PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v Ewe Pang Kooi

In the high court of the of singapore [2019] SGHC 72 Criminal Case No 53 of 2018 Between Public Prosecutor And Ewe Pang Kooi judgment [Criminal law] — [Offences] — [Property] — [Criminal Breach of Trust] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Public Prosecutor v Ewe Pang Kooi [2019] SGHC 72 High Court — Criminal Case No 53 of 2018 Chan Seng Onn J 3-6, 17 July 2018; 27 November 2018 15 March 2019 Judgment reserved. Chan Seng Onn J: Introduction 1 The accused, Ewe Pang Kooi (“Ewe”), claimed trial to a total of 50 charges under s 409 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 22 charges under the 1985 Rev Ed; 28 charges under the 2008 Rev Ed) for criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) by an agent. Given that there was no amendment made to s 409 in the 2008 amendments to the Penal Code, I shall hereinafter refer to both the 1985 Rev Ed and 2008 Rev Ed of the Penal Code as “the Code”. 2 The charges faced by Ewe can be divided into three broad categories: (a) Charges relating to Ewe’s role as liquidator for 21 companies (“the liquidator charges”); (b) One charge relating to Ewe’s role as receiver for the assets of one Prem Ramchand Harjani (“Harjani”) (“the receiver charge”); and (c) Charges relating to Ewe’s role as manager for the bank accounts of Technology Partners International (“TPI”) Singapore Branch (“the TPI charges”). 3 An example of one of the liquidator charges is set out as follows: 1 Foot Note 1 × Charge Sheets. That you, EWE PANG KOOI, On or about between … in Singapore, did commit criminal breach of trust in the way of your business as an agent, in that you, being at the material time the appointed liquidator of … and in such capacity was entrusted with dominion over property, namely, the firm’s funds in … did dishonestly misappropriate a total sum of … by transferring the said funds into various bank accounts and withdrawing the funds for your own purposes, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224 …). 4 The receiver charge is set out as follows: On or about between 13 November 2010 and 15 April 2011, in Singapore, did commit criminal breach of trust in the way of your business as an agent, in that you, being at the material time the appointed receiver of Prem Ramchand Harjani and in such capacity was entrusted with dominion over property, namely, Prem Ramchand Harjani’s funds in the Malayan Banking Berhad account … did dishonestly misappropriate a total sum of $680,990.82, by transferring the said funds into various bank accounts and withdrawing the funds for your own purposes, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, Revised Edition 2008). 5 An example of one of the TPI charges is set out as follows: On or about between … , in Singapore, did commit criminal breach of trust in the way of your business as an agent, in that you, being at the material time the certified public accountant and an agent of Technology Partners International, Inc. Singapore Branch (“TPI”) and in such capacity was entrusted with dominion over property, namely, TPI’s funds in the … did dishonestly misappropriate a total sum of … , by transferring the said funds into various bank accounts and withdrawing the funds for your own purposes, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409 of the Penal Code (Chapter 223, …). 6 At the end of the trial, I reserved judgment. Having considered the evidence before me and the submissions made by both parties, I find that the Prosecution has made out all 50 charges against Ewe beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I convict Ewe of all 50 charges. I now state my reasons. Undisputed facts 7 The Defence and the Prosecution have agreed to a comprehensive statement of agreed facts (“SOAF”), the material parts of which are set out below. Facts relating to Ewe 8 Ewe is a 65 year-old male Malaysian citizen with Singapore permanent resident status. At all material times, he held professional qualifications as both a Certified Public Accountant (“CPA”) as well as an Approved Liquidator registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. He was also the managing partner of Ewe Loke & Partners (“ELP”), a Certified Public Accounting firm, and a director of E & M Management Consultants Pte Ltd (“EM”), a firm in the business of providing tax and financial consulting and corporate restructuring services. 9 ELP was registered on 2 September 1998. From 2002 to July 2012, the partners of ELP were Ewe, one Loke Poh Keun (“Loke”), and one Mitsuru Morii (“Morii”). Another accountant, one Farooq Mann (“Farooq”), acted jointly with Ewe as liquidator for some of the companies. EM was registered on 20 July 1990 by Morii and Ewe. Subsequently, in early 1992, Loke was appointed as an additional director. 2 Foot Note 2 × Statement of Agreed Facts (“SOAF”), paras 1 – 6. Facts relating to the role of a liquidator and receiver as set out by the parties 10 I reproduce the key portions of the parties’ SOAF on the role of a liquidator and receiver below. 11 A liquidator is an officer appointed when a company goes into winding up or liquidation. When a company is being wound up, the company’s business ceases to operate and its assets and affairs are handed over to a liquidator, whose powers, duties and functions are set out in s 272 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the CA”). The liquidator’s roles include the following: 3 Foot Note 3 × SOAF, para 7. (a) Investigate into the affairs and assets of the company, the conduct of its officers and the claims of creditors and third parties; (b) Recover and realise the company’s assets in the most advantageous manner to the company; (c) Adjudicate the claims of creditors and ensure an equitable distribution of the company’s assets in accordance with the provisions of the CA. 12 When a company goes into receivership, all assets of the company will be transferred into the control of a receiver. A receiver may be appointed by the court or a creditor, and he is entrusted with custody of the property of the company, including its tangible and intangible assets and rights. His responsibility is to liquidate all available assets and rights of the company, and ensure as much debt as possible is repaid to the creditors. 4 Foot Note 4 × SOAF, para 8. 13 When the accused was appointed as a liquidator or receiver by the companies, he was authorised to have control over the bank accounts and assets of the companies, in order for him to make payments to creditors and to recover the companies’ assets. 5 Foot Note 5 × SOAF, para 10. Facts relating to the liquidator charges 14 Ewe was appointed as a liquidator for the following companies (“the 21 companies”). The sequence of the 21 companies as listed in the table below follow the exact sequence as they appear in the SOAF: 6 Foot Note 6 × SOAF, para 11. Name of company Date of appointment Remarks Quality Stainless Pte Ltd 31 October 2003 Joint liquidator with Loke Grandlink Group Pte Ltd 26 March 2001 Joint liquidator with Loke Tuan Huat Construction Pte Ltd 21 September 2001 Joint liquidator with Loke Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd 13 September 2002 Joint liquidator with Loke Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd 30 June 2003 Joint liquidator with Loke San International Pte Ltd 11 April 1997 Joint liquidator with Loke Multimend (S) Pte Ltd 28 April 2000 Joint liquidator with Loke JSP Films Pte Ltd 1 February 1999 Joint liquidator with Loke Inter-park Limited 12 November 1999 Joint liquidator with Loke Camphill Limited 12 November 1999 Joint liquidator with Loke Ernismore Holdings Pte Ltd 24 March 2000 Joint liquidator with Loke 3PAR Singapore Pte Ltd 28 September 2011 3COM South Asia Pte Ltd 25 November 2011 Mercury Interactive (Singapore) Pte Ltd 10 June 2009 Compaq Asia Pte Ltd 30 September 2009 Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd 26 October 2009 Compaq Computer Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd 26 October 2009 A.S.K. Solutions Pte Ltd 16 October 2009 Premier Learning Consultants Pte Ltd 26 June 2009 Jack Chia Holdings (S) Pte Ltd 24 March 2000 Joint liquidator with Loke Nomura Asia Property Investment Pte Ltd 15 March 2010 Joint liquidator with Farooq 15 At the commencement of liquidation, Ewe transferred the assets of the 21 companies into various bank accounts for which he was an authorised signatory. 16 In summary, between February 2002 and July 2012, Ewe used the moneys from the bank accounts of the 21 companies to gamble, repay his gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts that he had taken from other companies. The specific facts pertaining to each of the charges involving Ewe acting in his capacity as liquidator are set out in the Annex (see [A.1] to [A.133]). 7 Foot Note 7 × SOAF, paras 16 – 148. The order in which the facts pertaining to each of the charges are set out in the Annex follow the exact sequence as they appear in the SOAF. Facts relating to the receiver charge 50th Charge: TRC 900029/2015 17 Ewe was appointed as the receiver to take control of the assets owned by Harjani. Ewe deposited the following cheques amounting to S$680,990.82 into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account which represented the assets of Harjani that he received on behalf of Merril Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (“Merril Lynch”). Date of cheque Amount (S$) 11 November 2010 378,981.90 13 April 2011 248,194.10 13 April 2011 53,814.82 18 Between 13 November 2010 and 15 April 2011, Ewe issued the following cheques from ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account. These cheques amounted to a total of S$680,000, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 13 November 2010 150,000.00 Cash 15 November 2010 150,000.00 Cash 24 November 2010 80,000.00 Cash 14 April 2011 150,000.00 Cash 14 April 2011 20,000.00 EM 15 April 2011 130,000.00 Cash 19 The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Based on the withdrawals from the said clients’ account: (a) The sum of S$378,981.90 deposited on 11 November 2010 had been wholly withdrawn by the accused through the above cheques drawn from the clients’ account; (b) From the sums of S$247,194.10 and S$53,814.82 deposited on 13 April 2011, S$300,000 was withdrawn by the accused through the above cheques drawn from the clients’ account. 20 The accused used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. 21 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Harjani. As a result, Ewe misused $678,981.90 belonging to Harjani. 8 Foot Note 8 × SOAF, paras 150 – 153. Facts relating to the TPI charges 22 In 2007, TPI engaged EM to manage its Singapore branch’s Standard Chartered bank account. Pursuant to this purpose, Ewe was appointed as one of four signatories of TPI Singapore Branch’s bank account. 23 The officers of TPI Singapore Branch were one Gerald Clark and one Arno Franz. They, together with Ewe and Morii, were the four signatories of TPI Singapore Branch’s bank account. Ewe was made one of the authorised signatories of TPI Singapore Branch’s bank account as part of EM’s engagement to provide bank account management services to TPI Singapore Branch. To make any authorised withdrawal from TPI Singapore Branch’s bank account, approval from Gerald Clark was required. 24 As two signatories were required for cheque withdrawals or fund transfers from the bank account, Ewe asked Morii to pre-sign blank cheques and transfer request forms. Morii did so as he trusted Ewe. 25 Using the pre-signed cheques, Ewe either issued cash cheques from TPI’s bank accounts or cheques to a bank account of ELP or EM. 9 Foot Note 9 × SOAF, paras 154 – 157. 26 In summary, between December 2007 and July 2012, Ewe used the moneys from TPI Singapore Branch’s Standard Chartered Bank account to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts that he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. The specific facts pertaining to each of the charges involving Ewe acting in his capacity as manager for the bank account of TPI Singapore Branch are set out in the Annex (see [A.134] to [A.151]). 10 Foot Note 10 × SOAF, paras 158 – 176. The order in which the facts pertaining to each of the charges are set out in the Annex follow the exact sequence as they appear in the SOAF. 27 In total, Ewe had misappropriated close to $41 million from various entities over the course of approximately 10 years. The elements of CBT by an agent under s 409 of the Code 28 Section 409 of the Code states: Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant, or agent 409. Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, in his capacity of a public servant, or in the way of his business as a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker, an attorney or an agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine. [emphasis added] 29 To make out the charges under s 409 of the Code, the Prosecution has to prove that the following elements are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt: (a) Ewe was entrusted with dominion over the moneys; (b) the entrustment was done by way of Ewe’s business as an agent; (c) Ewe misappropriated the said moneys; and (d) Ewe did so dishonestly. The parties’ cases 30 Given that the elements of entrustment with dominion and dishonest misappropriation are not disputed by the Defence, parties understandably focus their submissions on the element of whether Ewe was entrusted with the moneys in the way of his business as an agent. Prosecution’s case 31 The Prosecution submits that in order to establish that Ewe was entrusted with the moneys in the way of his business as an agent, it must be shown that: 11 Foot Note 11 × Prosecution’s Closing Submissions (“PCS”), para 42. (a) First, Ewe was a “professional agent”; and (b) Second, the moneys were entrusted to him “in the way of his business” as such agent. 32 In relation to the first requirement, the Prosecution argues that in his capacity as liquidator for the 21 companies, receiver for Harjani on behalf of Merril Lynch, and manager for the bank accounts of TPI Singapore Branch, Ewe was acting as the agent of the 21 companies, Merril Lynch and TPI Singapore Branch respectively. This is on the basis that he was authorised by these entities to act on their behalf, and that his actions could bind these entities vis-à-vis third parties. 12 Foot Note 12 × PCS, paras 45, 46, 49 and 51. The Prosecution further submits that Ewe was a professional agent given that he was offering his agency services to the community at large, and that he made a living from providing these agency services. 13 Foot Note 13 × PCS, para 52. 33 In relation to the second requirement, the Prosecution argues that Ewe was entrusted with dominion over the moneys in the course of the commercial activities that he had to undertake as liquidator, receiver and manager for the bank accounts of TPI Branch Singapore. The Prosecution further states that the entrustment of dominion over the moneys was an integral and necessary element of the jobs that Ewe had been appointed to perform. 14 Foot Note 14 × PCS, paras 61 and 62. Defence’s case 34 First, the Defence argues that the business of a professional agent is similar to that of an insurance or property agent. 15 Foot Note 15 × DCS, para 35. Therefore, given that Ewe’s principal business was in his practice as a CPA, 16 Foot Note 16 × DCS, para 30. he was never in the business of a professional agent, nor did he hold himself out as providing professional agency services. 35 Second, the Defence argues that it was ELP, and not Ewe personally, that was engaged to be the liquidator for the 21 companies and receiver of Harjani’s assets on behalf of Merrill Lynch. Similarly, it was EM, and not Ewe personally, that was appointed as manager of the bank accounts for TPI Singapore Branch. 17 Foot Note 17 × DCS, paras 80, 82, 84 and 85. Ewe had only acted in his capacity as agent for ELP and EM, and had only performed work in the course of the business of ELP and EM. 18 Foot Note 18 × DCS, para 75(b)(iv), (v) and 82(b). Therefore, Ewe was not even an agent of the 21 companies, Merrill Lynch, or TPI, let alone a professional agent. My decision 36 Given the undisputed facts before me, and the manner in which Ewe was entrusted with dominion over the moneys in the course of his various appointments as liquidator, receiver, and manager of the bank accounts for TPI Singapore branch, I am satisfied that all 50 charges against Ewe have been made out beyond reasonable doubt. 37 At the outset, I note that Ewe does not deny that when he was appointed as liquidator of the 21 companies and receiver for the assets of Harjani, he had been entrusted with the moneys stated in all the charges save for the TPI charges. 19 Foot Note 19 × Defence’s Closing Submissions (“DCS”), para 25. With regard to the TPI charges, upon closer scrutiny of the Defence’s Closing Submissions, it appears that the Defence does not actually dispute that Ewe had been entrusted with the moneys belonging to TPI, only that he was entrusted with the moneys in his capacity as the “certified public accountant” and “agent” of TPI. 20 Foot Note 20 × DCS, para 27. 38 Further, Ewe does not deny that, having been entrusted with these moneys, he had dishonestly misappropriated the said moneys. 21 Foot Note 21 × DCS, para 25. 39 Therefore, the Defence does not dispute that elements (a), (c) and (d) of the offence under s 409 of the Code (as set out at [29] above) have been made out. For completeness, I will briefly address these elements, before moving to consider the primary issue of whether Ewe had been entrusted with the said moneys in the way of his business as an agent. Whether Ewe was entrusted with dominion over the moneys 40 It is clear from the SOAF that Ewe was entrusted with dominion over the moneys in his various roles as liquidator for the 21 companies, receiver for Harjani, and manager for the bank account of TPI Singapore Branch. A general degree of control over the moneys is sufficient to establish dominion and there is no need to prove sole or exclusive dominion: see Hon Chi Wan Colman v Public Prosecutor [2002] 2 SLR(R) 821 at [50] and [54]. Having been appointed liquidator for the 21 companies, Ewe was able to transfer the assets of these 21 companies upon the commencement of liquidation into bank accounts for which he was an authorised signatory. Similarly, having been appointed receiver for the assets of Harjani, Ewe was able to transfer Harjani’s assets into a bank account for which he was an authorised signatory. Upon being engaged to manage the bank account of TPI Singapore Branch, Ewe was made an authorised signatory of the bank account. Even though two signatories were required to make any transfers from the bank account, Ewe stated that he had asked Morii to pre-sign cheques and transfer forms, which therefore allowed Ewe to unilaterally make transfers. Ewe therefore had dominion over the moneys in TPI Singapore Branch’s bank account. Whether Ewe had dishonestly misappropriated the moneys which he was entrusted with dominion over 41 It is also clear from the SOAF that Ewe had dishonestly misappropriated the moneys which he was entrusted with. The SOAF repeatedly states that Ewe had used the moneys that he had been entrusted with to gamble, to repay his own gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts that he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. It is also stated in the SOAF that none of the amounts which were taken from each company were used to pay the expenses of that particular company. Whether Ewe was entrusted with the moneys in the way of his business as a professional agent 42 The sole element of the offence that is in dispute is whether Ewe had been entrusted with the moneys which he dishonestly misappropriated in the way of his business as an agent within the meaning of s 409 of the Code. In my view, the manner in which Ewe was entrusted with the moneys in his various roles as liquidator, receiver and manager for the bank accounts of TPI Singapore Branch, represents the quintessential case of an individual who has been entrusted with moneys in the way of his business as a professional agent. 43 The scope and definition of the phrase “in the way of his business as … an agent” in s 409 of the Code was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others [2018] 1 SLR 659 (“Lam Leng Hung”). The Court of Appeal concluded at [286] that both the text and context of s 409 indicate that “in the way of his business as a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker, an attorney or an agent” only encompasses persons who are entrusted with property or dominion over it in the course of the commercial activities of their trusted trades or professions – including those who are in the business of agency (ie, professional agents). The Court of Appeal further defined a professional agent as “a person who offers, as his trade, profession or business, agency services to interested clients in return for remuneration” (at [126]) or “one who professes to offer his agency services to the community at large and from which he makes his living” (at [285]). Therefore, in order to make out this element of the offence under s 409 of the Code, the Prosecution would have to prove (a) that Ewe’s various roles as liquidator, receiver, and manager for the bank account of TPI Singapore Branch were those of a “professional agent”, and (b) that he had been entrusted with the moneys in the course of his business as a professional agent. Whether Ewe’s various roles can be regarded as those of a professional agent 44 In my view, Ewe’s roles as liquidator for the 21 companies, receiver for the assets of Harjani, and manager of the bank accounts of TPI Singapore Branch all fall squarely within the meaning of a professional agent as defined in Lam Leng Hung. 45 Based on the definition provided by the Court of Appeal, there appear to be three requirements that have to be fulfilled for an individual to be regarded as a professional agent: (a) The individual offers agency services; (b) The individual offers the said services to the community at large; and (c) The individual receives remuneration for the said services. 46 In this regard, I note the Defence’s argument that an “agent” within the meaning of s 409 of the Code only refers to agents that are similar to insurance agents or property agents. Therefore, given that Ewe was at all material times practicing as a CPA, he did not practice as a professional agent nor did he make himself out to be one (see above at [34]). With respect, this argument is untenable. The definition of a “professional agent” as stated by the Court of Appeal in Lam Leng Hung is not restricted only to agents that are similar to insurance agents or property agents. In my view, as long as the three requirements set out at [45] above are met, an individual would be regarded as a professional agent even if the other aspects of his duties are dissimilar to that of an insurance agent or property agent. Further, while it is true that Ewe had been practicing as a CPA at all material times, the Defence neglects to mention that Ewe had also been practicing as a liquidator, receiver, and manager for the bank accounts of TPI. Indeed, it is the Prosecution’s case that Ewe was operating as a professional agent in his various roles as liquidator, receiver, and manager for the bank account of TPI, which I now turn to consider. (1) Whether Ewe had provided agency services 47 In his roles as liquidator, receiver, and manager for the bank account, Ewe had provided the 21 companies, Merrill Lynch, and TPI Singapore Branch respectively with agency services. In Ong Han Ling and another v American International Assurance Co Ltd and others [2018] 5 SLR 549, it was stated at [214] that “[t]he classic definition of an agent is one authorised to create contractual relations with third parties on behalf of the principal.” Similarly, in Then Khek Koon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other suits [2014] 1 SLR 245, the court stated at [113] that “the irreducible core of any principal/agent relationship is a principal who consensually confers actual, implied or ostensible authority upon the agent and an agent who has the ability, by acting within the scope of his authority, unilaterally to engage the principal’s civil liability.” 48 As liquidator of the 21 companies, Ewe was conferred with actual authority to create contractual relations with third parties on behalf of these companies, thereby making him an agent of these companies. It is settled law that once a company is in liquidation, the board of directors is effectively functus officio and the power to run the company vests with the liquidator: see Walter Woon on Company Law (Tan Cheng Han gen ed) (Sweet & Maxwell, Revised 3rd Ed, 2009) at para 17.134. Indeed, as stated in the SOAF, Ewe’s main responsibilities as a liquidator were to investigate into the affairs and assets of the companies, recover and realise the companies’ assets in the most advantageous manner, and ensure an equitable distribution of the companies’ assets to the creditors. In order to carry out his function as liquidator, Ewe would, inter alia, have to make contracts with would-be purchasers of the companies’ assets, commence suits on behalf of the companies to recover payments or transfers which were wrongfully made, and make and receive payments on behalf of the companies. Indeed, Ewe admitted during cross-examination that upon the commencement of liquidation, control of the company’s assets would rest solely in the hands of the liquidator. 22 Foot Note 22 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 60, lines 17 – 19. These actions would invariably bind the companies vis-à-vis third parties. 49 Similarly, as receiver for the assets of Harjani, Ewe was conferred with actual authority by Merrill Lynch to realise Harjani’s assets for its benefit. This therefore made him an agent of Merrill Lynch. Ewe explained that when a creditor bank (such as Merrill Lynch) had a debenture over an entity which allowed it to appoint a receiver and manager in the event of a default, and when that entity subsequently defaulted, the creditor bank would then appoint him as a receiver. 23 Foot Note 23 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 91, lines 11 – 18. Ewe would then be tasked to take control of, consolidate, and liquidate the assets of the entity and account for it to the creditor bank. 24 Foot Note 24 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 92, lines 10 – 15. In particular, as receiver for Harjani’s assets, Ewe had to liquidate shares and property belonging to Harjani for and on behalf of Merrill Lynch. 25 Foot Note 25 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 91, lines 23 – 28. In order to liquidate these assets, it can reasonably be expected that Ewe would have had to enter into sale and purchase contracts which would have bound Merrill Lynch vis-à-vis third parties, thereby making Ewe an agent of Merrill Lynch. 50 Finally, as the manager for TPI Singapore Branch’s bank account, Ewe was also an agent for TPI. As part of the bank account management services that EM provided to TPI, EM would have to monitor TPI’s bank account and inform Gerald Clark when TPI received money from its customers, use the moneys in TPI’s bank account to pay the salaries of TPI Singapore Branch’s employees, and remit the moneys in the bank account to the United States once every three months. 26 Foot Note 26 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 101 line 17 – p 102 line 17. It is stated in the SOAF that two signatories were required for cheque withdrawals and/or fund transfers from the TPI’s bank account. However, Ewe explained that he had asked Morii to pre-sign blank cheques and transfer request forms, which Morii did as he trusted Ewe. 27 Foot Note 27 × SOAF, para 156. Hence, Ewe effectively had control over TPI’s bank account and could make cheque withdrawals and fund transfers unilaterally. Any payments or transfers that Ewe made out of TPI’s bank account would therefore bind TPI vis-à-vis the bank, making Ewe an agent of TPI. 51 At this juncture, I note that the Defence has argued that Ewe was merely an agent for ELP and EM, and not an agent for the 21 companies, Harjani, or TPI (see above at [35]). This was on the basis that it was ELP that was appointed to provide the liquidation and receivership services, and EM that was appointed to provide the bank account management services. With respect, I disagree. First, in relation to the Defence’s contentions that it was ELP that was appointed as liquidator/receiver, the documentary evidence shows that on the contrary, it was Ewe who was personally appointed as liquidator/receiver. The Defence itself cites the court order for the appointment of liquidators for the winding up of Grandlink Group Pte Ltd, which states: 28 Foot Note 28 × DCS, para 82. Mr Ewe Pang Kooi … and Mr Loke Poh Kuen … both of M/s Ewe, Loke & Partners, be appointed the liquidators of Grandlink Group Pte Ltd’s affairs … Similarly, the court order for the appointment of the receiver over Harjani’s assets states: 29 Foot Note 29 × Exhibit P123. … IT IS ORDERED that:- 1. Ewe Pang Kooi … from M/s Ewe Loke & Partners … be appointed Receiver in this action … Indeed, it was Ewe himself, and not ELP, who had control over the assets of the various entities and who could bind these entities vis-à-vis third parties. 52 Second, in relation to the Defence’s contention that it was EM who was the agent of TPI, it is also clear that it was Ewe himself who was appointed as agent of TPI by virtue of him being made a signatory of TPI’s bank account. The Standard Chartered bank nomination form states that Ewe was appointed as a signatory by TPI. It was Ewe himself (using the cheques and transfer forms which had been pre-signed by Morii), and not EM, who could make the payments and transfers on behalf of TPI. 53 Ultimately, I agree with the Prosecution that to allow the Defence’s argument to succeed would lead to an absurd conclusion, given that all natural persons accused of CBT under s 409 of the Code would be able to escape criminal liability simply by hiding behind the corporate shield. 30 Foot Note 30 × Prosecution’s Reply Submissions, para 13. Such an argument also would not sit well with the other trades or professions which are listed in s 409, ie, a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker, an attorney. For example, a banker would ordinarily operate under the auspices of a bank. Clients of the bank would ordinarily make contracts with the bank and not with the banker personally. To find that the interposition of a corporate entity, ie, the bank, would absolve the banker of liability would effectively mean that no employee of the bank would ever be found guilty of an offence under s 409. 54 To conclude on this point, I am of the view that Ewe had been providing agency services through his various roles as liquidator, receiver, and manager for TPI Singapore Branch’s bank account. I now turn to consider whether he had offered these agency services to the community at large, and whether he received remuneration for these services. (2) Whether Ewe had offered his services to the community at large for remuneration 55 It is apparent to me that Ewe had offered his services as a liquidator to the community at large for three reasons: (a) First, Ewe stated under cross-examination that ELP got its insolvency clients through both referrals and walk-ins, which suggests that its liquidation services were offered to the public. In this regard, I note that Ewe had tried to draw a distinction between customers that ELP received via referrals and walk-in customers. Ewe explained that because ELP was not a big-name firm, it would rely mainly on referrals from Ewe’s social contacts for clients. 31 Foot Note 31 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 72 line 25 – p 73 line 32. Taking Ewe’s case at its highest, this would mean that Ewe’s services were essentially being offered to the community at large via Ewe’s social contacts. Therefore, I found it immaterial whether Ewe received his clients from referrals or walk-ins. In any event, Ewe conceded that ELP would also accept walk-in clients, so long as they passed certain checks as to (a) their ability to pay the liquidator’s fees; and (b) the absence of money-laundering or other illegal activities. 32 Foot Note 32 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 78, lines 13 – 25. (b) Second, Ewe stated that for court-ordered liquidations and creditors’ liquidations which require an approved liquidator, companies in need of such services would approach ELP specifically because there were individuals in the firm, such as Ewe, who were qualified as approved liquidators. 33 Foot Note 33 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 55, lines 5 – 18. (c) Third, Ewe admitted that he had offered his services as liquidator through ELP, 34 Foot Note 34 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 53, lines 7 – 10. and that he was able to act as liquidator in all three types of liquidations ie, members’ voluntary liquidations, court ordered liquidations, and creditors’ liquidations. 35 Foot Note 35 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 51, lines 10 – 17. Indeed, Ewe had acted as liquidator for 68 companies from 2007 to 2012. 36 Foot Note 36 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 61, lines 18 – 25. ELP’s consolidated profit and loss accounts for the years 2007 to 2011 also show that ELP had received income from providing “Insolvency” services for each of the years. 37 Foot Note 37 × Exhibit D1. 56 As regards remuneration, Ewe admitted under cross-examination to receiving fees for the liquidation services that he provided. 38 Foot Note 38 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 81 line 4 – p 82 line 21. 57 Similarly, Ewe stated that his work as receiver was another one of the services that were offered under ELP. 39 Foot Note 39 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 83, lines 17 – 20. Specifically, in relation to the receivership of Harjani’s assets on behalf of Merrill Lynch, Ewe stated that he was first approached by M/s Drew & Napier LLC (“Drew & Napier”). When asked about how Drew & Napier had found out that ELP provided receivership services, Ewe stated that it could be because ELP was an approved liquidator and they would have the licence to do receiverships. Ewe further stated that Drew & Napier had approached ELP for a fee quotation, which ELP duly provided. 40 Foot Note 40 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 86 line 22 – p 87 line 1. In my view, by holding itself out to be an approved liquidator which had the license to perform insolvency related services such as liquidation and receivership, ELP, and Ewe himself, were offering these services to the community at large. The fact that a potential client like Drew & Napier could ask ELP for a fee quotation serves to buttress this finding. 58 As regards remuneration, Ewe also admitted to receiving fees for the receivership services that he provided. 41 Foot Note 41 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 93 line 32 – p 94 line 8. 59 Finally, in relation to the bank account management services which were provided to TPI, I am also of the view that these services were provided to the community at large, notwithstanding that TPI was the only entity that EM had actually provided this service to. Ewe stated that the assignment to manage the bank account of TPI’s Singapore Branch was referred to EM through its membership in an international group of independent accountants known as The International Accounting Group (“TIAG”). 42 Foot Note 42 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 31, lines 2 – 9; p 109, lines 20 – 26. Ewe explained that the group of companies which included ELP and EM were the only members of TIAG in Singapore, therefore any jobs to be done in Singapore would be referred to them. Ewe further stated that although TPI was the only company that EM provided this service to, he would also have been willing to provide this service to other clients if the referring party was one that he trusted. 43 Foot Note 43 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 110, lines 10 – 26; p 112, lines 3 – 15. In my view, notwithstanding that Ewe imposed certain conditions which had to be met before he would accept an assignment, the fact remained that he was offering these bank account management services to the community at large via his membership in TIAG. Ewe even admitted that if a referral for such services came from a fellow member firm of TIAG, he would not be able to refuse the referral because there was an understanding that the member firms would assist each other. 44 Foot Note 44 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 112, lines 9 – 15. 60 As regards remuneration, the documentary evidence shows that EM had charged TPI an annual fee of $3,600 for “professional services rendered in connection with [EM’s] management of the bank account of [TPI] on [TPI’s] behalf”. 45 Foot Note 45 × Exhibit D3. It is undisputed that Ewe would personally receive a cut of the fees that were charged by EM. 46 Foot Note 46 × NE, 17 July 2018, p 12, lines 1 – 14. 61 To summarise my findings, I am of the view that Ewe’s services as liquidator, receiver, and manager for bank accounts were offered to the community at large, and that he was remunerated for performing these services. 62 Given that all three requirements as set out at [45] above have been made out, it follows that Ewe had been acting as a professional agent. Further, there can be no dispute that Ewe had been entrusted with the moneys in the course of providing these professional agency services. Indeed, it was central to Ewe’s roles as liquidator, receiver, and bank account manager for him to be entrusted with dominion over the moneys. Therefore, the final element of the offence under s 409 ie, that Ewe was entrusted with dominion over the moneys in the way of his business as an agent, has been made out. Conclusion 63 For the aforementioned reasons, I am satisfied that the 50 charges against Ewe have been made out beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I would convict Ewe of all 50 charges. 64 The provision for enhanced punishment in cases where CBT is committed by a professional agent in the course of his business is necessary in safeguarding the integrity of the commercial process. In Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew [2013] 1 SLR 1095, Lee Seiu Kin J stated at [103] that Where it is normal for the public to rely on a person’s trade as a mark of his trustworthiness and integrity, and where such trust facilitates commercial transactions, it is important that such transactions are above board. A commission of CBT by a person in the performance of his trade would shake the confidence of the public in those trades and impede the ability of persons in such trades to serve the public. A breach of trust in such circumstances ‘may have severe … public repercussions’. The above passage was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in Lam Leng Hung at [463]. 65 The reality of modern society is such that one cannot be expected to undertake all tasks on his or her own. Therefore, there is a wide reliance by the public on professional agents for various facets of commercial and domestic activity. It is inherent in the duties of a professional agent to be entrusted with the property of others. Therefore, it is only where the public has utmost faith in the integrity of these professional agents that the system can function and flourish. I am of the view that the financial services which Ewe had provided all fall squarely within the exact type of mischief that s 409 was intended to curtail. If the public cannot trust its liquidators and receivers to maintain high ethical and professional standards, the entire insolvency process would undoubtedly fall apart. 66 I shall now hear parties’ submissions on sentence. Chan Seng Onn Judge Hon Yi and Nicholas Khoo Tian Lun (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Prosecution; Michael Khoo SC, Low Miew Yin Josephine and Cleophas James Pfang (Michael Khoo & Partners) for the accused. Annex Facts pertaining to charges involving Ewe acting in his capacity as liquidator 25th Charge: TRC 900027/2015 A.1 Between 9 July 2009 and 13 July 2009, Ewe issued the following cheques from ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account which contained the assets of Mercury Interactive (Singapore) Pte Ltd. These cheques amounted to a total of S$878,020.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 9 July 2009 700,020.00 TPI 9 July 2009 5,000.00 EM 9 July 2009 100,000.00 Tradition Credit Co Pte Ltd 10 July 2009 3,000.00 Cash 13 July 2009 60,000.00 Tan Kim Sing 14 July 2009 10,000.00 Cash A.2 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Standard Chartered account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.3 The moneys which were deposited into TPI’s bank account were for reinstating the moneys which had previously been taken from TPI. The moneys which were deposited into Tradition Credit Co Pte Ltd and Tan Kim Sing’s bank accounts were for repaying gambling debts. A.4 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Mercury Interactive (Singapore) Pte Ltd. 26th Charge: TRC900025/2015 A.5 Between 10 June 2010 and 11 March 2011, Ewe issued the following cheques from Mercury Interactive (Singapore) Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$90,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 10 June 2010 80,000.00 ELP 11 March 2011 10,000.00 Cash A.6 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.7 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Mercury Interactive (Singapore) Pte Ltd. 24th Charge: TRC 900026/2015 A.8 Between 13 December 2011 and 19 July 2012, Ewe issued the following cheques from 3Com South Asia Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$8,520,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 14 December 2011 300,000.00 ELP 16 December 2011 300,000.00 ELP 21 December 2011 400,000.00 ELP 29 December 2011 300,000.00 ELP 11 January 2012 300,000.00 ELP 30 January 2012 150,000.00 ELP 2 February 2012 100,000.00 ELP 6 February 2012 150,000.00 ELP 8 February 2012 400,000.00 ELP 9 February 2012 300,000.00 ELP 10 February 2012 300,000.00 ELP 13 February 2012 300,000.00 ELP 14 February 2012 300,000.00 ELP 15 February 2012 300,000.00 ELP 16 February 2012 300,000.00 ELP 17 February 2012 300,000.00 ELP 22 February 2012 200,000.00 ELP 24 February 2012 200,000.00 ELP 5 March 2012 200,000.00 ELP 7 March 2012 200,000.00 ELP 8 March 2012 200,000.00 ELP 9 March 2012 200,000.00 ELP 15 March 2012 200,000.00 ELP 20 March 2012 200,000.00 ELP 27 March 2012 200,000.00 ELP 3 April 2012 200,000.00 ELP 4 April 2012 250,000.00 ELP 23 April 2012 150,000.00 ELP 25 April 2012 200,000.00 ELP 4 May 2012 100,000.00 ELP 9 May 2012 100,000.00 ELP 11 May 2012 100,000.00 ELP 16 May 2012 100,000.00 ELP 18 May 2012 200,000.00 ELP 25 May 2012 100,000.00 ELP 28 May 2012 100,000.00 ELP 31 May 2012 100,000.00 ELP 8 June 2012 100,000.00 ELP 15 June 2012 100,000.00 ELP 21 June 2012 100,000.00 ELP 25 June 2012 100,000.00 ELP 5 July 2012 100,000.00 ELP 19 July 2012 20,000.00 ELP A.9 The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.10 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to 3Com South Asia Pte Ltd. 23rd Charge: TRC 900028/2015 A.11 On or about 13 December 2011, Ewe issued a cheque for the amount of S$80,000.00 made payable to ELP, from 3PAR Singapore Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. A.12 The moneys, which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account, were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.13 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to 3PAR Singapore Pte Ltd. 27th Charge: TRC 900050/2015 A.14 Between 5 November 2009 and 14 June 2010, Ewe issued the following cheques from Compaq Asia Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$2,025,040.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 5 November 2009 500,020.00 EM 16 November 2009 800,020.00 EM 7 May 2010 400,000.00 EM 13 May 2010 200,000.00 EM 3 June 2010 100,000.00 EM 14 June 2010 25,000.00 Cash A.15 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Standard Chartered account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.16 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Compaq Asia Pte Ltd. 28th Charge: TRC 900051/2015 A.17 On or about 18 March 2011, Ewe issued a cash cheque for the amount of S$10,000.00, from Compaq Asia Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. A.18 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.19 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Compaq Asia Pte Ltd. 29th Charge: TRC 900052/2015 A.20 Between 7 December 2009 and 9 July 2010, Ewe issued the following cheques from Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad accounts which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$5,698,028.63 and US$90,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd’s SGD account Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 7 December 2009 600,000.00 ELP 7 December 2009 600,000.00 EM 21 January 2010 700,000.00 ELP 21 January 2010 800,000.00 EM 18 March 2010 300,000.00 EM 25 March 2010 200,000.00 EM 29 March 2010 500,000.00 ELP 29 March 2010 300,000.00 EM 7 April 2010 200,000.00 EM 8 April 2010 200,000.00 EM 16 April 2010 300,000.00 EM 22 April 2010 200,000.00 EM 7 May 2010 300,000.00 Mercury Interactive 11 May 2010 200,000.00 EM 24 May 2010 118,028.63 Mercury Interactive 3 June 2010 100,000.00 EM 8 June 2010 80,000.00 ELP Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd’s USD account 16 June 2010 US$60,000.00 Cash 9 July 2010 US$30,000.00 Cash A.21 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Standard Chartered account and ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.22 The moneys which were deposited into Mercury Interactive (Singapore) Pte Ltd’s bank account were for reinstating the moneys which had previously been taken from the said company. A.23 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd. 30th Charge: TRC 900046/2015 A.24 Between 10 March 2011 and 7 April 2011, Ewe issued the following cheques from Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad accounts which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$15,000.00 and US$15,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd’s SGD account Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 10 March 2011 15,000.00 Cash Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd’s USD account 7 April 2011 US$15,000.00 Cash A.25 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.26 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd. 31st Charge: TRC 900047/2015 A.27 Between 15 June 2010 and 8 April 2011, Ewe issued the following cheques from Compaq Computer Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad accounts which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$65,000.00 and US$42,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Compaq Computer Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd’s SGD account Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 15 June 2010 50,000.00 Cash 17 March 2011 15,000.00 Cash Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd’s USD account 9 July 2010 US$30,000.00 Ewe 8 April 2011 US$12,000.00 Ewe A.28 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. The moneys which were deposited into Ewe’s personal account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.29 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Compaq Computer Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd. 1st Charge: TRC 900001/2015 A.30 Between 23 December 2003 and 20 May 2004, Ewe issued the following cheques from Quality Stainless Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$120,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 23 December 2003 50,000.00 EM 17 April 2004 50,000.00 EM 20 May 2004 20,000.00 EM A.31 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Standard Chartered account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.32 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Quality Stainless Pte Ltd. 2nd Charge: TRC 900004/2015 A.33 On or about 17 May 2005, Ewe issued the following cheque from Quality Stainless Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$8,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 17 May 2005 8,000.00 EM A.34 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.35 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Quality Stainless Pte Ltd. 32nd Charge: TRC 900048/2015 A.36 On or about 7 March 2011, Ewe issued the following cheque from Quality Stainless Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$25,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 7 March 2011 25,000.00 Cash A.37 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.38 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Quality Stainless Pte Ltd. 3rd Charge: TRC 900005/2015 A.39 Between 21 April 2003 and 23 December 2003, Ewe issued the following cheques from Grandlink Group Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$500,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 21 April 2003 220,000.00 EM 6 May 2003 220,000.00 EM 19 September 2003 30,000.00 ELP 29 September 2003 20,000.00 ELP 23 December 2003 10,000.00 EM A.40 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account and ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.41 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Grandlink Group Pte Ltd. 4th Charge: TRC 900006/2015 A.42 On or about 27 May 2004, Ewe issued the following cheque from Grandlink Group Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$3,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 27 May 2004 3,000.00 Lim Hock Hoe A.43 The moneys which were deposited into Lim Hock Hoe’s bank account were for repaying gambling debts. A.44 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Grandlink Group Pte Ltd. 33rd Charge: TRC 900049/2015 A.45 On or about 8 March 2011, Ewe issued the following cheques from Grandlink Group Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$10,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 8 March 2011 10,000.00 Cash A.46 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.47 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Grandlink Group Pte Ltd. 5th Charge: TRC 900007/2015 A.48 Between 21 April 2003 and 24 February 2004, Ewe issued the following cheques from Tuan Huat Construction Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$150,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 21 April 2003 50,000.00 EM 12 May 2003 50,000.00 EM 21 October 2003 10,000.00 ELP 3 December 2003 20,000.00 ELP 8 December 2003 15,000.00 ELP 24 February 2004 5,000.00 EM A.49 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account and ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.50 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Tuan Huat Construction Pte Ltd. 6th Charge: TRC 900008/2015 A.51 On or about 20 January 2006, Ewe issued the following cheque from Tuan Huat Construction Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$8,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 20 January 2006 8,000.00 EM A.52 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Standard Chartered account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.53 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Tuan Huat Construction Pte Ltd. 34th Charge: TRC 900042/2015 A.54 On or about 10 March 2011, Ewe issued the following cheque from Tuan Huat Construction Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$10,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 10 March 2011 10,000.00 Cash A.55 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.56 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Tuan Huat Construction Pte Ltd. 7th Charge: TRC 900010/2015 A.57 Between 2 April 2003 and 17 March 2004, Ewe issued the following cheques from Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$717,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 2 April 2003 100,000.00 EM 10 April 2003 300,000.00 EM 11 April 2003 100,000.00 EM 22 May 2003 100,000.00 EM 8 September 2003 12,000.00 ELP 29 September 2003 40,000.00 ELP 7 October 2003 30,000.00 ELP 3 November 2003 30,000.00 ELP 17 March 2004 5,000.00 ELP A.58 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account and ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.59 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd. 8th Charge: TRC 900009/2015 A.60 On or about 13 January 2006, Ewe issued the following cheque from Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$10,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 13 January 2006 10,000.00 Tan Kim Sing A.61 The moneys which were deposited into Tan Kim Sing’s account were used for repaying gambling debts. A.62 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd. 35th Charge: TRC 900043/2015 A.63 On or about 9 March 2011, Ewe issued the following cheque from Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$10,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 9 March 2011 10,000.00 Cash A.64 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.65 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd. 9th Charge: TRC 900012/2015 A.66 Between 30 December 2003 and 9 September 2004, Ewe issued the following cheques from Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$70,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 30 December 2003 40,000.00 ELP 11 August 2004 15,000.00 EM 9 September 2004 15,000.00 EM A.67 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account and ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.68 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd. 10th Charge: TRC 900011/2015 A.69 Between 20 May 2005 and 13 January 2006, Ewe issued the following cheques from Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$85,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 20 May 2005 30,000.00 ELP 5 August 2005 5,000.00 ELP 26 September 2005 40,000.00 EM 13 January 2006 10,000.00 Tan Kim Sing A.70 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account and ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.71 The moneys which were deposited into Tan Kim Sing’s bank account were for repaying gambling debts. A.72 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd. 38th Charge: 900041/2015 A.73 Between 13 March 2008 and 14 March 2008, Ewe issued the following cheques from Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$40,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 13 March 2008 15,000.00 Cash 14 March 2008 25,000.00 Cash A.74 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.75 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd. 39th Charge: TRC 900040/2015 A.76 On or about 31 March 2011, Ewe issued the following cheque from Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$9,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 13 March 2011 9,000.00 Cash A.77 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.78 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd. 11th Charge: TRC 900014/2015 A.79 Between 27 September 2002 and 29 July 2003, Ewe issued the following cheques from San International Pte Ltd’s DBS Bank Ltd account and Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$2,055,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: San International Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 10 March 2003 200,000.00 EM 25 March 2003 100,000.00 EM 12 May 2003 35,000.00 EM 29 July 2003 15,000.00 ELP San International Pte Ltd’s DBS Bank Ltd account 27 September 2002 700,000.00 Unknown 6 November 2002 300,000.00 Unknown 11 November 2002 500,000.00 Unknown 26 March 2003 75,000.00 Unknown 28 March 2003 130,000.00 Unknown A.80 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account and ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. The moneys which were transferred out of San International’s DBS Bank Ltd account were used for the same purposes. A.81 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to San International Pte Ltd. 12th Charge: TRC 900013/2015 A.82 Between 27 October 2003 and 16 February 2004, Ewe issued the following cheques from San International Pte Ltd’s DBS Bank Ltd account and Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$27,000.00. San International Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 27 October 2003 11,000.00 EM San International Pte Ltd’s DBS Bank Ltd account 27 October 2003 6,000.00 Unknown 16 February 2004 10,000.00 Unknown A.83 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. The moneys which were transferred out of San International’s DBS Bank Ltd account were used for the same purposes. A.84 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to San International Pte Ltd. 40th Charge: TRC 900039/2015 A.85 On or about 18 March 2011, Ewe issued the following cheque from San International Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$10,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 18 March 2011 10,000.00 Cash A.86 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.87 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to San International Pte Ltd. 13th Charge: TRC 900016/2015 A.88 Between 25 June 2003 and 1 March 2004, Ewe issued the following cheques from Multimend (S) Pte Ltd’s DBS Bank Ltd account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$163,000.00. Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 25 June 2003 100,000.00 Unknown 4 July 2003 30,000.00 Unknown 29 July 2003 20,000.00 Unknown 5 January 2004 10,000.00 Unknown 1 April 2004 3,000.00 Unknown A.89 Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.90 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Multimend (S) Pte Ltd. 41st Charge: TRC 900038/2015 A.91 On or about 6 April 2011, the accused issued the following cheque from Multimend (S) Pte Ltd’s DBS Bank Ltd account which contained the assets of Multimend (S) Pte Ltd. This cheque amounted to a total of S$10,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 6 April 2011 10,000.00 ELP A.92 The moneys which were deposited into ELP Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amount he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.93 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Multimend (S) Pte Ltd. 14th Charge: TRC 900015/2015 A.94 Between 4 February 2002 and 19 July 2002, Ewe issued the following cheques from JSP Films Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$1,365,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees. Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 4 February 2002 75,000.00 EM 7 February 2002 30,000.00 EM 11 February 2002 60,000.00 Cash 14 February 2002 150,000.00 Cash 4 March 2002 150,000.00 Cash 14 March 2002 200,000.00 Cash 25 March 2002 200,000.00 EM 29 April 2002 200,000.00 Cash 13 May 2002 200,000.00 Cash 19 July 2002 100,000.00 Cash A.95 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.96 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to JSP Films Pte Ltd. 15th Charge: TRC 900018/2015 A.97 Between 24 February 2003 and 30 October 2003, Ewe issued the following cheques from JSP Films Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$725,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees. Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 24 February 2003 500,000.00 EM 20 March 2003 100,000.00 EM 21 April 2003 60,000.00 EM 12 May 2003 35,000.00 EM 30 October 2003 30,000.00 EM A.98 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.99 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to JSP Films Pte Ltd. 16th Charge: TRC 900017/2015 A.100 On or about 24 March 2004, Ewe issued the following cheque from San International Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$5,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 24 March 2004 5,000.00 Cash A.101 The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.102 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to JSP Films Pte Ltd. 42nd Charge: TRC 900037/2015 A.103 On or about 18 March 2011, Ewe issued the following cheque from JSP Films Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$10,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 18 March 2011 10,000.00 Cash A.104 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.105 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to JSP Films Pte Ltd. 17th Charge: TRC 900020/2015 A.106 On or about 22 April 2003, Ewe issued the following cheque from Inter-park Limited’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$1,555,691.34, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 22 April 2003 1,555,691.34 ELP A.107 On the same day, Ewe issued a cheque amounting to S$116,939.63 From ELP’s account and deposited it into Inter-park Limited’s account. The remaining moneys of $1,438,751.71 which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.108 The above moneys were supposed to have been paid to Emerford Pte Ltd, but this was not done. 18th Charge: TRC 900019/2015 A.109 Between 14 November 2003 and 18 November 2003, Ewe issued the following cheques from Inter-park Limited’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$297,001.72, which were made payable to the stated payees. Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 14 November 2003 65,696.43 ELP 18 November 2003 231,305.29 ELP A.110 The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.111 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Inter-park Limited. 19th Charge: TRC 900022/2015 A.112 On or about 22 April 2003, Ewe issued the following cheque from Camphill Limited’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$148,134.83, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 22 April 2003 148,134.83 ELP A.113 The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.114 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Camphill Limited. 20th Charge: TRC 900021/2015 A.115 On or about 10 February 2004, Ewe issued the following cheque from Camphill Limited’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque was issued as Camphill Limited’s bank account was being closed. This cheque amounted to a total of S$19,483.41, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 10 February 2004 19,483.41 EM A.116 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe instead of being distributed as dividends to the shareholders of Camphill Limited. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.117 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Camphill Limited. 21st Charge: TRC 900024/2015 A.118 On or about 16 February 2004, Ewe issued the following cheque from Ernismore Holdings Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$22,695.26, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 16 February 2004 22,695.26 EM A.119 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.120 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Ernismore Holdings Pte Ltd. 36th Charge: TRC 900044/2015 A.121 Between 8 June 2010 and 11 March 2011, Ewe issued the following cheques from A.S.K. Solutions Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. These cheques amounted to a total of S$60,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees. Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 8 June 2010 50,000.00 ELP 11 March 2011 10,000.00 Cash A.122 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.123 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to A.S.K. Solutions Pte Ltd. 37th Charge: TRC 900045/2015 A.124 On or about 5 July 2011, Ewe issued the following cheque from Premier Learning Consultant Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad account which contained the assets of the said company. This cheque amounted to a total of S$10,000.00, which was made payable to the stated payee: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 5 July 2011 10,000.00 Cash A.125 Ewe encashed the cash cheque. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.126 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Learning Consultants Pte Ltd. 43rd Charge: TRC 900036/2015 A.127 On or about 23 March 2011, Ewe signed an instruction letter addressed to the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”). The letter instructed HSBC to close the fixed deposit account held by Jack Chia Holdings (S) Pte Ltd and to credit the balance to ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account. A.128 The balance sum of S$454,584.69, which represented the assets of Jack Chia Holdings (S) Pte Ltd was deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account. A.129 The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.130 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Jack Chia Holdings (S) Pte Ltd. 44th Charge: TRC 900035/2015 A.131 Between 17 June 2010 and 15 February 2011, Ewe signed instruction letters addressed to Malayan Banking Berhad. The letters instructed Malayan Banking Berhad to transfer sums from Nomura Asia Property Investment Pte Ltd’s Malayan Banking Berhad Time Deposit account to ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account. These transfers amounted to a total of S$3,384,406.54, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of transfer Amount (S$) Payee 17 June 2010 1,000,000.00 ELP 22 December 2010 1,500,000.00 ELP 15 February 2011 884,406.54 ELP A.132 The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.133 None of the above moneys were used to pay for any expenses relating to Nomura Asia Property Investment Pte Ltd. Facts pertaining to charges involving Ewe acting in his capacity as manager for TPI’s bank account 22nd Charge: TRC 900023/2015 A.134 Between 26 December 2007 and 8 January 2008, Ewe issued the following cheques from TPI’s Standard Chartered Bank account. These cheques amounted to a total of S$770,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 26 December 2007 100,000.00 Cash 26 December 2007 200,000.00 Cash 27 December 2007 50,000.00 Cash 27 December 2007 300,000.00 EM 28 December 2007 50,000.00 Cash 8 January 2008 70,000.00 Cash A.135 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Standard Chartered account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.136 For all the above cheque withdrawals, Ewe did not seek approval from TPI. 45th Charge: TRC 900034/2015 A.137 Between 12 February 2008 and 11 February 2009, Ewe issued the following cheques from TPI’s Standard Chartered Bank account. These cheques amounted to a total of S$1,033,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 12 February 2008 10,000.00 Cash 21 April 2008 60,000.00 Cash 22 April 2008 20,000.00 Cash 24 April 2008 8,000.00 Cash 25 April 2008 60,000.00 EM 29 April 2008 60,000.00 EM 5 May 2008 70,000.00 Cash 6 May 2008 25,000.00 Cash 1 July 2008 80,000.00 EM 2 October 2008 50,000.00 EM 28 October 2008 80,000.00 EM 30 October 2008 20,000.00 EM 7 November 2008 60,000.00 EM 20 November 2008 50,000.00 EM 1 December 2008 60,000.00 EM 22 December 2008 60,000.00 EM 7 January 2009 40,000.00 EM 20 January 2009 60,000.00 EM 29 January 2009 80,000.00 EM 11 February 2009 80,000.00 EM A.138 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Standard Chartered account and EM’s Maybank Office account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.139 For all the above cheque withdrawals, Ewe did not seek approval from TPI. 46th Charge: TRC 900033/2015 67 Between 4 March 2009 and 4 November 2009, Ewe issued the following cheques from TPI’s Standard Chartered Bank account. These cheques amounted to a total of S$1,238,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 4 March 2009 40,000.00 EM 17 March 2009 100,000.00 EM 23 March 2009 60,000.00 EM 24 April 2009 40,000.00 EM 18 May 2009 140,000.00 EM 2 June 2009 20,000.00 EM 29 June 2009 40,000.00 EM 1 July 2009 40,000.00 EM 16 July 2009 20,000.00 EM 17 July 2009 30,000.00 ELP 27 July 2009 20,000.00 EM 27 July 2009 32,000.00 EM 29 July 2009 30,000.00 EM 7 September 2009 70,000.00 EM 26 October 2009 200,000.00 EM 28 October 2009 216,000.00 EM 4 November 2009 140,000.00 EM A.140 The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Standard Chartered account, EM’s Maybank Office account and ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.141 For all the above cheque withdrawals, Ewe did not seek approval from TPI. 47th Charge: TRC 900032/2015 A.142 Between 19 May 2010 and 14 May 2011, Ewe issued the following cheques from TPI’s Standard Chartered Bank account. These cheques amounted to a total of S$5,170,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 19 May 2010 700,000.00 EM 31 May 2010 300,000.00 EM 2 June 2010 300,000.00 EM 10 June 2010 100,000.00 Cash 12 June 2010 100,000.00 Cash 14 June 2010 50,000.00 Cash 3 July 2010 100,000.00 Cash 5 July 2010 120,000.00 Cash 12 July 2010 100,000.00 EM 23 July 2010 100,000.00 Cash 24 July 2010 120,000.00 Cash 28 July 2010 50,000.00 EM 30 July 2010 100,000.00 Cash 31 July 2010 100,000.00 Cash 3 August 2010 80,000.00 Cash 21 August 2010 150,000.00 Cash 28 September 2010 100,000.00 Cash 4 October 2010 100,000.00 Cash 5 October 2010 100,000.00 Cash 27 October 2010 100,000.00 Cash 29 October 2010 100,000.00 Cash 29 October 2010 100,000.00 Cash 9 November 2010 50,000.00 Cash 11 December 2010 100,000.00 Cash 3 January 2011 500,000.00 ELP 4 January 2011 200,000.00 ELP 5 January 2011 200,000.00 ELP 7 January 2011 100,000.00 ELP 8 January 2011 200,000.00 Cash 10 January 2011 150,000.00 Cash 20 January 2011 100,000.00 Cash 31 January 2011 60,000.00 Cash 5 March 2011 60,000.00 Cash 1 April 2011 50,000.00 Cash 19 April 2011 80,000.00 Cash 23 April 2011 10,000.00 Cash 30 April 2011 40,000.00 Cash 3 May 2011 20,000.00 Cash 12 May 2011 50,000.00 Cash 14 May 2011 30,000.00 Cash A.143 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. The moneys which were deposited into EM’s Standard Chartered account, EM’s Maybank Office account and ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.144 For all the above cheque withdrawals, Ewe did not seek approval from TPI. 48th Charge: TRC 900031/2015 A.145 Between 30 May 2011 and 17 May 2012, Ewe issued the following cheques from TPI’s Standard Chartered Bank account. These cheques amounted to a total of S$1,860,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 30 May 2011 30,000.00 Cash 4 June 2011 10,000.00 Cash 2 July 2011 30,000.00 Cash 4 July 2011 6,000.00 Cash 19 July 2011 50,000.00 Cash 30 July 2011 2,000.00 Cash 5 August 2011 20,000.00 Cash 6 August 2011 30,000.00 Cash 8 August 2011 20,000.00 Cash 8 August 2011 20,000.00 Cash 10 August 2011 5,000.00 Cash 10 August 2011 15,000.00 Cash 10 August 2011 20,000.00 Cash 26 August 2011 20,000.00 Cash 29 August 2011 10,000.00 Cash 31 August 2011 90,000.00 Cash 2 September 2011 10,000.00 Cash 22 October 2011 2,000.00 Cash 25 November 2011 30,000.00 Cash 12 December 2011 50,000.00 Cash 19 December 2011 50,000.00 Cash 4 February 2012 80,000.00 Cash 6 February 2012 60,000.00 Cash 8 February 2012 60,000.00 Cash 18 February 2012 100,000.00 Cash 22 February 2012 100,000.00 Cash 25 February 2012 100,000.00 Cash 3 March 2012 100,000.00 Cash 5 March 2012 50,000.00 Cash 6 March 2012 70,000.00 Cash 8 March 2012 100,000.00 Cash 14 March 2012 100,000.00 Cash 31 March 2012 80,000.00 Cash 9 April 2012 80,000.00 Cash 16 April 2012 30,000.00 Cash 23 April 2012 100,000.00 Cash 7 May 2012 80,000.00 Cash 17 May 2012 50,000.00 Cash A.146 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.147 For all the above cheque withdrawals, Ewe did not seek approval from TPI. 49th Charge: TRC 900030/2015 A.148 Between 2 June 2012 and 20 July 2012, Ewe issued the following cheques from TPI’s Standard Chartered Bank account. These cheques amounted to a total of S$510,000.00, which were made payable to the stated payees: Date of cheque Amount (S$) Payee 2 June 2012 70,000.00 Cash 6 June 2012 80,000.00 Cash 8 June 2012 80,000.00 Cash 19 June 2012 80,000.00 Cash 3 July 2012 100,000.00 Cash 4 July 2012 60,000.00 Cash 14 July 2012 20,000.00 Cash 20 July 2012 20,000.00 Cash A.149 Ewe encashed the cash cheques. Ewe used these moneys which he had obtained to gamble, to repay gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts he had removed from other companies’ accounts previously. A.150 For all the above cheque withdrawals, Ewe did not seek approval from TPI. A.151 From the period from 26 December 2007 to 17 July 2012, Ewe also made various deposits into TPI Singapore Branch’s bank account such that at 20 July 2012, the net loss to TPI Singapore Branch was S$180,000.