Woody's son Goh Jin Hian's criminal trial starting on 4th February

[Balls2U]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...jin-hian-and-another-executive-to-start-feb-4

 

[Boonsiong]

Reporters are timid

 

[batman1]

Why no headlines in the Shit Times ???

 

[bigozt]

I don't care for his son but FUCK WOODY GOH

 

[Boonsiong]

Today got trial. But there is no news

 

[Dreamliner787]

Today got trial. But there is no news

This is a 陷害忠良 thread

 

[Tragedeigh]

Today got trial. But there is no news

News blackout? Main stream media practice self censorship again or directive from top orders new blackout?

 

[Boonsiong]

Contemporaneous communications: WhatsApp chats and emails among Goh, Oo, and Teo discussing strategies to “push up” or “keep shares up,” setting price targets (e.g., $0.40), and critiquing the market maker’s performance. For example, Goh allegedly messaged about withholding fees from Huang until targets were met and admitted to personally buying small lots (e.g., 1,100 shares) to inflate closing prices, stating, “There is no need to break the bank to keep our shares up.”

 

[Boonsiong]

Expert analysis: An independent expert’s review of the trades, demonstrating how they created artificial demand and misled the market regarding genuine supply and demand. 

 

[Boonsiong]

For example, on Mar 29, 2019, Teo bid for 300,000 NSG shares at 28.5 cents. The prosecution alleges that this successfully raised NSG's closing price to 28.5 cents. Without the intervention, the shares would have closed lower, said Mr Malhotra.

Dr Goh, Oo and Teo had a discussion in their chat group later that day, where Teo said: "We bid at 0.286. Close at 0.285. Vol: 1.325m. Bought 300K at 0.285."

In response, Dr Goh replied: "Looks like if we didn't step in, price would have closed at 0.275".

Teo replied: "Would have closed at 0.27 if we did not step in."

Dr Goh replied: "Yah. MM not very useful!"

Teo said: "Have to review if need to."

 

[Boonsiong]

In another set of text exchanges in April 2018 quoted by the prosecution, Dr Goh said: "We have to make it clear to GTC that we're very disappointed in the share price. We won't pay the monthly fees for the other months until the share price hits $0.40 in May. If we don't set these targets, it'll affect how Haitong, Shen Yuyun and our investors view our shares when we do the deals."

 

[Boonsiong]

Mr Malhotra said Goh then sent the following messages to Oo and Teo: "Guys, tell me how to do this, not why we can't do it" and "I closed today's shares at 0.26 by buying 1100 shares. Same thing I've been telling the market maker. There is no need to break the bank to keep our shares up".

 

[Boonsiong]

Dear @shiokalingam
Dear @CoffeeAhSoh

Legally is this consider hard evidence and proven beyond reasonable doubt ?

 

[Boonsiong]

 

[Boonsiong]

Convicted market maker Huang Yiwen takes stand in criminal trial of Goh Jin Hian

污点证人

 

[Boonsiong]

Convicted market maker Huang Yiwen testified he was instructed to boost New Silkroutes Group's (NSG) share price, despite no contractual obligation.
NSG sought to keep its share price above 40 cents after a placement, counter a "dumping" shareholder, and facilitate future corporate actions.
Huang testified NSG needed immediate results, leading him to execute trades, including outside normal hours, aiming for 40-50 cents.

 

[Dreamliner787]

Convicted market maker Huang Yiwen takes stand in criminal trial of Goh Jin Hian

污点证人

二五仔

 

[Boonsiong]

二五仔

Can co-accused evidence be admitted ?

In Singapore, a co-accused in a joint criminal trial may give evidence, and their confession or testimony can be used as evidence against other co-accused to support a conviction, even for serious charges like drug trafficking. The court has discretion to rely on such evidence, although it is treated with caution and generally requires corroboration.
Key aspects of a co-accused giving evidence in Singapore include:
Admissibility of Confession: Under the Evidence Act, the confession of a co-accused (when jointly tried) is admissible against others, and a conviction can be based solely on this evidence, according to this article from Transformative Justice Collective.
Cross-Examination: If a co-accused gives evidence, they can be cross-examined by the prosecution or by other co-accused, notes this section of the Evidence Act on Singapore Statutes Online.
Voluntary Evidence: A co-accused is generally expected to testify voluntarily to support their own defense, rather than being called by another co-accused, notes this legal document from Lanka Law.
Credibility Issues: Questions regarding the co-accused's testimony are allowed if they are relevant to their credibility as a witness, according to this section of the Evidence Act on Singapore Statutes Online.

 

[Boonsiong]

Cautionary Approach: Courts are aware of the potential for a co-accused to minimize their own guilt, and therefore take a cautious approach to such evidence,, notes this case analysis from Lexology.

 

[Dreamliner787]

Cautionary Approach: Courts are aware of the potential for a co-accused to minimize their own guilt, and therefore take a cautious approach to such evidence,, notes this case analysis from Lexology.

The Court is under no legal or evidential requirement to regard the testimony of one co-accused against another with suspicion. Any resulting prejudice is properly addressed by the affected co-accused through cross-examination.

In other words, I expect SC Tan and his team to come out guns blazing, Clint Eastwood–style, and to blow the co-accused’s credibility to pieces.​