- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,542
- Points
- 113
Do you have trust in the Singapore legal system?
- Thread starter LITTLEREDDOT
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2025
- Messages
- 557
- Points
- 28
Someone needs the TAF club.
威廉寶寶 KNN, where did he find these lobangs? $246m worth in transactions over 32 properties.
偶像！偶像！
No wonder 醉八仙 went drinking past midnight and executed his drunken fists 鐵拐李，醉酒駕車連環撞 and 呂洞賓，警犬追車測酒駕.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,542
- Points
- 113
从威风八面的曹国舅变成没春袋的河仙姑.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 14,767
- Points
- 113
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor.
May 30, 2025
SINGAPORE – A former lawyer was sentenced to six months’ jail on May 30 after she charged two victims for legal services, even though she had been barred from practising law due to bankruptcy.
On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor.
Two other charges were considered during her sentencing.
Before handing down the sentence, District Judge James Elisha Lee said the overriding sentencing consideration for offences under the Legal Profession Act is the need to protect the public.
He added that stiff sentences are warranted for such offences.
Judge Lee also noted that defence lawyer Nicholas Narayanan earlier told the court that Chia had depression due to incidents involving two other clients.
One of them was a woman she represented in 2015, whose child was killed by the father.
The judge said that while he empathised with Chia, there was a “lack of clarity” on whether there was a contributory link between her mental state and her current offences.
In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999.
However, she did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016, after a bankruptcy order made against her earlier that month.
Despite this, Chia met her first victim on Dec 19, 2016, for a consultation after the woman e-mailed her. They then discussed legal issues concerning the woman’s care and custody of her son.
Subsequently, and without Chia’s involvement, the woman and her son’s father signed an agreement to manage aspects of their child’s life amicably.
But on Aug 24, 2017, the woman contacted Chia again after disputes with the man resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as the lawyer.
Chia agreed, concealing the fact that she did not have a practising certificate.
After collecting $2,000 in legal fees, Chia gave her client legal advice.
In a court application filed on Nov 9, 2017, Chia indicated that another lawyer was the solicitor in charge of the case, deliberately excluding her own name.
It was only on Dec 18, 2017, after the woman asked Chia to attend a mediation session with her, that Chia revealed she was an undischarged bankrupt.
In total, Chia collected nearly $13,700 from the woman.
Separately, some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia’s friend – the second victim – asked her to act as the lawyer in her divorce proceedings and her plan to apply for a personal protection order.
They met on Feb 13, 2018, and Chia reviewed her friend’s divorce papers and personal protection order case file.
The friend then formally engaged Chia to represent her in the divorce proceedings, and the latter did not say that she could not practise.
Instead, Chia told the friend about the follow-up steps and quoted her legal fees of $20,000, saying it was a “friend” rate – a third of what she would usually charge.
After receiving a $3,000 deposit from her friend, Chia gave her legal advice and did a host of legal work for her.
Chia also enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter.
On May 2, 2018, the friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees.
Chia’s bankruptcy order was annulled on May 22, 2018, and she was allowed to practise law again.
But a disciplinary tribunal was appointed after a complaint of misconduct was made against her.
In June 2021, Chia’s friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and did not have a practising certificate when she was representing her.
On Oct 26 that year, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia.
She was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2022.
In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her.
She is now out on bail of $80,000 and is expected to begin serving her sentence on July 21.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 14,767
- Points
- 113
Prosecution says judge who acquitted duo of bribing ex-LTA official had copied defence arguments
Chief Justice Menon will give his decision at a later date.
Summary
- Former district judge Soh Tze Bian is accused of copying defence submissions and failing to properly evaluate evidence when acquitting Pay Teow Heng and Pek Lian Guan of corruption.
- The prosecution alleges Soh adopted the defence's arguments, including pejorative language, without independent analysis, while the defence claims he did apply his mind.
- Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon will give his decision at a later date.
Jul 22, 2025
SINGAPORE – A former district judge who acquitted two men of corruption in a case involving a former Land Transport Authority (LTA) official was accused by the prosecution of copying from the defence’s submissions and failing to consider all the evidence.
The prosecution made the allegations on July 22 during an appeal to Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon to reconsider the case afresh. The defence argued that the district judge had applied his mind in deciding to acquit Mr Pay Teow Heng, 56, and Mr Pek Lian Guan, 59.
Chief Justice Menon will give his decision at a later date.
Mr Pay, who was then a director at construction firm Tiong Seng Contractors, was accused of giving bribes in the form of loans totalling $350,000 to LTA deputy group director Henry Foo Yung Thye in 2017 and 2018.
Mr Pek, who was then the managing director of the firm, was accused of intentionally aiding Mr Pay in giving the bribes to Foo.
In October 2024, the two men were cleared by then District Judge Soh Tze Bian, who found that the incriminating statements the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had recorded from them were “inaccurate and unreliable”.
Pek Lian Guan (left) and Pay Teow Heng were cleared by then District Judge Soh Tze Bian in Oct 2024.
PHOTOS: LIANHE ZAOBAO
Mr Soh, who was appointed a district judge on Aug 1, 2008, retired from the Singapore Judicial Service on Jan 17.
In the past two years, the quality of his work has been criticised twice by two Supreme Court judges. In September 2023, Chief Justice Menon said Mr Soh’s conduct in reproducing large chunks of the prosecution’s written submissions in his grounds of decision with minimal changes was wholly unsatisfactory as a matter of judicial practice”.
In December 2024, Mr Soh’s use of substantial portions of the prosecution’s submissions without his own analysis was flagged by Justice Aidan Xu as a serious concern.
In the current case, the prosecution contended that Mr Soh had adopted the defence’s written submissions as his own findings and failed to properly evaluate the conflicting evidence concerning the CPIB statements.
On July 22, Deputy Public Prosecutor Alan Loh argued that the judge had failed to “exercise his mind on the facts and circumstances of the case before him”.
The prosecutor highlighted instances where the judge had adopted the pejorative language from Mr Pay’s closing submissions. This included describing a CPIB investigation officer as “mischievous and conveniently selective” when recording Mr Pay’s statements.
DPP Loh also listed examples to show that the judge had replicated the assertions made in the defence’s closing submissions with minor stylistic changes.
Mr Pek’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull, argued that the prosecution’s analysis of the wording of a selected number of paragraphs was too simplistic. Highlighting examples where the judge had given his own analysis, he said the judge had independently considered the evidence.
Mr Bull noted that Mr Soh had identified three issues on his own and reorganised the points made by the defence. He stressed that in criminal cases, it was entirely inappropriate to resolve any doubt in favour of the prosecution.
Mr Pay’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, said it was unfair for the prosecution to contend that the judge did not consider its arguments. Mr Tan said his closing submissions contained more than 60 pages criticising the credibility of the investigation officer, but the prosecution had “all of two pages” in reply.
He argued that the judge gave the prosecution a chance to rebut the defence’s points during oral submissions, but the specific concerns were not addressed. He said the judge was entitled to accept the defence’s argument because no contrary explanation from the prosecution was forthcoming.
In September 2021, Foo, then 47, was sentenced to 5½ years’ jail for taking about $1.24 million in bribes in the form of loans from several contractors and subcontractors.
Foo joined LTA in 1999. He was the deputy group director of the Thomson-East Coast and Cross Island lines from July 2017 to his resignation in September 2019.
The prosecution said that LTA had engaged Tiong Seng to construct an MRT station under a contract initially valued at $315 million. Foo had called Mr Pay to borrow money on the pretext of needing to repay his mother’s gambling debts to banks and loan sharks.
Mr Pay did not have enough money at the time, so he approached Mr Pek for help.
In his defence, Mr Pay said he gave the loan to help Foo as they were friends who met socially, and that he had no corrupt intent in lending money to Foo.
Similarly, Mr Pek testified that he did not lend money to Foo with the intention of benefiting the company.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 14,767
- Points
- 113
District Judge Soh Tze Bian leaves his position
Mr Soh Tze Bian made the news in the past two years after the quality of his work was publicly highlighted twice by two Supreme Court judges.
Feb 11, 2025
SINGAPORE – District Judge Soh Tze Bian has left his positions as a judge and a deputy registrar of the State Courts.
A Government Gazette notice published on Jan 16 said Mr Soh would cease to be a district judge and deputy registrar of the State Courts on Jan 17.
In response to queries, a spokesman for the judiciary said on Feb 11 that Mr Soh, who was appointed a district judge on Aug 1, 2008, retired from the Singapore Judicial Service.
Mr Soh made the news in the past two years after the quality of his work was publicly highlighted twice by two Supreme Court judges.
In September 2023, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said Mr Soh had fallen short of the standards of professionalism expected of the judiciary after he was found to have reproduced large chunks of the prosecution’s submissions in his written grounds of decision.
The Chief Justice ruled that while the district judge’s conduct was wholly unsatisfactory as a matter of judicial practice, it did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias.
Chief Justice Menon said: “I do not regard this as reflective of the general attitude of our judicial officers, who uniformly and consistently uphold the highest standards in their daily work of discharging the grave responsibility that is entrusted to them. Their efforts should not be tarnished by this incident.”
He made these remarks as he delivered his decision to allow an appeal by a man whom Mr Soh had sentenced to 16 weeks’ jail in April 2023 for conspiring with a doctor to falsify Covid-19 vaccination records.
The Chief Justice reduced the offender’s jail term to 12 weeks after concluding that the risk of potential harm to the Health Promotion Board was low.
The second incident happened in December 2024, when Mr Soh again used substantial portions of the prosecution’s submissions in his judgment without his own analysis.
High Court Justice Aidan Xu said in a written judgment that the district judge had failed to apply his mind to the material before him in the case of a taxi driver who was convicted of molesting a teenage girl.
The High Court judge did not identify the district judge in his judgment, as is the practice in appellate court judgments, but a check showed that the trial judge was Mr Soh.
The taxi driver was convicted in October 2023 and sentenced to eight months’ jail.
After the taxi driver appealed against his conviction and sentence, Justice Xu set aside Mr Soh’s decision and decided the entire case afresh.
Ultimately, the High Court judge concluded that there was no apparent bias, and the conviction and sentence remained.
When asked if Mr Soh’s retirement was due to the quality of his work being critiqued, the judiciary said it had no further comments on this matter.
