Glenn Knight, The Prosecutor

[soikee]

Pan-El case: Tan Koon Swan won’t sue



Yong Yen Nie
13 September 2012

A prominent Malaysian businessman and politician imprisoned for commercial crimes that led to the collapse of Singapore-based Pan-Electric Industries (Pan-El) in the 1980s will not take legal action against his prosecutors, despite suggestions that he may have been wrongly convicted.

Mr Tan Koon Swan, 71, was a rising star in the corporate scene and leader of the Malaysian Chinese Association in 1985 when he pleaded guilty to manipulating Pan-El shares and other crimes. As a result, his corporate and political career went up in smoke.

Now a book by his prosecutor, Mr Glenn Knight, suggests that Mr Tan was prosecuted under the wrong charges. That resulted in what may have been a judgment error by the courts as well, he said in his book, titled The Prosecutor.

Nevertheless, Mr Tan said in a statement yesterday: “I have no intention of pursuing any action of whatever nature against anybody. I do not see the need or the wisdom to revisit those years of anguish.”

Earlier, he told The Straits Times that his prosecution and imprisonment were “water under the bridge”.

The Pan-El crisis still resonates in business circles in both Malaysia and Singapore today. It was one of the largest corporate scandals of the 1980s, and Pan-El’s collapse forced the stock exchanges in both countries to close temporarily.

Mr Tan was slapped with 15 charges in the case, pleaded guilty to all of them and served two years behind bars in Singapore. He was later declared bankrupt for failing to pay bank loans, and spent another year in jail in Malaysia.

Mr Tan is now a businessman with dealings in China, and has not been in the public eye since he was released from prison. He now regards Mr Knight as a friend, and despite the revelations in the book, said he would like to let bygones be bygones.

“I am very happy doing what I am doing now, spending time with my family and friends,” he said in a statement sent to The Straits Times.

Mr Knight, when contacted last night, clarified that Mr Tan was charged as stated in 1985, and his conviction was later affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

But in 1996, then Chief Justice Yong Pung How acquitted another man accused of charges similar to those Mr Tan was prosecuted under.

Mr Knight said the judge had clarified that the section used in the Companies Act was meant to be used for a civil - not criminal - case.

“I told Mr Tan that at that point in time he could apply for a pardon,” said Mr Knight, pointing out that he spoke to Mr Tan in 2010. “I apologised to Mr Tan in my belief as a Christian, and not as a former prosecutor.”

It would then have been left to the authorities to ascertain if he had been correctly convicted based on an application for a pardon, he added.

Mr Knight said: “Read my book. It’s all there.”

 

[GoldenDragon]

Writing a book must be quite lucrative. Even GK went into it. M Ravi wrote one recently, 'Hung at Dawn".

 

[po2wq]

Writing a book must be quite lucrative. Even GK went into it. M Ravi wrote one recently, 'Hung at Dawn".

u nax! ...

 

[GoldenDragon]

u nax! ...

Not next but in the near future.

 

[Mdm Tang]

jilat..............

 

[Semaj2357]

jilat..............

jilat = Lick
Jialat = teruk
macham mana = So how

 

[Papsmearer]

merl and you hit the jackpot. wonder how is alan now. really suay in sg to be stalked by a bully and thug. and we know the biggest of them all is his good golf buddy, the emperor. the entire system is adulterated and anal-engineered with them in mind, with everything in their favor. an open and shut case could be turned around 180 to make the victim the terrorist. not surprised if weeny and his harassing cronies are here on sbf.

Allan doing very well. Making lots of money in China now. Even had Temasek as one of his partners on the big China deal. By the way, when Allan and his family applied for Canadian PR after he was convicted and finished paying his fine, the Canadian Immigration was aware of his conviction. Normally, that would have been an automatic decline if you are a convicted criminal, but when the Canadians reviewed his application, even they realise the whole case against him was bullshit, and GRANTED HIS PR. LOL. I can tell u outside of singapore, many western countries know what a kangaroo court system we have.

 

[Papsmearer]

.


SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) on Friday pointed out a few errors made in the book 'The Prosecutor', written by former crime-buster Glenn Knight.

Mr Knight has said in his book that Mr Tan Koon Swan was wrongly convicted and that in Mr Knight's words, 'he was technically an innocent man'.

In 1986, Mr Tan Koon Swan pleaded guilty to one charge of abetment of criminal breach of trust in the High Court before Justice Lai Kew Chai, who sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine of S$500,000.



..................................................................................
- CNA/fa

I have absolutely no sympathy for this asshole Glenn Knight. This fucker was the PAP attack dog. Kuan Yew would unleash him on his opponents or perceived enemies. 77 straight days cross examination of Tan Koon Swan is fucking ridiculous. If you cannot make your case in 2 weeks, you should not be a senior prosecutor. The whole case against TKW relied on testimony against him by his treasurer Tan Kok Liang. Tan Kok Liang was promised all sorts of leniency to testify against Tan Koon Swan. In the end, Glenn Knight played him out, and TKL got sentenced to heavy jail term despite being the state's star witness. So, all in, no sympathy from me for this idiot.

 

[Mdm Tang]

.



Pan-Electric Industries

Pan-Electric Industries was a Singapore-based company that specialised in marine salvage work, and had 71 subsidiary companies, including hotel and property interests, with a market capitalization of S$230 million.[1][2] The company collapsed in 1985 due to unsettled forward contracts, forcing the stock exchanges of both Singapore and Malaysia to shut down for three days.[3] At its demise, the company had a total debt of S$480 million, and all its shares held by 5,500 shareholders were found to be worthless overnight. As of 2000, it remains the largest corporate collapse in Singapore's history, and the only instance where the Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES) had to close.[1] The Malaysian Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange was also forced to close for three days as a result.[4]

In the aftermath of the collapse, key people in the company such as Peter Tham, Tan Kok Liang, and Tan Koon Swan were prosecuted and given varying jail sentences. The collapse of the company shook public confidence in the SES, causing prices of stocks to plunge.[citation needed] New securities laws were introduced in March 1986 to ensure that stockbroking firms can protect themselves against credit risks.[1][5]

 

[halsey02]

New book : SBF the ride so far!

 

[Mdm Tang]

Brothers ...

New book : SBF the ride so far!

.




.

 

[Mdm Tang]

.



THE Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) yesterday refuted claims by former deputy public prosecutor Glenn Knight that ex-Malaysian Chinese Association leader Tan Koon Swan had been wrongly convicted in 1986.

It said Mr Knight had made some errors in relation to the case in his new book, The Prosecutor. In it, Mr Knight, 67, had argued Mr Tan was "technically an innocent man".

Mr Tan, 71, was a rising star in the corporate scene and leader of the Malaysian Chinese Association in 1985 when he pleaded guilty to manipulating the shares of Singapore-based Pan-Electric Industries. He was sentenced by the High Court in 1986 to two years' jail and fined $500,000 for a single charge of criminal breach of trust under section 157(1) of the Companies Act.

Mr Knight had pointed to a subsequent case in 1996 involving the same section of the Act which was decided by then Chief Justice Yong Pung How, sitting as a High Court judge.

A man was acquitted because CJ Yong had ruled the section in the Act was meant for civil, not criminal, cases, said Mr Knight.

Had his views applied to the earlier case, the outcome for Mr Tan might well have been different, he wrote.

But the AGC pointed out CJ Yong had noted in his judgment there had been no arguments about the correctness of the charge against Mr Tan when it was made. CJ Yong "did not go into any detailed discussion of Mr Tan Koon Swan's case or Mr Knight's conduct of the case. Specifically, CJ Yong did not express any opinion that Mr Tan was wrongly charged."

The AGC said though CJ Yong may have disagreed with the view of the law in Mr Tan's case, his decision "could not and did not overrule" the decision in Mr Tan's case, as both cases had been decided by the High Court.

"Differences in the courts' pronouncements on the law occur, especially in legal systems based on the common law," said the AGC. It added the public prosecutor had decided to charge Mr Tan based on the evidence against him and the law. Mr Tan's lawyers had not taken issue with the charge or his conviction based on the law and facts.

The AGC said it did not follow that Mr Tan could not have been convicted if the law in 1986 had been understood to be what CJ Yong pronounced it to be in 1996. There were 14 other charges that were not proceeded with because he had pleaded guilty on the single charge.

It added Mr Tan was fined $500,000 and not $1 million as written in Mr Knight's book. "Mr Tan's conviction stands and he remains guilty of the crime that he had admitted to."

Contacted last night, Mr Knight said as there were two differing High Court judgments on the same issue, the matter should have been referred to the Court of Appeal for a clarification.

"At the end of the day, after CJ Yong's judgment in 1996, nobody has been charged since then under that particular section, to my knowledge." He added that he as deputy public prosecutor had withdrawn the 14 remaining charges.

[email protected]

 

[Mdm Tang]

.


Heard that he did Not enjoy his stay at Changi .


Nevertheless, Mr Tan said in a statement yesterday: “I have no intention of pursuing any action of whatever nature against anybody. I do not see the need or the wisdom to revisit those years of anguish.”

 

[Papsmearer]

.


Heard that he did Not enjoy his stay at Changi .


Nevertheless, Mr Tan said in a statement yesterday: “I have no intention of pursuing any action of whatever nature against anybody. I do not see the need or the wisdom to revisit those years of anguish.”

What kind of asinine statement is that? Exactly who do you know will enjoy their stay at Changi prison? name one person. Yourself?

 

[Mdm Tang]

Bro. Tan suffered alot inside ... :(



http://singaporenewsalternative.blogspot.sg/2012/09/glenn-knight-admits-wrongly-prosecuting.html


Malaysia Star, 11 Sep 2012
PETALING JAYA: Former Singapore prosecutor Glenn Knight has apologised to ex-MCA president Tan Koon Swan for wrongly prosecuting him in the Pan-El crisis in the mid-1980s.
“It was extremely painful for me to suddenly discover that the Singapore courts had got it wrong,” Knight wrote in his recently published book, Glenn Knight: The Prosecutor.
Tan, who is in China for a business trip, said he was not prepared to comment as he had yet to read the book.
He wrote in a chapter titled “The Pan-El Debacle” that “as Koon Swan was the head of the MCA, I put up a paper on his involvement in the Pan-El saga but left it to my superiors to decide his fate as he was out of (Singapore) and in Malaysia”.
“In the end, the government decided that the CAD could prosecute Koon Swan.” Full story

Related:

Glen Knight: WRONG to have prosecuted Tan Koon Swan... - desiderata2000.blogspot.sg
Koon Swan not 'saying anything soon' on Singapore's wrongful prosecution - Yahoo! Finance Singapore
Tan Koon Swan ‘wrongly prosecuted’ - thesundaily.my
Koon Swan not 'saying anything soon' on Singapore's wrongful prosecution - The Edge Malaysia

 

[Mdm Tang]

.


Tan was Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong Favourite ?



http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/9/11/nation/12002560&sec=nation



In 1985, Knight, the first director of the Singapore Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), prosecuted Tan, who faced 15 charges including criminal breach of trust (CBT) and share manipulation after the collapse of Pan-El Industries which termporarily halted the Malaysia and Singapore stock exchanges.

Tan, who had a stake in Pan-El, pleaded guilty and was jailed two years and fined S$1mil. He quit as MCA president after his sentencing.

In his book, Knight wrote that one of the most important cases of his life involved Pan-El, as the Pan-Electric group of companies was known.

“It was a highly significant case that led to enforceable regulations being introduced into Singapore's stockbroking industry,” he said.

He wrote in a chapter titled “The Pan-El Debacle” that “as Koon Swan was the head of the MCA, I put up a paper on his involvement in the Pan-El saga but left it to my superiors to decide his fate as he was out of (Singapore) and in Malaysia”.

“In the end, the government decided that the CAD could prosecute Koon Swan.”

In 1996, in a similar CBT case, Singapore's Chief Justice Yong Pung How concluded that Knight was wrong to have charged Koon Swan for the offence.

“Chief Justice Yong was of the opinion that the section I had charged Koon Swan with was wrong in law for we could not charge a person for stealing from a company because as a director, it was not a breach of the law in that sense,” he wrote.

“Chief Justice Yong concluded that it was wrong to convict anyone for stealing money if the wrong charge had been used to begin with. The judgment shattered my belief in our legal system.”

Knight wrote that many people asked if Chief Justice Yong's judgment could be used to set aside the conviction in Koon Swan's case.

“In the United Kingdom, such a landmark judgment would have set aside Koon Swan's conviction but our jurisprudence does not allow for this though technically, Koon Swan could still have been granted a pardon,” he said.

Knight wrote that in 2010 he met Tan at a conference in Singapore and told him about Chief Justice Yong's judgment, which meant that Tan was technically an innocent man”.

“He received the news with great excitement,” he recalled, adding that he (Knight) had also apologised.

 

[Mdm Tang]

.

http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120910-370675.html

Former top prosecutor clears the air in book

There was no government involvement. -TNP
Benita Aw Yeong

Tue, Sep 11, 2012
The New Paper

Singaporean lawyer Glenn Jeyasingam Knight.
He was known for being a crime-busting prosecutor, before he himself was prosecuted and convicted of graft.

In his new book, titled Glenn Knight The Prosecutor, he wants to set a few things straight.

He clears the air about his investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) some 20 years ago. It was not politically motivated, he declares in the book.

He said it could be someone in "the system" who has a grudge against him, but he is still not clear why.

In May 1991, he was charged with misleading the then director of corporate and regulatory affairs of the Ministry of Finance into granting him a government loan using an invoice which contained a false statement.

"In my heart I knew it was never politically motivated because...they were quite kind to me and, there was no government involvement in this," he says with a shake of the head in an interview last week.

Seated comfortably in his small Toa Payoh office, he looked at peace as he discussed the book, which he had penned in spurts over the last two years.

Mr Knight, 67, was disbarred in 1994, which meant he was not allowed to practise law, until he got reinstated in 2007.

Looking back on the days he was under investigation, he writes: "I don't normally dwell on those dark days, but it is necessary for me to talk about this episode in my life.

"Everybody got the wrong impression that I was convicted for graft.

"I was never convicted for graft. And people keep saying this about me and it's wrong because I was such a straight person that I would never take any money that belonged to the Government."

In his book, he writes: "The CPIB questioned me, asking if I would like to surrender and admit to any wrongdoings. I asked them what they were talking about.

"As far as I was concerned, they were investigating nothing.

"The Auditor-General came to my office, tore it apart and found nothing.

"If I had to prosecute my own case, it would have never reached court," he writes.

In September 1991, he pleaded guilty to the charge.

He was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, which was later reduced to one day's imprisonment and a fine of S$10,000.

The book is a legacy of sorts, something to reach out to people, says the author, who seems many shades more genial than his younger, more obstinate self.

Initially, though, the idea did not appeal to him, he says.

It didn't matter that his dramatic rise and fall would make a compelling read.

He wasn't sure if he would get to tell things from his perspective, and that - to him - was what mattered most, he says.

Mr Knight eventually came around to the idea when he was assured that he would personally pen the book. It hit local bookshops about three weeks ago.

In the book, he also clears up rumours that he had investigated Mr Lee Kim Yew, the late brother of former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Talk that Mr Knight had asked two inspectors to look into complaints about Mr Lee's involvement in United Industrial Corporation's purchase of two Japanese banks had been spreading through the years. In the book, he writes that the rumours were "untrue".

There were never complaints against Mr Lee, he says.

" In any event, I would not have investigated anyone if there were no complaints against him," he writes.

Short chapters in the book chronicle the most memorable cases of his legal career.

These include the infamous Adrian Lim's murder of two children and the Pan-El case.

But the one which stands out most for the seasoned prosecutor is a case involving drug trafficking, which he fought against the late Mr David Marshall.

"That was the most difficult case for me," he says.

The lawyer and politician had been tasked with defending trafficker Lim Hong Yap and Mr Knight, responsible for prosecuting him.

In the end, the judge pronounced him guilty and sentenced him to death.

"Two weeks later, Marshall sent me a letter with a S$1 note telling me that I had won the case because I had got my facts so accurately right.

"It was just his way of saying that I had done a fantastic job. I was quite pleased to get this compliment from him.

"That year, I was also promoted to the rank of a superscale G officer - this put me on a superscale, earning about S$4,500 a month. I knew that I had done my best and this was a well-earned promotion," he writes.

Despite the victories clinched in his heyday, Mr Knight's own prosecution and conviction left an indelible mark on his legal career.

Asked if he has taken any young lawyers under his wing now that he is back in the legal field, he says: "I don't think after what has happened people will..." before trailing off.

After a pause, he adds: "Maybe that's what I'm trying to do with this book - trying to pass something on, to reach out to people, hoping that they'll see that."

The Adrian Lim murders

What happened:

Mr Glenn Knight was the prosecutor in charge of the case against Adrian Lim, his wife and his mistress.

In 1981, Lim, a medium, had lured two children to his HDB flat in Toa Payoh, where he brutally killed them.

The case garnered plenty of publicity at the time, not least because of the horrific details that emerged: Agnes Ng, eight, was drugged, sodomised and her body was later stuffed into a suitcase, with the shoes cut in half to suggest that she had been possessed by a spirit.

Ghazali Bin Marzuki, 11, was similarly drugged, then drowned, after the trio drank his blood. His body was dumped in a field close to the flat.

Mr Glenn Knight: "As details of the murders hit the media, superstitions were stoked among the populace because of the ritualistic nature of the murders - so much so that no one at the Attorney-General's Chambers wanted to take up the case," Mr Knight writes in his book.

"The case fell to me, even though I was set to leave for Cambridge University on a Masters of Law programme."

He tells TNPS: "As far as I was concerned, he was a really evil chap and I will never forget when I cross-examined him.

"Everybody was so terrified of him because he would look at them and he would scare the **** out of them.

"I wasn't scared. To me, he was another man."

The tricky part was that Lim's mistress suffered from schizophrenia, so there was a chance she could rely on the defence of diminished responsibility, Mr Knight explains in the book.

In the end, the judges stated she was in a state of remission during the murders and should bear full responsibility for her acts.

All three were sentenced to death.

The Pan-El debacle

What happened:

The Pan-Electric (Pan-El) group of companies collapsed in November 1985 under a heap of dishonoured forward contracts, which led to the closure of both the Singapore and Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchanges for three days.

It was the case that would cement Mr Knight's reputation as a white-collar crime buster. And it would eventually lead to a revamp of the Singapore stock market, the banking system and the demise of several broking houses.

Mr Knight: "We estimated that Peter (Pan-El director Peter Tham) had misappropriated at least S$90 million from the company, although we could never really prove that he had stolen so much because the company books and financial records were in a mess," Mr Knight writes in his book.

Mr Tham and Malaysian millionaire Tan Koon Swan were jailed by Justice Lai Kew Chaifor their roles in the saga.

"But in 1996 a similar case came up for hearing, and Chief Justice Yong Pung How...concluded that I was wrong to charge Koon Swan for the offence which got him convicted," he continues in the book.

The judge was of the opinion that the section Mr Knight had charged Mr Tan with was wrong in law, for they could not charge a person for stealing from a company because as a director, it was not a breach of the law in that sense.

He writes: "It was extremely painful for me to suddenly discover that the Singapore courts had got it so wrong."

He tells TNPS: "In the book, I talk about admitting my mistake and apologising to him.

"You could see him smile. He was a very happy man. It felt good - my going to him and saying I prosecuted him wrongly."

[email protected]



Get The New Paper for more stories.

 

[GoldenDragon]

What kind of asinine statement is that? Exactly who do you know will enjoy their stay at Changi prison? name one person. Yourself?

Bro, I had 2 accused persons who would fall into the 'enjoy Changi' stay category. When I recorded their statements many donkey years ago, they thanked me for arresting them. They were harrassed by ah longs and wanted a break! Once in there, ah longs usually give them a break till they are released.

 

[fukyuman]

A prison stay is hardly considered a break. BTW, are you taking part in the yellow ribbon wayang run.

Bro, I had 2 accused persons who would fall into the 'enjoy Changi' stay category. When I recorded their statements many donkey years ago, they thanked me for arresting them. They were harrassed by ah longs and wanted a break! Once in there, ah longs usually give them a break till they are released.

 

[halsey02]

The question puzzle me is, why is GK after so many years in the wilderness, writing HisSTORY?