• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Lawyer in trouble over $450,000 gift from client

BuiKia

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
A LAWYER who accepted a $450,000 gift from his client more than a decade ago, without telling her to seek independent legal advice on her wish to give him the gift, has pleaded guilty to professional misconduct.

A disciplinary tribunal comprising former High Court judge and Senior Counsel Goh Joon Seng and lawyer Tony Yeo recommended that the lawyer, Mr James Wan, be dealt with by a Court of Three Judges.

The court is the highest body empowered to discipline lawyers, and if found guilty of professional misconduct, he could be suspended, fined or struck off the rolls.

The woman, Madam Chiang Choy Peng, had made the gift as promised in a letter to Mr Wan in November 2001, to reward him for helping to recover her property in Maria Avenue in Changi, which was occupied by strangers for more than 20 years. Madam Chiang, 73, who now lives at the Ling Kwang Home for Senior Citizens, bought the property in 1961.

Although the gift was given more than 10 years ago, the matter came to light when the Auditor-General scrutinised the books of the Bukit Batok Home for the Aged in 2009, where the woman was living at the time.

The audit showed that the woman received only $500,000 in March 2002 from Mr Wan for her property in Maria Avenue, which was sold for $960,000. In the November 2001 letter sent to him, she had said that she would accept $500,000 for the sale and he could keep any remainder, which turned out to be $447,326.29, according to the tribunal's report.

The discovery led to a police probe, and the Attorney-General's Chambers' lawyer lodged a complaint with the Law Society over Mr Wan's conduct.

The society, represented by senior lawyer Syed Hassan Almenoar, prosecuted the case before the tribunal appointed by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.

The letter that affirmed the gift was prepared by Mr Wan and signed in the presence of Mr Yeo Lee Hock, the former superintendent of the Woodlands Home for the Aged, where Madam Chiang once lived as a destitute.

Mr Yeo, who knew Mr Wan as a fellow churchgoer, asked Mr Wan to act for Madam Chiang in the matter. Mr Wan introduced her to another lawyer, Mr Lee Chin Seon, who would help to clear the property of squatters in October 2001.

Mr Lee was told by Madam Chiang in July 2001 to draw up a will leaving all her assets to Mr Wan, and nothing to her four children.

The tribunal, in its report released yesterday, found from the evidence at the hearings that Madam Chiang did not know the property was valued at $1.1 million in November 2001, or had been sold for $960,000.

It said Mr Wan's involvement might have begun as an act of "Christian charity to help an indigent old lady in distress, but it was overtaken by another motive".

Mr Wan's lawyer Wong Siew Hong said: "We are disappointed with the outcome and we intend to show cause before the Court of Three Judges that the tribunal was wrong in its conclusion."

[email protected]
 

XiaoJuan

Alfrescian
Loyal
how come this people never learn to separate their religion from their personal and financial matters de?
 

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
They want the best of both worlds.They want salvation and they also want to profit. Many churchgoers are like that. Act holy holy but devil inside!
 

streetsmart73

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
They want the best of both worlds.They want salvation and they also want to profit. Many churchgoers are like that. Act holy holy but devil inside!


hi there


1. aiyoh!
2. have you forgotten something leh?
3. even sheep clothed in white are likewise hoh!
 

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
hi there


1. aiyoh!
2. have you forgotten something leh?
3. even sheep clothed in white are likewise hoh!


For those who are sheep and clothed in white...they can lead their upright and holy lives and I won't critisize them as long they leave us along to lead our imperfect depraved sin-filled lives.
 

Balls2U

Alfrescian
Loyal
I don't see anything wrong with it. That lao kway bu willingly and knowingly gave the cash to him and he gladly received it. The only issue is as a lawyer, he should have advised her to seek independent legal advice to avoid any allegations of undue influence later on. He will at most get a warning or a short suspension that's all.
 

Balls2U

Alfrescian
Loyal
Wong Siew Hong is acting form him and is in hot soup himself. Wong is the same lawyer who tried to submit the letter from M Ravi's psychiatrist to the judge to show that Ravi is unfit to practise.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
Wong Siew Hong is acting form him and is in hot soup himself. Wong is the same lawyer who tried to submit the letter from M Ravi's psychiatrist to the judge to show that Ravi is unfit to practise.

Confucius says, he who screw Ravi get screwed in return.
 
Top