Is Goh Jin Hian a “Crook”?
The term “crook” implies intentional criminal deceit or fraud, often for personal gain. Based on available evidence:
• Evidence Supporting the Label: The NSG case presents the strongest case for crook-like behavior, with prosecutors accusing Goh of masterminding market manipulation—a deliberate scheme to mislead investors and rig prices. This aligns with classic financial crookery, especially given the co-accused’s conviction. Combined with the IPP negligence (breach of duty leading to fraud’s unchecked growth), it paints a picture of repeated lapses in oversight amid a zero-tolerance environment like Singapore’s, where such scandals erode public trust.
• Evidence Against the Label: In the IPP appeal, courts stressed Goh wasn’t a fraud perpetrator—just negligent—and that directors aren’t liable for “picking up” hidden fraud without red flags. No prior convictions exist (the NSG case is pending), and he has denied wrongdoing, calling the IPP suit a “scapegoating.” His family ties and business background suggest these may stem from high-stakes roles rather than inherent criminality.
Ultimately, while not yet convicted of being a “crook,” the pattern of allegations—from market rigging to enabling massive fraud through inaction—substantiates claims of unethical conduct. Singapore’s courts have twice found him in breach of duties, and ongoing charges could lead to a definitive answer. If the NSG trial results in conviction, the label would fit more squarely; for now, he’s a businessman mired in credible suspicions of sharp practices. For the latest developments, monitor Singapore court updates, as trials evolve quickly.