuals who traded on his behalf, was not always amicable, especially after the crash. One of them was Leroy Lau, Gan' s colleague at DMG Securities (since then part of RHB Securities), who lost close to $30 million. " I was informed, but I cannot confirm, that Mr Soh didn' t make good the losses to Leroy. That' s why Leroy was very angry with him, and he was very, very rude to Mr Soh, so much so that Leroy would call him for no apparent reason and then scold him vulgarities and things like that," said Gan. On the other hand, Soh apparently took the trouble to reassure Gan. While Soh could not make good for all the losses, Gan told the court that Soh not only kept in contact but tried to make good by paying for Gan' s shares in another company that Soh wanted to use to make a comeback. According to the transcript of one of the many recordings of conversations between Soh and Gan, Soh called Gan a " vital" associate. " Firstly, you have proven your toughness &mdash your mental toughness. Two, you have your reach and your ability to spin," Soh was recorded as saying to Gan. Gan told the court these were " very comforting words" . " Yeah, a vital cog in the next new scheme. Mental toughness, of course. I' ve helped him to evade lots of losses, yeah, fended off lots of people asking for money, and followed by my reach &mdash oh, because I was a public figure," said Gan, referring to his years of being a prolific stock commentator including very frequent appearances on radio. " He probably thought that I' m very good at spinning, maybe writing stories, articles," he added. More than just taking orders? But what Soh did not know was that Gan had secretly made around 100 audio recordings of many conversations between the two as well as that involving other individuals. Gan told the court that although he did not fully cooperate with the investigators initially, he had already started recording the conversations and also the numbers of the unregistered phone lines used by the group. During cross examination on July 2, Soh' s lawyer N Sreenivasan of K& L Gates Straits Law asked Gan the reason behind this. Gan explained he was then beholden to Soh, and was hoping that Soh would make good the trading losses incurred while using accounts belonging to Gan, his family and his friends. " I was beholden to John because of the financial issues. I was willing to be very loyal to him, but since he was already remanded, I saw no ways, no means of recovering the money, so when the authorities came knocking on my door, I just had to surrender," said Gan. Sreenivasan tried to make Gan agree that during the alleged manipulation of shares, Gan was playing a more active role than just taking trading orders from Soh and Quah. Gan, the court was told, helped get prepaid SIM cards for various other individuals involved. Gan denied that he was in charge of logistics and operational security. " I wanted everybody to stay safe," said Gan. " It' s not Covid, so what were they staying safe from?" asked Sreenivasan. " It' s my own initiative. Safe from the authorities. Like I said yesterday [July 1], I was trying to protect John, all the way until he was remanded," said Gan. The making of a perfect storm? In Gan' s conditioned statement, BAL shares came under " selling pressure" from Goldman Sachs a few days before the crash and he was told by Gwee to help " defend" its share price. Sreenivasan said that at the committal hearing back in 2018, representatives of the US financial firm flatly denied short selling the shares. Goldman had loaned money to Quah using BAL shares held by her and other related parties as collaterals. Gan explained that he knew it was Goldman selling because traders could see the house code on their systems and that there were " a lot" of sellers with the Goldman house code unloading large chunks of BAL shares of between 500,000 and one million units each. Gan also heard from Tai that Interactive Brokers was making margin calls too. In his cross examination, Sreenivasan also made Gan agree that the crash of the shares in early October 2013 was caused by other parties. When BAL prices were surging, the Securities Investors Association of Singapore (SIAS) had called on Blumont to give an acceptable explanation for the unusual price hike in the shares, failing which an investigation could be launched. But when Blumont asked for a trading halt, the request was denied by Singapore Exchange, which Gan agreed was an unusual response. " So we' re looking at a perfect storm: Selling pressure from Goldman, SIAS' s announcement, denial of trading halt. Agreed?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes," said Gan. Sreenivasan added that other known associates such as Lim Kuan Yew and Nelson Fernandez were already up to their trading limits holding BAL shares. " So, it makes absolutely no sense for a group of people, allegedly acting in concert, to do things to bring the price down. Right?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes, I would agree," said Gan. The trial continues.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Thi654321ABCDEF Master	10-Jul-2020 14:57        Thi654321ABCDEF About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Forgot about ABL ,they are sleeping gaints for many years, wasting time to watch these counters and read news , Better Concentrate other counters , atleast they will move up and down  zhongkui      ( Date: 10-Jul-2020 14:53) Posted: Using an imaginary stroke to explain away " memory loss" ? Sreenivasan, citing discrepancies between Gabriel Gan' s testimonies and what he had said in court, accused Gabriel Gan of making things up, and that Gabriel Gan, together with other brokers who had turned prosecution witnesses, were trying to pin all the blame on Soh. Gabriel Gan explained he had suffered a stroke in 2018, which affected his memory. " That' s why you can' t get your facts straight," said Sreenivasan. " I already told you, I suffered a stroke," said Gan. MR FONG:  Your Honour, I do have a request.  The witness has informed the court that he had a stroke. We were trying to establish when that was.  Is there any way he could let us have, in advance, some information regarding that? COURT:  Yes, just the date, right?  No details, and I don' t think details are required -- MR FONG:  No, no need details, just the date. COURT:  Mr Gan, you have heard Mr Fong.  If you can try and look at your own medical records -- A.  I have to retrieve the medical records from Tan Tock Seng. COURT:  I don' t think it' s in detail.  If you look at your personal records, you might be able to find something. A.  That would require some cost, yes, and - COURT:  No, we don' t need you to go to the hospital.  From your own personal records, you should be able to find something. A.  But the doctor did tell me that because I did -- I went to Tan Tock Seng for some other problem, but after doing the scan, I can' t remember was it -- whether it' s MRI or CT, they told me that -- that there were scars of stroke, so they diagnosed me as having a stroke back then. MR FONG:  So it was not really a stroke. MR SREENIVASAN:  So it wasn' t a stroke. zhongkui      ( Date: 10-Jul-2020 14:39) Posted: Putting every sin at Soh' s doorstep? The Edge Singapore SINGAPORE (July 9): Sreenivasan attempted to get Gan to agree that his client did not have that much control over the manipulation of BAL shares as painted out to be. According to earlier testimonies given by prosecution witnesses, including Gan, Soh in September 2013 before the crash, had urged attendees at a presentation held at LionGold&rsquo s office to buy the three stocks. Those present at the event included Quah, Gwee, Tai and Wong Xue Yu. " If John was controlling the accounts under these people, do you agree there was no reason for him to promote the company to them? He just has to give them instructions to go and buy, right?" asked Sreenivasan. Gan disagreed, saying Soh meant to encourage them to buy. " They could take up the encouragement or they could not take up the encouragement?" asked Sreenivasan. " Of course, definitely," replied Gan. " These people who were there being encouraged to buy were people who could make decisions on their own, right?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes," said Gan. " John&rsquo s role was to persuade people to do things?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes, I agree," said Gan. " Just like you went to recruit people without telling him, just like you deciding how much to trade without getting instructions, just like you, who could decide to buy and sell at whatever price you felt was correct, everybody else there could do that as well. Right?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. Sreenivasan, citing discrepancies between Gan&rsquo s testimonies and what he had said in court, accused Gan of making things up, and that Gan, together with other brokers who had turned prosecution witnesses, were trying to pin all the blame on Soh. Gan explained he had suffered a stroke in 2018, which affected his memory. " You see, Mr Gan, it is the defence case that you, Ken Tai, Dick Gwee &mdash maybe, because he hasn&rsquo t given evidence yet &mdash Henry Tjoa were all playing up these BAL shares and running operations, but when things went wrong, you all decided to put every sin at the doorstep of John Soh to cover yourselves," said Sreenivasan. " That is why people like you were gathering evidence and recording conversations. That is why you can&rsquo t get your facts straight, because as Mark Twain has said, you don&rsquo t need to remember the truth. You are making up your stories," added Sreenivasan. Deputy public prosecutor Jiang Ke-Yue immediately objected to this line of questioning, saying it was not fair as Gan had tried to refer to price charts of the stocks involved to verify certain dates and prices, given how the incident took place back seven years ago. " He has asked twice, actually, and I think this is objectively verifiable," said Jiang. " The reason you can&rsquo t get your facts straight is because your story is made up. Agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " The reason you have to make up this story is, against the background of John Soh promoting these shares, there was a whole bunch of you playing your own games, manipulating the market. Agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " Manipulating the market by taking an extra one and a half cents, like Ken Tai has said. Agreed?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " Manipulating the market by doing deals for Dick Gwee to make money, agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " Manipulating the market by getting family members and friends on board, hoping to catch a rising tide. Agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Strongly disagree," said Gan. " That' s why you can' t get your facts straight," said Sreenivasan. " I already told you, I suffered a stroke," said Gan.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	10-Jul-2020 14:55        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Using an imaginary stroke to explain away " memory loss" ? Sreenivasan, citing discrepancies between Gabriel Gan' s testimonies and what he had said in court, accused Gabriel Gan of making things up, and that Gabriel Gan, together with other brokers who had turned prosecution witnesses, were trying to pin all the blame on Soh. Gabriel Gan explained he had suffered a stroke in 2018, which affected his memory. " That' s why you can' t get your facts straight," said Sreenivasan. " I already told you, I suffered a stroke," said Gan. MR FONG:  Your Honour, I do have a request.  The witness has informed the court that he had a stroke. We were trying to establish when that was.  Is there any way he could let us have, in advance, some information regarding that? COURT:  Yes, just the date, right?  No details, and I don' t think details are required -- MR FONG:  No, no need details, just the date. COURT:  Mr Gan, you have heard Mr Fong.  If you can try and look at your own medical records -- A.  I have to retrieve the medical records from Tan Tock Seng. COURT:  I don' t think it' s in detail.  If you look at your personal records, you might be able to find something. A.  That would require some cost, yes, and - COURT:  No, we don' t need you to go to the hospital.  From your own personal records, you should be able to find something. A.  But the doctor did tell me that because I did -- I went to Tan Tock Seng for some other problem, but after doing the scan, I can' t remember was it -- whether it' s MRI or CT, they told me that -- that there were scars of stroke, so they diagnosed me as having a stroke back then. MR FONG:  So it was not really a stroke. MR SREENIVASAN:  So it wasn' t a stroke. zhongkui      ( Date: 10-Jul-2020 14:39) Posted: Putting every sin at Soh' s doorstep? The Edge Singapore SINGAPORE (July 9): Sreenivasan attempted to get Gan to agree that his client did not have that much control over the manipulation of BAL shares as painted out to be. According to earlier testimonies given by prosecution witnesses, including Gan, Soh in September 2013 before the crash, had urged attendees at a presentation held at LionGold&rsquo s office to buy the three stocks. Those present at the event included Quah, Gwee, Tai and Wong Xue Yu. " If John was controlling the accounts under these people, do you agree there was no reason for him to promote the company to them? He just has to give them instructions to go and buy, right?" asked Sreenivasan. Gan disagreed, saying Soh meant to encourage them to buy. " They could take up the encouragement or they could not take up the encouragement?" asked Sreenivasan. " Of course, definitely," replied Gan. " These people who were there being encouraged to buy were people who could make decisions on their own, right?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes," said Gan. " John&rsquo s role was to persuade people to do things?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes, I agree," said Gan. " Just like you went to recruit people without telling him, just like you deciding how much to trade without getting instructions, just like you, who could decide to buy and sell at whatever price you felt was correct, everybody else there could do that as well. Right?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. Sreenivasan, citing discrepancies between Gan&rsquo s testimonies and what he had said in court, accused Gan of making things up, and that Gan, together with other brokers who had turned prosecution witnesses, were trying to pin all the blame on Soh. Gan explained he had suffered a stroke in 2018, which affected his memory. " You see, Mr Gan, it is the defence case that you, Ken Tai, Dick Gwee &mdash maybe, because he hasn&rsquo t given evidence yet &mdash Henry Tjoa were all playing up these BAL shares and running operations, but when things went wrong, you all decided to put every sin at the doorstep of John Soh to cover yourselves," said Sreenivasan. " That is why people like you were gathering evidence and recording conversations. That is why you can&rsquo t get your facts straight, because as Mark Twain has said, you don&rsquo t need to remember the truth. You are making up your stories," added Sreenivasan. Deputy public prosecutor Jiang Ke-Yue immediately objected to this line of questioning, saying it was not fair as Gan had tried to refer to price charts of the stocks involved to verify certain dates and prices, given how the incident took place back seven years ago. " He has asked twice, actually, and I think this is objectively verifiable," said Jiang. " The reason you can&rsquo t get your facts straight is because your story is made up. Agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " The reason you have to make up this story is, against the background of John Soh promoting these shares, there was a whole bunch of you playing your own games, manipulating the market. Agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " Manipulating the market by taking an extra one and a half cents, like Ken Tai has said. Agreed?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " Manipulating the market by doing deals for Dick Gwee to make money, agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " Manipulating the market by getting family members and friends on board, hoping to catch a rising tide. Agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Strongly disagree," said Gan. " That' s why you can' t get your facts straight," said Sreenivasan. " I already told you, I suffered a stroke," said Gan.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	10-Jul-2020 14:39        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Putting every sin at Soh' s doorstep? The Edge Singapore SINGAPORE (July 9): Sreenivasan attempted to get Gan to agree that his client did not have that much control over the manipulation of BAL shares as painted out to be. According to earlier testimonies given by prosecution witnesses, including Gan, Soh in September 2013 before the crash, had urged attendees at a presentation held at LionGold&rsquo s office to buy the three stocks. Those present at the event included Quah, Gwee, Tai and Wong Xue Yu. " If John was controlling the accounts under these people, do you agree there was no reason for him to promote the company to them? He just has to give them instructions to go and buy, right?" asked Sreenivasan. Gan disagreed, saying Soh meant to encourage them to buy. " They could take up the encouragement or they could not take up the encouragement?" asked Sreenivasan. " Of course, definitely," replied Gan. " These people who were there being encouraged to buy were people who could make decisions on their own, right?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes," said Gan. " John&rsquo s role was to persuade people to do things?" asked Sreenivasan. " Yes, I agree," said Gan. " Just like you went to recruit people without telling him, just like you deciding how much to trade without getting instructions, just like you, who could decide to buy and sell at whatever price you felt was correct, everybody else there could do that as well. Right?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. Sreenivasan, citing discrepancies between Gan&rsquo s testimonies and what he had said in court, accused Gan of making things up, and that Gan, together with other brokers who had turned prosecution witnesses, were trying to pin all the blame on Soh. Gan explained he had suffered a stroke in 2018, which affected his memory. " You see, Mr Gan, it is the defence case that you, Ken Tai, Dick Gwee &mdash maybe, because he hasn&rsquo t given evidence yet &mdash Henry Tjoa were all playing up these BAL shares and running operations, but when things went wrong, you all decided to put every sin at the doorstep of John Soh to cover yourselves," said Sreenivasan. " That is why people like you were gathering evidence and recording conversations. That is why you can&rsquo t get your facts straight, because as Mark Twain has said, you don&rsquo t need to remember the truth. You are making up your stories," added Sreenivasan. Deputy public prosecutor Jiang Ke-Yue immediately objected to this line of questioning, saying it was not fair as Gan had tried to refer to price charts of the stocks involved to verify certain dates and prices, given how the incident took place back seven years ago. " He has asked twice, actually, and I think this is objectively verifiable," said Jiang. " The reason you can&rsquo t get your facts straight is because your story is made up. Agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " The reason you have to make up this story is, against the background of John Soh promoting these shares, there was a whole bunch of you playing your own games, manipulating the market. Agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " Manipulating the market by taking an extra one and a half cents, like Ken Tai has said. Agreed?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " Manipulating the market by doing deals for Dick Gwee to make money, agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Disagree," said Gan. " Manipulating the market by getting family members and friends on board, hoping to catch a rising tide. Agree or disagree?" asked Sreenivasan. " Strongly disagree," said Gan. " That' s why you can' t get your facts straight," said Sreenivasan. " I already told you, I suffered a stroke," said Gan.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	04-Jun-2020 19:16        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	In the High Court today, defence counsel Sreenivasan brought up a police statement dated 12 November 2015 by Bjorn Krog Anderson, former head of Saxo Bank Singapore in 2013 during the BAL crash. When Bjorn was asked in question 280 if he had anything to add, he said:   I just want to add that it is my view that based on the 2 full days of interviews that there is a lot of focus from the authorities of John Soh&rsquo s role into the companies. We welcome such investigations and think that every stone should be turned. However, it remains the fact that Ken Tai was the one who set up the accounts on behalf of the clients, and that Ken Tai was the one who communicated with Saxo Bank up until the crash. In terms of accounts opening, terms and conditions, it was also Ken Tai who Saxo Bank liaised with. I believe Ken Tai was also the one who did all of the trades on behalf of the clients. It would appear that some of the trading was done by Ken Tai in order to generate commission to himself because any trades executed in the system would give rise to a commission to Ken Tai. Between the period 2011 and 2013, Ken Tai had earned a 6 digit amount over the years as commission for the trading that took place in these clients&rsquo accounts. Saxo Bank has been reviewing the trading behaviour and as stated on my first day of interview, we had not found any impact between the volumes of trading with the price of the stock. Actually we see a negative correlation linked between the clients&rsquo trading volume and price movements, and that our conclusion was that the price of the 4 counters were not being moved in any direction by the trades taking place in Saxo&rsquo s accounts.   Saxo bank would also urge this investigation to look into SGX&rsquo s behaviour as it appears to Saxo bank that the crash of the 4 counters was not handled professionally by the SGX. We hear intelligence that responsible people within the stock exchange have been dismissed but we would urge the authorities to look into any misbehaviour in the stock exchange as well, because it seems that the collapse of the 4 counters could have been avoided by a more diligent and more professional behaviour from the stock exchange.   Also we would urge this investigation to look at the short positions of the 4 counters, leading up to the crash on 4 October 2013, because people holding short positions would have been the ones benefiting from the crash.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	20-Feb-2020 00:31        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Ken Tai caught lying in court again. He made up a story of why he was sure a call was made during lunch break in 2013 that lead to him entering a trade. However, defense counsel pointed out to the court that the lunch break was scrapped in 2011. What lunch break in 2013 was Ken Tai talking about?   Q.  My question is: could that phone call, 9 minutes prior, possibly also have contained the instructions for you to place the order at 13:53? A.  My take is likely, simply because the period that she called me was the lunch break in the Stock Exchange. Q.  And what -- A.  And you see the order that went in, that I enter was 13:53, so she called me 9 minutes ago, I have plenty of time to put in the order.  It can be BBM, it can be phone call.  Because that period was lunch break of the Stock Exchange. Q.  This is an example of a situation where you placed an order more than five minutes after receiving the instructions, and you' re saying it' s probably because of the lunch break in this case. A.  Correct. MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, can I just prevail on my learned friend to do a quick Google search on when the lunch break was scrapped?  Because I' ve just done one.  It was scrapped in 2011. COURT:  Right. MR SREENIVASAN:  Which was my memory of it as well. I don' t know what lunch break the witness is talking about. DPP MR TEO:  Your Honour, that is the witness' evidence.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	18-Feb-2020 23:49        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 1  Alert Admin	Defence counsel asked the DPP in court if CAD took any statements from Richard Teng but the DPP said no. It is evident that CAD did not believe Ken Tai&rsquo s story about Richard Teng.   zhongkui      ( Date: 18-Feb-2020 20:14) Posted: Ken Tai accused Richard Teng, ex-SGX chief regulatory officer, to be John Soh' s mole. A.  According to John, he say he has someone in CAD that he knows, that tells him what was the development.  So that was also the reason why, in December 2013 onward, we get constant update what was the development.  We were told that the CAD were looking at three aspect of this case:                     was there any money-laundering involved?  Who pushed up the share price?  And who shorten it down? Q.  Who is this so-called person in CAD that John purportedly told you? COURT:  Yes, Mr Tai. A.  John named this person, ex-chief regulatory officer, SGX, Richard Teng.  I' m not the only one that knows about this.  Gabriel, we know about this as well &ndash he knows about this as well, and the code that we use for Richard Teng was " RT" .   MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I have one issue that cropped up in the course of the cross-examination, and that is the witness' statement that he had informed the CAD that one Richard Teng was supposedly giving information to my client. COURT:  Yes. MR SREENIVASAN:  I want to put one question to him and leave it as a put. COURT:  Yes -- right, I' ll let you finish first, Mr Sreenivasan. MR SREENIVASAN:  Mr Tai, the CAD didn' t believe you when you made this accusation about Mr Teng? COURT:  I don' t think we should comment on that because we don' t know what' s happening -- MR SREENIVASAN:  Because no action was taken, your Honour. COURT:  That' s fine, I think you can put that to him if you have particular instructions that nothing was said, or so on, as far as your client' s case is concerned. 16:42 MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I' m putting it as a matter of his credibility, that nobody believed him when he made such a far-fetched allegation. COURT:  Well, I won' t allow that, but if you want to put your client' s position to him -- MR SREENIVASAN:  I can put my client' s position. COURT:  -- something or not, that' s fine. MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes, your Honour. Mr Tai, John Soh never told you that Richard Teng was his source or giving him information.  Agree or disagree? A.  I disagree. Q.  And if you had told the CAD about Richard Teng, then something would have been followed up, wouldn' t it? A.  That, I don' t know. Q.  Did you tell the CAD about it? A.  Yes. Q.  Really? A.  Yes.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	18-Feb-2020 23:15        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Q.  Who is this so-called person in CAD that John purportedly told you? COURT:  Yes, Mr Tai. A.  John named this person, ex-chief regulatory officer, SGX, Richard Teng.  I' m not the only one that knows about this.  Gabriel, we know about this as well & ndash he knows about this as well, and the code that we use for Richard Teng was " RT" . Ken Tai was asked who was the person in CAD. Instead, he replied a Richard Teng from SGX, who was never in CAD. This goes to show how dishonest is Ken. He is not on the stand to give evidence. He is there to make up stories to show himself less culpable and stay out of jail. zhongkui      ( Date: 18-Feb-2020 20:14) Posted: Ken Tai accused Richard Teng, ex-SGX chief regulatory officer, to be John Soh' s mole. A.  According to John, he say he has someone in CAD that he knows, that tells him what was the development.  So that was also the reason why, in December 2013 onward, we get constant update what was the development.  We were told that the CAD were looking at three aspect of this case:                     was there any money-laundering involved?  Who pushed up the share price?  And who shorten it down? Q.  Who is this so-called person in CAD that John purportedly told you? COURT:  Yes, Mr Tai. A.  John named this person, ex-chief regulatory officer, SGX, Richard Teng.  I' m not the only one that knows about this.  Gabriel, we know about this as well &ndash he knows about this as well, and the code that we use for Richard Teng was " RT" .   MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I have one issue that cropped up in the course of the cross-examination, and that is the witness' statement that he had informed the CAD that one Richard Teng was supposedly giving information to my client. COURT:  Yes. MR SREENIVASAN:  I want to put one question to him and leave it as a put. COURT:  Yes -- right, I' ll let you finish first, Mr Sreenivasan. MR SREENIVASAN:  Mr Tai, the CAD didn' t believe you when you made this accusation about Mr Teng? COURT:  I don' t think we should comment on that because we don' t know what' s happening -- MR SREENIVASAN:  Because no action was taken, your Honour. COURT:  That' s fine, I think you can put that to him if you have particular instructions that nothing was said, or so on, as far as your client' s case is concerned. 16:42 MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I' m putting it as a matter of his credibility, that nobody believed him when he made such a far-fetched allegation. COURT:  Well, I won' t allow that, but if you want to put your client' s position to him -- MR SREENIVASAN:  I can put my client' s position. COURT:  -- something or not, that' s fine. MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes, your Honour. Mr Tai, John Soh never told you that Richard Teng was his source or giving him information.  Agree or disagree? A.  I disagree. Q.  And if you had told the CAD about Richard Teng, then something would have been followed up, wouldn' t it? A.  That, I don' t know. Q.  Did you tell the CAD about it? A.  Yes. Q.  Really? A.  Yes.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	18-Feb-2020 20:14        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Ken Tai accused Richard Teng, ex-SGX chief regulatory officer, to be John Soh' s mole. A.  According to John, he say he has someone in CAD that he knows, that tells him what was the development.  So that was also the reason why, in December 2013 onward, we get constant update what was the development.  We were told that the CAD were looking at three aspect of this case:                     was there any money-laundering involved?  Who pushed up the share price?  And who shorten it down? Q.  Who is this so-called person in CAD that John purportedly told you? COURT:  Yes, Mr Tai. A.  John named this person, ex-chief regulatory officer, SGX, Richard Teng.  I' m not the only one that knows about this.  Gabriel, we know about this as well &ndash he knows about this as well, and the code that we use for Richard Teng was " RT" .   MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I have one issue that cropped up in the course of the cross-examination, and that is the witness' statement that he had informed the CAD that one Richard Teng was supposedly giving information to my client. COURT:  Yes. MR SREENIVASAN:  I want to put one question to him and leave it as a put. COURT:  Yes -- right, I' ll let you finish first, Mr Sreenivasan. MR SREENIVASAN:  Mr Tai, the CAD didn' t believe you when you made this accusation about Mr Teng? COURT:  I don' t think we should comment on that because we don' t know what' s happening -- MR SREENIVASAN:  Because no action was taken, your Honour. COURT:  That' s fine, I think you can put that to him if you have particular instructions that nothing was said, or so on, as far as your client' s case is concerned. 16:42 MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I' m putting it as a matter of his credibility, that nobody believed him when he made such a far-fetched allegation. COURT:  Well, I won' t allow that, but if you want to put your client' s position to him -- MR SREENIVASAN:  I can put my client' s position. COURT:  -- something or not, that' s fine. MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes, your Honour. Mr Tai, John Soh never told you that Richard Teng was his source or giving him information.  Agree or disagree? A.  I disagree. Q.  And if you had told the CAD about Richard Teng, then something would have been followed up, wouldn' t it? A.  That, I don' t know. Q.  Did you tell the CAD about it? A.  Yes. Q.  Really? A.  Yes.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	10-Jan-2020 20:25        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Prosecution witness Ken Tai admits to using omnibus accounts to hide illegal ' wash trades'   Amala Balakrishner The Edge   SINGAPORE (Jan 10): Prosecution witness Ken Tai Chee Ming has admitted to using omnibus accounts to prevent authorities from detecting his illegal &ldquo wash trading&rdquo activities.   Further, Tai revealed that he had engaged in this practice even though John Soh Chee Wen and Quah Su-Ling &ndash the alleged masterminds behind the 2013 penny stock crash, whom Tai was supposedly taking instructions from &ndash had specifically ordered him to avoid wash trades.   A wash trade involves a trade made by an account holder to sell and buy the same stock, thus manipulating the market by artificially creating a misleading illusion of activity in the market.   By using an omnibus account, which combines transactions of a group of accounts in the name of the brokerage firm instead of individual account holders, Tai confessed that he believed this would create an &ldquo additional layer&rdquo to avoid detection.   Under cross-examination by Quah&rsquo s defence counsel, Philip Fong of Eversheds Harry Elias, Tai agreed that Quah was worried about &ldquo hitting&rdquo their own accounts.   In his conditioned statement, Tai had also given examples of Soh and Quah telling him not to use certain accounts on certain days so as to avoid wash trades.   &ldquo It makes sense to avoid wash trades because wash trades would be an automatic red flag to the regulator,&rdquo Fong suggested. &ldquo And it would be easy to get caught if one undertakes wash trade.&rdquo   Tai agreed.   &ldquo You did it knowing full well this is precisely what Quah wants to avoid and something that she specifically instructed you not to do,&rdquo observed Fong.   Tai &ldquo partially&rdquo agreed with this suggestion. Later, he added that did not inform Quah about this since the trades were made under the omnibus account.   Drawing reference to trades made on Sept 11, 2012, Fong put forth that Tai had made a wash trade at his own initiative, and not under Quah&rsquo s instructions as he had previously claimed.   &ldquo You keep insisting that any instructions given to you [by Quah] on these wash trades were by [Blackberry messages or calls],&rdquo Fong said. The defence counsel then proceeded to show that there were no calls made between Quah and Tai during that period.   However, Tai disagreed. &ldquo It is a fact that they know I placed the order&hellip [but] they don&rsquo t know which account I used to place the order,&rdquo Tai explained.   Fong called these assertions &ldquo a total fabrication&rdquo . &ldquo Your story about receiving messages [from Quah] through Blackberry messages is a total lie,&rdquo he added.   Again, Tai disagreed.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	06-Jan-2020 02:58        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Q.  No, first just answer my two questions.  Which one is butterfingers?  And, isn' t it correct that " butterfingers" was just a lie you told the CAO? A.  24 January, 1 February, 5 February, it seems to be -- COURT:  Before that, let' s answer the second question first. The suggestion is that the butterfingers explanation was a lie.  Agree or disagree first. A.  Disagree.   COURT:  All right. MR SREENIVASAN:  Now, which one of these were butterfingers? A.  Based on the sets of data, I look at it, the transactions, 24 January, 1 --   Q.  24 January, bid and ask for 960,000 correct? A.  Correct, correct.   Q.  Okay, carry on. A.  Because I accident bought it, I try to unwind it.  Same thing for 1 February and 5 February as well.   Q.  These were butterfingers? A.  Correct.   Q.  Anything else were butterfingers? A.  No, the first two, 20 and 23 September -- no, November, 2012, the quantity wasn' t that big.  It was actually, at that moment, John has no trading limit so I was using my account to help him to shore up some shares.   Q.  So the butterfingers were 24 January, 1 February and 5 February? A.  Correct.   Q.  Everything else were deliberate decisions, trading decisions made by you, right? A.  Correct.   Q.  Okay. A.  Some of the share, I bought it to hold, based on the transaction &ndash   Q.  Doesn' t matter.  They were not butterfingers? A.  They were not.   Q.  So when you told the CAD officer all these were butterfingers, and then you told us this morning that the other things you didn' t describe was an omission, actually, the truth of the matter is only three of these items were butterfingers, and all the rest were trades made by you.  Right?   COURT:  I think we have gone through that, he has already confirmed that.  Next question. MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes, your Honour, but -- COURT:  You can leave it for submission.   MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I' m going to apply to impeach this witness, and I want to make it very, very clear that he has no credibility whatsoever. COURT:  But I think that has been established on these matters, you have covered that earlier in the day, as to what is said or not.   MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes, your Honour.               When you omitted to tell the CAD that these were deliberate trades, your omission covered all the trades except these three days, right?  So I' m going to put to you: that' s not an omission, my friend that is a total and blatant lie.  Agree or disagree? A.  Disagree.   Q.  Were you questioned about each of these trades? A.  At that moment when --   Q.  Were you questioned about each of these trades? A.  At later stage, then I was questioned about this trade, when they show me the data, only last year.   Q.  At that point, you had to admit it wasn' t butterfingers? A.  I --   Q.  Right? A.  I said there are some trades that belongs to John, some trade belongs to me, some of the trades that I bought it for myself, and that I make it clear with the DPPs.   Q.  I' m not going to go into your conversation with the DPP, but you only admitted all this after you were caught and questioned about your previous lies.  Am I right? A.  I wasn' t showed these sets of data in the process of investigations.   Q.  Would I be correct to say -- I' ll repeat my question -- you only admitted to all of this after you were caught and questioned about your previous lies? COURT:  Again, I think that goes into sort of suggesting what happened during investigations, so, I mean, you know &ndash   MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, I' m at a loss.  Because I have a witness who has six different versions.  What am I to do? COURT:  You can ask whether this was only an omission after he was further questioned, and that' s it.  To suggest some other things that we have to go into, about what lies were uncovered at that stage, I don' t need that, about, what happened in the course of investigation, right? MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, my question is: you only admitted to all of this after you were caught and questioned about your previous lies.  That' s the formulation.  I' ve established that the lies were previously told.  I' ve established that his butterfingers is not true. COURT:  Yes, that is was already established by the way of the statement itself and what you have questioned him today.  I just don' t want a waste of time, I understand where you are going, at the end of the day, in terms of his credibility.  But I don' t think it is necessary to just keep going on this line, here, in relation to what he said about these trades.   MR SREENIVASAN:  As it pleases your Honour.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	06-Jan-2020 01:27        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Q.  When you put up the shares at 95.5, at 9.01am, were you an optimistic trader who hoped it would go up in the next one/two hours, or were you a trader who knew that he had counterparties who would pick it up for him? Which one was it? A.  I knew that there' s counterparty who will pick up from me.   Q.  And how did you know that? A.  I' m the ops op for the day.   Q.  If you were the ops for the day and your direction was to roll over, you should have been rolling over at 94 cents, 94.5, maybe.  Right? A.  Not really.   Q.  When you rolled over from Henry into your account, adding in a 1.5 cents' profit, where did the profit go to? A.  Into the IB account.   Q.  Who is the owner of that account? A.  Me.   Q.  So in your rollover operations, according to you, in addition to your commissions, your share of interest, you made 1.5 cents on the upside, right? A.  Yes.   Q.  And if you had rolled over earlier in the day at 94 cents, then you wouldn' t have made that profit, right? A.  Yes.   Q.  If Henry Tjoa had to buy back these shares that you had sold -- so you had bought in the morning, you are selling it, Henry had sold in the morning, and he&rsquo s buying back. A.  Yes.   Q.  Or Gabriel, whichever one, we will see the names very soon. Then they, in their rollover, would have made a loss of 1.5 cents a share, right? A.  Yes.   Q.  So what you were doing is not market operations.  What you were doing, assuming there was an order for a rollover, what you and your friends Henry and Gabriel were doing was making money for yourselves at the expense of the account holders.  Right? A.  Yes.   Q.  Let me ask you, Mr Ken Tai: did you tell John Soh and Quah Su-Ling, in your daily reports, " By the way, I was skimming off 1.5 cents in the rollover" ?  Did you? A.  No.   Q.  Of course not, because, if in fact you were carrying out their operations, they would be very upset, right? A.  Yes.   Q.  Even on your own version, that you were doing market ops for them, you would be cheating them again.  Right? A.  Yes.   Q.  You told us this sad story yesterday on how, October 2012, you felt pity for them.  And here we are, in July 2013, you are running a scam.  Am I right? Were you running a scam on your own evidence? A.  I did make a profit from the operations.   Q.  Were you running a scam, " yes" or " no" ?  Then I will move on. A.  Yes.   Q.  We' re going to go through quite a few more of these very tediously, but let me put my proposition to you.  Don' t answer yet in case the learned deputy wants to object, saying I haven' t proven it enough. The proposition I' m putting to you is: there were no market ops directed by John Soh.  What you did was those periods where you were running a scam, you created this story of market ops to cover up your own trading where you, Henry Tjoa and Gabriel Gan were running some kind of show.  You made up the market ops directed by John to explain your own conduct.  Agree or disagree? A.  Disagree.   Q.  But let me ask you another question, then.  Have you told any CAO, any DPP, anybody else that you were doing this scam with Henry Tjoa and Gabriel Gan when you came clean on your multiple occasions?  Have you told anybody? A.  I told them that I profited from it.   Q.  I know.  But, you see, when you profit from trading --I' m a DPP, I will say " Good for you" , but if you have been pre-arranging trades with Henry Tjoa -- COURT:  Mr Sreenivasan, I think we drop the additional comment, please.  All right? MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes, your Honour. COURT:  If you have a question, please do.   MR SREENIVASAN:  If you had told anybody that you were doing this concerted action, pre-arranging fax -- I mean, phone calls, pre-arranging trades and manipulating the market, that would have painted a very bad picture of you, wouldn' t it? A.  In the first place, I' m all right to let the DPP or CAD knows that I did all these things, just that I need to look at the data to remember.   Q.  Did CAD know that you were having pre-arranged trades with Henry Tjoa? COURT:  I don' t think you should be asking in that sense. If you want to ask whether he' s raised it, fine. MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes. Have you ever raised it before, to anyone, that you were having pre-arranged trades with Henry Tjoa with the express view of making profit for yourself? It' s not in your conditional statement.  It' s not in your Kadar statements.  It' s not in any document I' ve been given.  Have you told anyone about these pre-arranged trades? Let me suggest to you, you didn' t.  Because if you did, the prosecution would have given us those statements.  I may have disagreements with them, but I have no doubt of their honour and integrity.  If they knew all this, they would have given it to us.  So you didn' t tell anybody.  Agree or disagree? A.  I disagree, because this part wasn' t raised.   Q.  How would they raise it if you didn' t tell them, Mr Tai? COURT:  Mr Tai, please answer the question.  Did you raise this issue before? A.  No.   COURT:  Or have you raised it -- A.  No, but I have told them that I profited from all this operation before. COURT:  All right. A.  But how I do it, like I says, I can' t remember.  I might have -- have did it, but you know, I just can' t remember, at what price I did it, and what' s the quantity I did it.   MR SREENIVASAN:  But when you said you can' t remember, you were lying, because you did know you did it by coordinating with Henry Tjoa and Gabriel Gan, right? COURT:  We' re not asking about the details.  We' re asking you whether you raised the fact that you were coordinating with Henry Tjoa and Gabriel Gan. A.  I coordinate with Henry and Gabriel in the process of operations.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	06-Jan-2020 01:05        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	MR SREENIVASAN:  See, your Honour, I' ll just put my conclusion to the witness. See, what happened is this.  Henry and Gabriel were queueing to sell at 94.  The next thing we know, they come in, and they buy up at 94 all the way until they meet your sell order. DPP MR TEO:  Your Honour, I hate to interject, but I' m not sure it is appropriate to put this conclusion to the witness because we have not gone through the process of showing the witness the basis of this conclusion, and the witness has said that he' s lost. COURT:  Yes. DPP MR TEO:  So am I. MR SREENIVASAN:  If the witness knows he did it, he doesn' t need me to drag him tooth and nail through it. COURT:  Eventually, at some stage, we may have to do this. MR SREENIVASAN:  If he admits, I don' t have to.  If he admits, we don' t have to. COURT:  He says he' s lost. MR SREENIVASAN:  Can I put the question to him, your Honour? If he is still lost, I will go through the rigmarole. DPP MR TEO:  The question is based on the data. MR SREENIVASAN:  No, my question is based on your witness manipulating. COURT:  No, I think -- DPP MR TEO:  What' s your basis for saying that? MR SREENIVASAN:  I just have to prove it. DPP MR TEO:  Yes, and you have to show us how to prove it before it can be put to the witness. COURT:  I think it is a question, really, of just trying to get the row numbers correct so that it is quite clear, and then start from the left to the right. MR SREENIVASAN:  Your Honour, can I put the question to Mr Tai, because it is a matter of fact within his knowledge.  If he denies it, I will show that he is a liar.  If he admits it, we don' t have to. COURT:  He could actually end up saying " I don' t know" , and we have to go through -- MR SREENIVASAN:  Can I put the question to him? COURT:  All right, you may.   MR SREENIVASAN:  All right. Mr Tai, what you were doing on 24 and 25 July 2013 -- COURT:  I think we are on the trade on the 25th. DPP MR TEO:  25th. MR SREENIVASAN:  Can I finish, your Honour? COURT:  Yes.   MR SREENIVASAN:  -- is you coordinated with Henry to buy on the 24th, and you coordinated with Henry and Gabriel on the 25th to sell at a profit for the benefit of your own account.   Agree or disagree? A.  This, I agree, because all the traders counter party, I can recognise that.   Q.  Okay. COURT:  All right.   MR SREENIVASAN:  So do you agree to the proposition I' ve put to you -- COURT:  Yes -- MR SREENIVASAN:  -- that you coordinated with Henry to buy on the 24th and sell at a profit on the 25th? A.  What is my purchase price on the 24th?   Q.  We went through that just now, I think it was 93 cents. COURT:  Yes, it was 93 cents.   MR SREENIVASAN:  Yes.  And it sold at 94. A.  Yes.   Q.  So, you see, perhaps my learned friend will let me put my questions when the witness admits. Do you agree that this was done for your personal benefit and not done for any alleged market operations directed by John Soh? A.  Yes.  That, I admit.   Q.  So do you agree that there was a conspiracy between you, Henry and Gabriel to manipulate the market for your own benefit? A.  No.   Q.  What was the purpose of this exercise? A.  Of this exercise?   Q.  Yes, what you and Henry and Gabriel did on the 24th and 25th?  What was the purpose? A.  Make some money for ourselves.   Q.  Ourselves.  You made money because you made a profit on the trade, right? A.  Correct.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	06-Jan-2020 00:34        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Q.  My question was a simple one: do you agree your half a million was bought from Henry Tjoa?  You don' t need to anticipate what other questions I have. A.  Your Honour, allow me to examine the data before I gave a conclude answer.   COURT:  But this particular trade is all we' re asking you about. A.  Correct -- COURT:  Yes, so -- A.  -- but the problem is, what I see here, this day, it didn' t seems that I' m the operator.   MR SREENIVASAN:  No, no, no, Mr Ken Tai, no need to be clever.  You have said you' re the operator.  That' s your evidence.  I' ve confirmed it.  I have one simple question for you.  The trade that I have identified at 14:02:31, with trade number 58758, was that a buy of 500,000 shares by you from Henry Tjoa?  " Yes" or " no" ?   COURT:  Well, unfortunately, he has raised a concern, although I know you wanted the answer first.  If you take away the " by you" , then that should be the question to be asked now.   MR SREENIVASAN:  Well, it' s a trade in your personal account, Algo Capital. A.  Your Honour, I don' t deny that I made some money from all the trades, but --   COURT:  No, Mr Tai, we need an answer to the question. A.  It is that I bought from Henry.   COURT:  This trade of -- A.  Yes, I admit that I bought from Henry.  I am not denying that --   MR SREENIVASAN:  Okay. A.  -- I am trying to -- trying -- trying to -- trying to play around this, but let me examine the data before I give a complete pictures.   COURT:  Just for this particular one, you do agree that 500 million was -- A.  I do agree --   COURT:  -- by a sell order from Henry Tjoa -- A.  From Henry Tjoa, I do agree with that. ... Q.  I' m suggesting to you that this was by pre-arrangement between you and him.  Agreed?  It' s a simple question: did you pre-arrange it with him?  " Yes" or " no" ? A.  Can I look at the broker' s column again?   Q.  You know, Mr Tai, I' m not going to indulge you yet because I don' t want you to make up a story to fit the facts.  I want to get the facts from you.  Was it done &ndash A.  I' ve no problem admitting to this, that I benefited from it.  Just let me to look at the data.   Q.  My question is not whether you benefited.  That one, we all know.  I' m saying the fact that Henry pulled, deleted his trade at 14:00:46, dropped the price, put it in at 14:02:31, matched it against yours, for your gain, I' m saying it' s not a coincidence: you and Henry were working in cahoots.  Agree or disagree? A.  Before you say that, I' d like to know what is my selling price for this match.  Do you have the data?   Q.  We' ll come to that later. COURT:  No.  Do you need that to answer this question, which is -- A.  Because he said that I benefited.  If let' s say &ndash   COURT:  No, earlier we said we didn' t put in the benefit, and then you said, oh, you don' t have a problem admitting you benefited, all you want to know is to look at some data.  So the question really is that this was pre-arranged.  Do you need to -- A.  I' m not sure is it a pre-arranged, your Honour, that' s why I need to look at the data to recall.   MR SREENIVASAN:  Let me put it another way. COURT:  Yes. MR SREENIVASAN:  Have you done pre-arranged trades with Henry to benefit your personal account, in general, at any point in time? A.  I think I did.   Q.  What do you mean, you think?  You either did or you didn' t.  See, Mr Tai, it took me and my younger colleagues -- COURT:  Mr Sreenivasan, we don' t need to go into that. You answer the question.  If you think you need other evidence or data to look at because of some reason, you can explain that, but now you need to answer: did you carry out any pre-arranged trades with Henry to benefit your personal account? A.  Yes.   COURT:  In relation to this particular trade, you have requested to look through some other data.  Is there any reason for that? A.  Pardon, I cannot hear you.   COURT:  In relation to this particular trade, you are asking to look at some other data.  Any reason for this, and what data would you like to look at? A.  Okay, your Honour, I' ve mentioned that to DPP and CAD as well --   COURT:  I think you can leave that out.  We are in court you will just answer as you need to here. A.  Okay, the reason I' m looking at all this data, because based on the data itself, it' s not difficult to see that I' m the operator for the day, simply because at the broker' s column, if the day when I' m as an operator, you will see myself, Henry, doing most of the trade. At -- in July onwards, you will see another new party called Gabriel which is using DMG, which is partner code number 31.  So if you -- if there' s high frequency from these three parties -- no, I would say four parties: Saxo, IB, Henry, and Gabriel, likely I' m the operators for it.       But, of course, if even there' s a four parties, in that kind of circumstances it can also means that Gabriel is also the operators.  But if I look at the column, I see some unfamiliar numbers, which is Credit Suisse, which -- and UOB Kay Hian, which casts some doubts that I' m not sure whether that they are the operators -- I have no problem admitting that I' m the operators, let' s put it this way.  If you look at the column itself, I -- it doesn' t look familiar to me. You see, if I' m not the operator, the order may not come from me to ask Henry to throw to me.   MR SREENIVASAN:  You see, Mr Tai, I' ll tell you what you have done, and the CAD and the prosecution has bought the story: you have looked at the numbers, you see when you have traded heavily, and then you make the explanation, are you the operator.  Now, logic is the other way.  If you tell us when you' re the operator, then the numbers will show you' re the operator.  You cannot look at the numbers and then make up the story.  But let' s come to that later. That' s the defence case, I' ll make it in submission. Let' s come to a very simple situation.  I have taken an example of you trading in your own account where there appears to be very clear coordination with Henry Tjoa.  You say -- you tell her Honour, " Whether I coordinated or not, I will look at the numbers and decide" .  Never mind.  We put that aside.  I will come back to you slowly on it.  Now my general question: had you been doing coordinated trades with Henry Tjoa for your own benefit?   COURT:  He has already answered yes.  I take that as a " yes" .   MR SREENIVASAN:  Okay.  And how frequently have you done it? A.  I didn' t keep track of it.  I did, but &ndash   Q.  So it' s not once or twice it' s often enough that you need to keep track of it.  Yes? COURT:  Are you able to give us an estimate? A.  I can' t, but I -- I did have some pre-arranged trade with him, but -- I mean, there are some trade I' m asked to buy as well.   MR SREENIVASAN:  No, no, you see, Mr Tai, don' t come back and point finger at my client.  At the moment, my question is the manipulation that you were doing with Henry Tjoa for your benefit.  Don' t distract me. Her Honour' s question is very clear: these pre-arranged trades for your accounts, how many of them were there? A.  I' m not sure.   Q.  Give us an order of estimate.  Tens, hundreds, thousands. A.  I don' t know.   Q.  Mr Tai, you are here to give evidence.  Can you please help us?  " I don' t know" and being petulant won' t cut. I' m not asking you for a precise number.  I' m asking you for the order so we can all find out the extent of your manipulation. A.  Seriously, I have no idea.   Q.  Mr Tai, I' m not asking you to give a fixed number because I' ve got data that' s going to take me weeks to go through on the stand.  If you can tell us how often you manipulated it for your personal benefit and over what periods, it would help us. I' m going to ask you the question for the last time and then move on: are you able to tell us how often you did pre-arranged trades with Henry Tjoa for your own benefit? A.  I' m un -- unable to.   Q.  But when the CAD Ang took your statement in 2015, you " omitted" , to use your word, to tell him that these were not butter finger trades, that these were pre-arranged trades for your personal benefit.  That' s right? A.  Yes.   Q.  Even when the learned deputy asked you questions about personal trade for your benefit, you didn' t tell any of us that these were pre-arranged trades between you and Henry Tjoa.  Right? COURT:  I don' t think that that should be a point taken -- MR SREENIVASAN:  No, in his evidence in court.  You never told us that it was a pre-arranged trade. Agreed? A.  I say that I benefited from it.   Q.  I know.  The only reason why you are admitting it' s a pre-arranged trade is because we found the sequence and the timing and the deletions.  Am I right? A.  No.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	05-Jan-2020 23:38        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Q.  " ... which is a compilation and summary of trades conducted through Algo Capital Group' s trading accounts with Saxo ..." The last time we spoke, we have confirmed that Algo Capital Group is in fact your personal account, right? A.  Yes.   Q.  Go down.  Then CAD Ang says: &ldquo Answer:  They should be, but I would have to refer to the actual statements ..." Question 814, the CAO says: " You mentioned previously that you have not traded personally in LionGold, Asiasons and Blumont shares through these accounts, can you explain?" Then you say: " Answer:  These were ' butter-fingers' or error trades on my part.  I did not execute these trades for my personal benefit or account.  In the case of Interactive Brokers, I had to select the client account to place the trade in and Algo Capital account was the few in the drop-down list and I could have accidentally selected those instead of the intended client account which I wanted to book the trades in." So the CAO asked a very sensible question: " Question:  Why didn' t you amend the orders then?" Which is what we do when we do something butterfingers. " Answer:  From my experience then, it was difficult to change the account and the administrative process to do so was very tedious especially for Interactive Brokers.  If you looked at the order size and volume traded, it was quite small as compared to the trading volume for the other client accounts. Question:  For these error trades, who then bear the losses or gains? Answer:  It would have to be me ... Question:  Did you report these so-called error trades to ... Su-Ling or John ...  Answer:  No.  ... Quantity was small ... I would be able ... Question:  So did you rectify ... Answer:  No ..." Before we spend a lot of time and effort, Mr Ken Tai, were these butter finger trades?  Tell her Honour the truth. A.  Some were butter finger trade.  Some were my own trade. Some of the trade I execute on my account through -- under the instructions of John.   Q.  But that' s not what you said in the statement.  See, the moment I point out to you we are going to prove you' re lying, you start hedging again.  You told the CAD that these were butter finger trades, errors from the dropdown.  Can I just confirm, you were lying to the CAD?  Agreed? A.  It' s omissions.   Q.  Please, Mr Ken Tai.  He asked you point blank: did you trade on your own account?  You previously said, " I haven' t" .  What is the truth? And your answer is, " These were butter fingers by errors" .  Instead of saying, " Some of these were deliberate trades which I made to make money" .  Is that an omission or is that a lie? A.  Because I can &ndash   Q.  Is that an omission or is that a lie? A.  It' s an omissions.   Q.  Is it a lie? A.  It' s not a lie it' s an omission, because I can' t really recall all these trades belong to me or John.   Q.  Mr Tai, were you using Algo Capital' s account for John' s trades? A.  Yes. I can give you an example as well.   Q.  No, I don' t need you to make up stories.  Show me somewhere in your conditional statement that you were using Algo Capital account for John' s trades. A.  I did mention to the DPP and CAD officer, like, for example, there was once when Gerald from Asiasons called John up to push up shares, so I was tasked to push up as well using my account.   Q.  You know, Mr Ken Tai, let' s go back to this.  Let' s go back and look at this very carefully.  This omission which you claim -- you are now telling us about, before today have you told anybody, DPP, CAO, in court, that butter fingers is not the correct explanation for the trades? A.  &hellip
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	05-Jan-2020 19:39        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Q.  The reason this has happened is that the buy queue was stacked.  We can' t see the stacking here if the stacking came from non-omnibus accounts, right? A.  Yes.   Q.  But if the stacking came from you, it would be here because your orders were placed through an omnibus account.  Right? Saxo and IB appear here.  Correct? A.  Yes.   Q.  So there are only two possibilities.  Possibility 1: you did not stack at all, which means you lied to us yesterday.  Possibility 2: you did stack, but you did it in your own personal accounts for your own personal benefit and gain.  These are the only two logical possibilities.  Let' s not talk about which is true logically, these are the only two things: you either didn' t stack at all, or if you stacked, you didn' t do it through Saxo or IB.  Do you agree those are the only two logical possibilities? A.  Yes, I agree.   Q.  So, now that we look at the data, tell us the truth. A.  Can we look at the trading -- the order activities for this, rather than only omnibus, because it also can be a case whereby the order is placed through Phillip that side.   Q.  It could also be a case, what? A.  The order is placed through Phillip Securities that side.   Q.  No, sorry, Mr Tai, the stacking was done by you, and this is February 2013.  You were not in charge of market operations, and this is Asiasons.  So, were you controlling the Phillip Securities account in February 2013? A.  I might have asked to relay the order over to Phillip side.   Q.  My question is -- I' ve looked at your statement.  You see, there' s a lot of interaction between you and Phillip but I want to look at the evidence here.  You said, " I stacked" .  You never said anywhere, " I asked Phillip to stack" . I' m not going to say that Phillip didn' t stack or they did -- I will come to that -- but I want to get you very clear: were you controlling Phillip' s account at this time?  Were you in cahoots with Henry Tjoa? A.  Like I says, I have relay orders to him before.   Q.  Your evidence is you relayed orders that Quah Su-Ling gave right? A.  Yes.   Q.  Your evidence yesterday was stacking came from John Soh right? A.  Correct.   Q.  Mr Ken Tai, the truth of the matter is you picked up bits and pieces of facts here and there, and you tied up a story for CAD so that CAD could go after John Soh, right? A.  No.   Q.  You were not involved in the stacking, right? A.  But the event took place.   Q.  The event took place, but you pretended that you knew about the event first-hand, you pretended that John Soh gave you instructions, you pretended that you executed those instructions.  You are the perfect witness who would make a story up to explain anything for CAD, right?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
zhongkui Member	03-Jan-2020 00:07        zhongkui About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Witness Ken Tai admits to cheating alleged masterminds, making millions of dollars in market manipulation scheme   Amala Balakrishner The Edge   SINGAPORE (Jan 2): Returning to the stand for the third tranche of the trial of alleged 2013 penny stock crash masterminds John Soh Chee Wen and Quah Su-Ling, prosecution witness Ken Tai Chee Ming on Thursday again admitted to cheating the duo and making millions of dollars for himself.   Once part of Soh&rsquo s &ldquo inner circle&rdquo of brokers and remisiers, Tai had already admitted to manipulation of the stock market for his own gain in the second tranche of the trial in October last year.   However, Tai later claimed he only confessed to make Soh&rsquo s lawyer &ldquo happy&rdquo after a protracted and frustrating back-and-forth questioning.   Tai&rsquo s cross-examination has been put on hold until this third tranche so the defence counsels had time to go through some data.   In his cross-examination on Thursday, Soh&rsquo s defence counsel, N Sreenivasan of K& L Straits Law, put forth that Tai had lied at several instances.   &ldquo You are guilty of market manipulation, misappropriation and cheating your account holders,&rdquo Sreenivasan suggested.   Tai, who was a commissioned dealer at AmFraser Securities (now known as KGI Securities Singapore), paused for a while, before agreeing with Sreenivasan.   For instance, the court heard that shares handled by Soh and Quah had to be &ldquo rolled over&rdquo whenever there was insufficient cash or margin facilities needed for the volume of shares they wanted.   Tai elaborated that he had been instructed to utilise the credit limits of the accounts and to utilise the margin call by rolling the shares over in order to keep them. This would involve selling them on a T+5 basis, or five working days later.   He added Soh and Quah gave him the broad objectives for each share and left the execution to him.   Tai later admitted to having cheated Soh and Quah through this rolling over of shares.   While the practice, which commenced in January 2012, was initially &ldquo not to [his] benefit&rdquo , Tai admitted to carrying through with it to earn the interest income it generated.   &ldquo You have made millions out of your conduct,&rdquo noted Sreenivasan.   The court heard that Tai had earned some $3 million in commissions from trade volumes, interest on outstanding loans and proxies.   Alien trading   Sreenivasan also questioned Tai&rsquo s previous remark that Soh and Quah had &ldquo no problems with &lsquo aliens&rsquo (third parties trading in the counters) entering the market for LionGold and Asiasons shares if they were on the buy side of the trade&rdquo .   Tai had said that the duo would benefit from an &ldquo alien&rdquo investor because they would be taking over a block of shares that would otherwise have to keep rolling and incurring commissions and possible contra losses.   &ldquo [Soh] and Quah were happy to have some genuine demand for LionGold and Asiasons shares, as long as the &lsquo aliens&rsquo did not acquire a too sizeable shareholding in these companies, and as long as the &lsquo aliens&rsquo held the shares for the long term and did not release them back into the market soon after,&rdquo noted Tai.   Tai added that Soh and Quah would spend less on commissions if they could outbid the &ldquo alien&rdquo such that the third party sells at a loss.   &ldquo It does not make sense,&rdquo Sreenivasan countered, noting Soh and Quah&rsquo s interest in locking up the shares. The defence counsel went on to add that Tai&rsquo s statement on this &ldquo fooled anyone who read it&rdquo .   &ldquo You have told so many lies that nobody is capable of discovering what truths come from you,&rdquo Sreenivasan later said.   Tai also earned a rebuke by the judge, after he was constantly responding to Sreenivasan&rsquo s questioning in a seemingly flippant manner. At one point during the cross-examination, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng intervened and told Tai: &ldquo Can you please answer seriously?&rdquo   The trial resumes tomorrow with defence counsel Sreenivasan continuing his cross-examination of Tai.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me

                                                         First   1-20 of 42   Older>   Last