David Chua Kok Tee Sues DBS Bank

[jw5]

Couple Of Points:

1. Absolutely Agree.

2. I am with you on this.

This is exactly the issue. I've always wondered how is it possible that some banks keep regularly posting record profits when economic conditions are anemic and interest rates are low which does not allow for much margins. It makes me wonder whether money in accounts left dormant for the past 20, 30, 40, 50 years are simply appropriated because they are deemed "inactive" for a protracted period. Banks should publicly set out their policy on long dormant accounts.

 

[rushifa666]

The story raises so many red flags it's ridiculous.
1) is the CAD on stand- by in singapore pools head
Quarters? If you win money they investigate you straight away without even needing any report?
2) how did they even know he won that amount in total? Singapire pools keeping tabs on you? You cannot win money from them?
3) how did a clerk even get that kind of access? Would anyone even dare to bank with HSBC again?
4) is filing the absorb amount of charges even efficient? The manpower involved when the sentence will not reflect the work put in is just stupid

 

[borom]

Normally laws favour the establishment and it is cases like this that shake them up and lead to changes .

The issue to me (non lawyer) is how long should banks keep records-it cannot keep them forever as the cost would be enormous.

However the 6 years limitation is too short as its now much easier to keep electronic records.
The law should be changed to vary according to amounts eg 5years limitation for small amounts say last balance below $10,000, 10 years for balances above $10,000 and 15 years for those above $100,000 ect2.

 

[frenchbriefs]

This is exactly the issue. I've always wondered how is it possible that some banks keep regularly posting record profits when economic conditions are anemic and interest rates are low which does not allow for much margins. It makes me wonder whether money in accounts left dormant for the past 20, 30, 40, 50 years are simply appropriated because they are deemed "inactive" for a protracted period. Banks should publicly set out their policy on long dormant accounts.

fuck uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!!!!!!im starting a bank called biskut kong guan SDN BHD.all you guys are welcome to bank with me.....i guarantee ur money is safe with me till the day u die.

 

[rushifa666]

Normally laws favour the establishment and it is cases like this that shake them up and lead to changes .

The issue to me (non lawyer) is how long should banks keep records-it cannot keep them forever as the cost would be enormous.

However the 6 years limitation is too short as its now much easier to keep electronic records.
The law should be changed to vary according to amounts eg 5years limitation for small amounts say last balance below $10,000, 10 years for balances above $10,000 and 15 years for those above $100,000 ect2.

Laws favour establishment only here. If that's free market I'm a banana. And this case is not that current. Paper records at best. With that amount of money at that time, they should have at least assigned someone. Quite strange that they have never called him at all in all these Years, even if it is to dissuade him or get feedback for closing the account

 

[Papsmearer]

This case throws up many questions. How much offshore funds from people around S E Asia and beyond lies within S'pore's banking system and has remained unclaimed over several decades, perhaps even half-a-century? I suggest it would probably be substantial because S'pore has always played the role of (and has been seen as a) safe haven within a turbulent S E Asia. And, unlike many other countries, S'pore banks have have always allowed almost anyone from abroad to open an account even if they are non-resident. Heirs of those people who come across FD receipts, savings account books etc, if they were to approach the banks about their forebears deposits what would they be told? What happens to accounts dormant (but not closed) for 20, 30, 40, 50 years? Do banks retain hard copies of accounts opened during the pre-digital age? Do they have a cavernous basement for that? Probably not, as space is at a premium in S'pore. Is there a statute of limitations on dormant accounts even if they contain millions of dollars? A statute of limitations on dormant accounts plus the terms & conditions for opening and maintaining accounts would probably be favourable to banks in any legal tangle.

U are in the right jungle but barking up the wrong tree. the whole issue of statute of limitations on dormant accounts is solely geared to benefit the banks because of S'pore's status as a destination of corruption and criminal money. Not because its a safe haven. so many criminals and corrupted officials deposit their funds here that just in the course of normality, many will die intestate, and hence not be able to collect or retrieve their funds from singapore. eg. a drug lord in Mexico deposits his $1 million with DBS and gets a receipt for his FD. One year later, he is killed in a shoot out with police. Where is this receipt? Did he tell his wife where it was and chance the police might squeeze the wife for it? Or does he trust his close lieutenants and they betray him and collect it themselves? In the end the FD sits there for decades and eventually, DBS keeps it. How about Robert Mugabe and all the hundreds of million $ he deposited here. If he dies next month, and his wife is detained in Zimbabwe to aid in the corruption investigation, how long will his FDs sit here? What happened to all the money that Muamar Gaddafi deposited here. It was about $125 million. I never heard it being returned, and Libya is in such turmoil now. It could be many years before they get around to asking for it.

 

[blissquek]

If this happened in a US bank, they would quietly apologize and settle up with the client. Only in Singapore, DBS is arrogant enough to count on the home court advantage given by the kangaroo court to win this case.

I agree ...

My case is my CPF investment account where the bank kept my sale proceeds for almost a year in their suspense account.

I called many times over the 6 months period and wrote three letters to them seeking the return of my monies.

It is only when my lawyer wrote them a letter that spur them to do a thorough check.
They return the funds almost immediately and offered me an ex-gratia payment of $5000.

My lawyer advised me to accept as I am no match for their corporate might and the QC fees involved could be very substantial if they win their appeal and I have to pay their legal fees.

CPF supposed to be on my side looking after their depositor's interest. They are of not much help as the bank is a GLC
and leave me to fend on my own...