• 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.

OCBC Relationship Manager siphoning $4.83 million

M

Mdm Tang

Guest
.



Family members deny knowing of OCBC RM's fraud SourceBusiness TimesDate10 Feb 2012AuthorGrace Leong(SINGAPORE) Tan Wei Chong alias Lex Tan often bet on soccer match outcomes while playing mahjong, and frequented online gaming sites.

But his family never suspected the former OCBC relationship manager (RM) had a gambling problem or would resort to defrauding clients to pay off gambling debts.

That's in affidavits filed by several of Tan's family members who are being sued in the High Court by OCBC as alleged accessories and had their assets frozen just before Christmas last year.

Tan is now serving a seven-year prison sentence for siphoning $4.83 million from the accounts of three OCBC clients - John Lee, 84; Irene Lee Keilman, 74; and Lee Zeng Kuen, 86.

Tan, who faced a total of 46 charges, pleaded guilty last June to 11 counts of cheating OCBC of $4.67 million and over 88,000 euros, and four counts of money- laundering. The remaining 31 charges were taken into consideration in his sentencing.

According to OCBC, Tan had defrauded the three clients by forging their signatures and carrying out unauthorised transfers from their accounts. The misappropriated funds were then allegedly channelled through intermediary accounts held solely or jointly by eight family members, and ultimately withdrawn by Tan to pay off gambling losses totalling $3.5 million, the bank said.

OCBC, which has made full restitution to the three clients, is suing to try to recover that from Tan and his family, as well as others. The defendants include Tan and his wife, Ang Kah Wei; his mother Poh Ching Lim; brother Tan Wei Pin; sister Tan Yen Fei; brother-in-law and his wife, Lee Liang Loon and Ang Pei Sze respectively; and Mr Lee's parents, Lee Bak Koon and Tan Phuay Luang. The bank is being represented by Adrian Wong from Rajah and Tann.

Also being sued is Jody Tan Ling Ling, an employee of CIMB Securities (Singapore), who allegedly executed several transactions, on Tan's instructions, on Ms Keilman's accounts, without first getting her formal authorisation.

The bank, which has recovered only $41,560 to date, obtained a Mareva injunction order last Dec 21 to freeze up to $4.83 million of each of the defendants' assets in Singapore. OCBC alleged that they had assisted Tan by receiving the misappropriated funds and 'an inference may be drawn that there is real risk of dissipation of the defendants' assets to defeat any potential judgment OCBC may obtain against them'.

The December court order allows each defendant to spend $1,000 a week on living expenses and a lump sum of $30,000 on legal advice.

OCBC's anti-money laundering team became suspicious after detecting four $250,000 'pass-through transfer transactions' between March and July 2010 from its client, John Lee, to an account held in the names of Lee Liang Loon, Ang Pei Sze, Lee Bak Koon and Tan Phuay Luang.

Funds from that account were later transferred to Lex Tan's salary-credit account with OCBC. Given the timing of the transfers, OCBC asked him for an explanation in September 2010.

Tan then confessed to transferring his clients' funds using cashier's orders or direct debit slips between late 2007 and September 2010 to several accounts held by him and his family 'to layer the fund transfers and conceal the fraud', the bank claimed.

But Tan's family members and Ms Jody Tan all denied being part of his scheme, and have applied to court to discharge the injunction and unfreeze their assets. A hearing is scheduled for Feb 17.

Ms Tan, in an affidavit, argued that the case is about OCBC's 'failure to protect its customers' funds'. 'The fact that I made mistakes in handling Irene's account simply means that I, like OCBC, fell victim to Lex's fraud,' she claimed.

Ms Tan said that the matter has been investigated by CIMB and the Singapore Exchange (SGX), and she has been sanctioned for the 'technical breach'.

CIMB, which suspended her from dealing for one month, said in a letter of warning to Ms Tan that its investigation 'did not reveal any malicious intent' on her part.

Ms Tan pointed out that OCBC's subsequent agreement to freeze up to $500,000 of her assets instead of $4.83 million illustrates the extent to which the bank 'overreached . . . in its attempt to find others to blame for what was really an internal failure of its customer account security systems'.

'What is shocking is that OCBC saw fit to apply to court for a Mareva injunction against me for the sum of ($4.83 million) in the first place, when it was fully aware that the trades that were executed by me amounted to only $781,770,' she said.

Mr Lee Liang Loon, Tan's brother-in-law, said that he didn't know of Tan's criminal conduct until he was called for interviews by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). He said that he didn't know Tan stole money from OCBC clients and transferred the funds through bank accounts in Mr Lee's name. He said that he has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

In affidavits, Lee Bak Koon, Tan Phuay Luang and Ang Pei Sze claimed that they weren't involved in any police investigations against Lex Tan or his scheme. They said that they were implicated because some of the monies were transferred to the OCBC account they jointly held.

Tan's brother, Wei Pin, an RSAF pilot based in Perth, said that Tan had asked him to sign a few blank authorisation slips 'at one go' because it would be 'difficult for (Wei Pin) to sign (those) slips when he wanted to buy financial products'. In asking for the injunction to be discharged, Wei Pin, in an affidavit, said that Mindef 'has not been able to credit his salary into his account'.



Source: Business Times
 

Raiders

Alfrescian (InfP) + Mod
Generous Asset
4m in exchange for 7 years of my life, no need to be cane, free food and lodging and medical care, I would take up the deal also. After that, just take the 4m and look for Joe in Thailand :biggrin:
 

shOUTloud

Alfrescian
Loyal
4m in exchange for 7 years of my life, no need to be cane, free food and lodging and medical care, I would take up the deal also. After that, just take the 4m and look for Joe in Thailand :biggrin:

He lost 3.5m leow so 1.3m is still missing cos the bank only able to recover 41k. The money has to be somewhere.
 

Unrepented

Alfrescian
Loyal
SG court deem average sgd1k per weekly living expenses per person as reasonable. How much is the ave month salary of the average joe:confused: Hope the judge bring this up to MOM to fight for minimum salary.:o:biggrin:

.



............

The December court order allows each defendant to spend $1,000 a week on living expenses and a lump sum of $30,000 on legal advice.

................


Source: Business Times
 

Elite Killer

Alfrescian
Loyal
15571458c58f8b4acc73e328a3254bab3b87b4ba.png
 

Narong Wongwan

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
What a retard. He remained in Sg all this time and paid off his gambling debts? Lol....

whether or not used to pay gambling debts police can uncover.
when Lam Chen Fong cheated the PRC workers.....the police went after the bookies to recover the 'water money'....all LL had to cough up.
 

Raiders

Alfrescian (InfP) + Mod
Generous Asset
whether or not used to pay gambling debts police can uncover.
when Lam Chen Fong cheated the PRC workers.....the police went after the bookies to recover the 'water money'....all LL had to cough up.

What if it's a direct bet to an external company like ladbrokes or bet365. Would they have been able to recover it?
 

jw5

Moderator
Moderator
Loyal
The most important point in this case is that the bank paid the customers who lost the money.
If there comes a day when another case like this happens and the bank doesn't pay, there will be hell to pay.
In the meantime, the guy and his family can enjoy having a long drawn up entanglement with the bank.
 

Narong Wongwan

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
What if it's a direct bet to an external company like ladbrokes or bet365. Would they have been able to recover it?

ladbrokes all got licence one so cannot do anything to them....
the Lam Chen Fong case, the police also steady.....only force the illegal bookies to repay the commission.....not the amount he lost.
 

kemana

Alfrescian
Loyal
The most important point in this case is that the bank paid the customers who lost the money.
If there comes a day when another case like this happens and the bank doesn't pay, there will be hell to pay.
In the meantime, the guy and his family can enjoy having a long drawn up entanglement with the bank.

the bank loses your money, the bank is liable.
 

koKSia

Alfrescian
Loyal
Friends who have made money from football bets never bet on the results. They bet on number of goals scored and went for the occasional bet with high odds.
 
Top