Serious Shanmugam v. Bloomberg Defamation Case: Bloomberg winning!

[Papsmearer]

Bloomberg is not winning, and it has nothing to do with the public perception of our courts.

Correct. PAP always win. Bloomberg actually think there is a real impartial judiciary in singapore. hahahahhahhah

 

[Papsmearer]

Mr Sham say under oat lor, dunno who buyer is. So can not be bridery right? Check made.

U can believe that accept for the incredibly light sentence given to OBS. If they had thrown the book at OBS for being a repeat offender, then I am incline to say it's not a bribe. But still he should not sell to a secret buyer.

 

[batman1]

Buyer paid cash s$88 million is illegal money (money laundering) so have to keep secret the name of buyer ?

 

[eatshitndie]

UBS Trustee is the platform use to buy it. The actual buyer is secret and unknown.

onus is also on the bank to triple check for money laundering proceeds before accepting the opening of a trust account.

 

[Papsmearer]

1. Why would OBS pay in cash?

2. Shanmugam swore under oath that he did not know who the buyer was, just that the deal was transacted with UBS Trustees. Was Shanmugam lying under oath, a very serious offence?

Because if a housing loan was involved, the loan has to be registered on title. The borrower must match the ownership of the property. Since UBS Trustee is the owner, then UBS Trustee has to be the borrower. Normally, UBS would provide the housing loan, but it's possible the GCB was so overvalued that no appraisor will confirm the price as market price.

e.g. Appraisor values property at $35 million, even though the sale price is $88 million. Mainly because he can't find any comparables near this price. Lender might only lend 70% against appraised value of $35 million, or $24.5 million. Buyer still needs to come up with $63.5 million cash. He might as well just pay cash for the whole thing.

 

[superpower]

Because if a housing loan was involved, the loan has to be registered on title. The borrower must match the ownership of the property. Since UBS Trustee is the owner, then UBS Trustee has to be the borrower. Normally, UBS would provide the housing loan, but it's possible the GCB was so overvalued that no appraisor will confirm the price as market price.

e.g. Appraisor values property at $35 million, even though the sale price is $88 million. Mainly because he can't find any comparables near this price. Lender might only lend 70% against appraised value of $35 million, or $24.5 million. Buyer still needs to come up with $63.5 million cash. He might as well just pay cash for the whole thing.

Thanks. Agree that it's highly plausible that OBS had a hand in this based on the timeline... but it's more likely he helped furnish a rich Chinese buyer with lots of money to launder.

So now there are 2 angles: OBS, and possibly dirty money.

 

[superpower]

U can believe that accept for the incredibly light sentence given to OBS. If they had thrown the book at OBS for being a repeat offender, then I am incline to say it's not a bribe. But still he should not sell to a secret buyer.

By saying he did not know who the buyer is under oath, Shan had hoped to show that it's not bribery. But at the very least, it reflects poor regulatory oversight and lack of due diligence. And he is the law minister for crying out loud!

All property agents have to submit an STR (suspicious transaction report) if a client pays for an apartment in cash... what more $88 mil+ tax? Why wasn't this transaction red-flagged and investigated and owner identified and cleared? The secrecy is what makes this transaction so fishy.

Shan checkmated himself. But at the end of the day we know our courts are not impartial... so the verdict is probably cast in stone. We can call this case the kangaroo test. LOL.

 

[Papsmearer]

onus is also on the bank to triple check for money laundering proceeds before accepting the opening of a trust account.

The opening of the trust account, there is no checking. Anyone can open one. When you deposit money into it, the bank is supposed to enquire as to the source of funds. When you know the seller is the Minister For Law, and that these funds being into deposited into in the UBS trustee account, which fucking bank in singapore will dare to look closely at the source of funds and dare to demand verification that funds are clean. LOL. Are you kidding. Once the bank sees the seller in MinLaw, they will fast track the fucking transaction. I can tell u what happened.

Some money launderer or OBS wants a favour from someone in PAP. Shan GCB on market for more then 2 years with no takers. Someone says, hey, I can pay you $50 million for this favour I need from you. But how to do this? Let's disguise this in the form of a legitimate transaction. That would be the way to go. Buyer and seller can negotiate before hand how to structure it.

The fact that MinLaw just says I don't know who the buyer is, doesn't mean there was no money laundering.

 

[eatshitndie]

The opening of the trust account, there is no checking. Anyone can open one. When you deposit money into it, the bank is supposed to enquire as to the source of funds. When you know the seller is the Minister For Law, and that these funds being into deposited into in the UBS trustee account, which fucking bank in singapore will dare to look closely at the source of funds and dare to demand verification that funds are clean. LOL. Are you kidding. Once the bank sees the seller in MinLaw, they will fast track the fucking transaction. I can tell u what happened.

Some money launderer or OBS wants a favour from someone in PAP. Shan GCB on market for more then 2 years with no takers. Someone says, hey, I can pay you $50 million for this favour I need from you. But how to do this? Let's disguise this in the form of a legitimate transaction. That would be the way to go. Buyer and seller can negotiate before hand how to structure it.

The fact that MinLaw just says I don't know who the buyer is, doesn't mean there was no money laundering.

i opened one in sg as a foreigner and it has to go thru’ 3 layers of managerial and executive level signatures ok. i know my shit as i had to sit thru’ hours in the private banking office of a major bank in sg. it’s a luxury floor dedicated for 6.9-figure banking with concierge, beverage, high end snacks, private lounge services. all deposits must have documentation, proof of source, and how the money is obtained. one high class tiongbu with branded bag and high fashion walked up to concierge with a suitcase of cash to set up a trust account was politely asked to fuck off after she could not produce supporting documents. in this case, i doubt mas will let matter go if ubs or any bank in receipt of funds is non-compliant.

 

[jsctan]

It is hard to see people using their position of power to win any court case. It has to go by
social justice and confidence that no one is above the law, not even the law minister.

 

[jsctan]

i opened one in sg as a foreigner and it has to go thru’ 3 layers of managerial and executive level signatures ok. i know my shit as i had to sit thru’ hours in the private banking office of a major bank in sg. it’s a luxury floor dedicated for 6.9-figure banking with concierge, beverage, high end snacks, private lounge services. all deposits must have documentation, proof of source, and how the money is obtained. one high class tiongbu with branded bag and high fashion walked up to concierge with a suitcase of cash to set up a trust account was politely asked to fuck off after she could not produce supporting documents. in this case, i doubt mas will let matter go if ubs or any bank in receipt of funds is non-compliant.

Then UBS has to be one answering to MAS or AML. I am sure they will say it is client's priviledge and the sales of GCB will continue without the whole group of MPs knowledge but only restricted to a few. Thats how the system engineered to be. No accountability or transparency to the public for the people's land.

 

[jsctan]

Bloomberg's Core Weapon for Victory: Facts Admitted by Shanmugam in Court and the Complete Invalidity of Shanmugam's Defenses.

#Shanmugam v. Bloomberg Defamation Case

Two core facts were confirmed by Shanmugam in court on the same day (April 7):

1. The buyer paid entirely in all cash.

2. He did not know the identity of the ultimate buyer (no knowledge of UBO).

Part 1: Shanmugam admitted in court that the "buyer paid in cash" for the huge property transaction:

Property price: S$88 million
Prepaid tax: S$57.2 million
Total: S$145.2 million (nearly S$150 million)

In the April 2026 de

I. Authoritative sources on "all-cash payment" (court testimony + reports)

April 7, 2026 (first day of trial)

Nature: Evidence under oath, irrevocable and undeniable.

1. Bloomberg's original text:
"Shanmugam's $88 million sale was all cash and done through a UBS Group AG trust that hides the buyer's identity."

2. Shanmugam's in-court confirmation (April 7, under oath)

Original text from cross-examination:

Q: Was the S$88 million consideration paid entirely in cash?

A: Yes, it was all cash.

Supplementary testimony (same day, regarding the trust):

"The buyer was UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd, as trustee for The Jasmine Villa Settlement. I do not know the ultimate beneficial owner."

3. Quotes from Lianhe Zaobao / CNA on the court testimony (April 7):

"Minister Shanmugam confirmed in court that the S$88m sale price was paid in full in cash, via UBS Trustees, and that he had no knowledge of the actual buyer behind the trust."

"In the April 2026 defamation trial regarding the sale of K. Shanmugam's Astrid Hill Good Class Bungalow (GCB), it was confirmed that the property was sold to UBS Trustees for S$88 million, yielding a substantial profit from its 2003 purchase price of S$7.95 million. The transaction, which drew scrutiny over the use of a trust structure, involved a 65% Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) on the buyer, with the defense and prosecution contesting the transparency and legitimacy of the sale."

Part 2: Shanmugam admitted in court that he "did not know the buyer's identity and information."

First, a clear fact: "In court, Shanmugam admitted under oath that he did not know the buyer's identity or information." This is sworn testimony, undeniable.

I. Shanmugam's in-court testimony (under oath):
April 7, 2026 (Tuesday), first day of trial, High Court of Singapore, during defense counsel's cross-examination of Shanmugam:

Shanmugam's exact words: "I do not know who the ultimate beneficial owner is."

Note: The ultimate beneficial owner (a natural person) is the true buyer.

Shanmugam's defense: "The property was purchased through a trust (UBS Trustees). Neither I nor my lawyers know the identity of the ultimate buyer. As a seller, I have no legal obligation to check or know who the buyer is."

This is evidence under oath, part of the court record, irrevocable and undeniable.

· All his subsequent "compliance defenses" rest on this irrefutable fact: his admission on April 7 that he did not know the buyer.

II. Does Shanmugam's defense that "a seller has no obligation to know the buyer's identity" hold up?

Answer: No. Shanmugam's defense contains a fundamental logical paradox and self-contradiction:

1. Using "lack of knowledge" to prove "his transaction was compliant" instead confirms the failure of Singapore's regulatory regime.

· On one hand, he claims the transaction was "fully compliant." On the other hand, he admits he "does not know the ultimate buyer's identity." Yet the core prerequisite for compliance is exactly that: the buyer's identity is genuine and the source of funds is legal.

· As a regulator, if he himself does not know the buyer's identity in his own transaction, how can he prove that the transaction posed no money laundering risk? How can he prove that he did not provide a channel to launder illicit funds?

· This defense directly confirms the core allegation of Bloomberg's report: Singapore's GCB transactions have serious regulatory loopholes, and even the regulator himself (i.e., Minister for Home Affairs Shanmugam) is exploiting these loopholes for opaque transactions.

2. Shanmugam's defense essentially substitutes the obligations of an ordinary civil party for a regulator's statutory duties, which is untenable legally, regulatorily, and ethically.

· Legally: As Singapore's Minister for Home Affairs and the highest anti-money laundering regulator, he has a heightened statutory duty to proactively scrutinize high-risk transactions. He cannot exempt himself from responsibility using the standard of an "ordinary seller."

· Factually: As the seller and as the Minister, he had every ability to know the buyer's identity. "Choosing not to know" is itself a subjective fault.

· Logically: This defense directly confirms the core allegation of Bloomberg's report and completely undermines his own defense of "integrity and transparency."

Therefore, this defense not only fails to help him win the case, but instead becomes Bloomberg's strongest weapon in court, further proving the truth and reasonableness of the report.

Part 3: Fatal weaknesses in Shanmugam's defense during the trial

Bloomberg's lawyers had already precisely identified this core contradiction in the April 9 court session:

1. Demanding clarification of the alleged false statements:

Bloomberg's lawyers asked Shanmugam to point out which sentence in the report was false. He could not point to any single false sentence and could only argue "defamation by overall context."

This essentially admits that the core facts of the report (all cash, trust, undisclosed buyer) are entirely true.

2. "Lack of knowledge" itself is the biggest falsehood:

As a regulator, Shanmugam's "lack of knowledge of the buyer's identity" itself proves that his transaction did not meet regulatory requirements. The report's description of "opaque transaction, regulatory failure" is reasonable public oversight based on objective facts, not false defamation.

3. Strengthening the public interest defense:

This defense further reinforces Bloomberg's "public interest" claim — the transparency of a Cabinet minister's GCB transaction and the effectiveness of anti-money laundering regulation are core public concerns in Singapore. Bloomberg's report falls squarely within the scope of public oversight.

Part 4: "all-cash payment + anonymous trust + unknown source of funds + non-disclosure" = multiple violations by Shanmugam, constituting a prosecutable evidentiary chain for money laundering and tax evasion.

1. Money laundering suspicion confirmed: The untraceable S$88 million "sky-high all-cash" home purchase triggers the money laundering presumption clause under the CDSA.

2. Cross-border fund flow violation risk: If the massive inflow of funds was not properly declared, it violates red lines on cross-border cash regulation.

3. Breach of core disclosure obligations: Shanmugam admitted in court he does not know the ultimate buyer/UBO, violating mandatory anti-money laundering and real estate beneficial ownership disclosure requirements.

4. High stamp duty compliance risk: If the S$57.2 million ABSD was not properly administered, it constitutes a major tax violation.

5. Administrative filing deficiencies: Incomplete or inaccurate information submitted to IRAS and SLA amounts to suspected administrative filing fraud.

Therefore, the facts admitted by Shanmugam in court form a complete chain of evidence suggesting regulatory violations, seriously deviating from Singapore's core requirements for anti-money laundering, property control, and fiscal/tax compliance.

Part 5: Shanmugam's own admission of "all cash + anonymous trust + no knowledge of buyer" also proves that the core facts of Bloomberg's report are 100% true.

The two key descriptions in Bloomberg's report were both verified by the plaintiff Shanmugam's own in-court admissions — the underlying facts are completely true and accurate.

#Singapore #ShanmugamSellsHouse #Bloomberg

1. Using "lack of knowledge" to prove "his transaction was compliant" instead confirms the failure of Singapore's regulatory regime.

· On one hand, he claims the transaction was "fully compliant." On the other hand, he admits he "does not know the ultimate buyer's identity." Yet the core prerequisite for compliance is exactly that: the buyer's identity is genuine and the source of funds is legal.

· As a regulator, if he himself does not know the buyer's identity in his own transaction, how can he prove that the transaction posed no money laundering risk? How can he prove that he did not provide a channel to launder illicit funds?

Power lah! How does he know he is compliant if he does not know the identity of the ultimate buyer is genuine and not a money launderer?
Now which regulator got to come out to say they checked? SLA, ICA, AML or MAS got to come out to confirm they checked and the ultimate buyer is a sinkie or rec a NC? If NC, when was he/she given the citizenship... so many questions for the public wanting to know since land belongs to all sinkies.

 

[eatshitndie]

Then UBS has to be one answering to MAS or AML. I am sure they will say it is client's priviledge and the sales of GCB will continue without the whole group of MPs knowledge but only restricted to a few. Thats how the system engineered to be. No accountability or transparency to the public for the people's land.

whole shbang (or caveat) is that it will absolve ministar of ministars from any wrongdoing and to ascertain that his reputation is smeared. a scapegoat other than ridout rajah will be thrown under the bus. very formulaic and predictable.

 

[Charlie99]

U can believe that accept for the incredibly light sentence given to OBS. If they had thrown the book at OBS for being a repeat offender, then I am incline to say it's not a bribe. But still he should not sell to a secret buyer.

It looks like you probably deliberately used "accept" instead of 'except'.
In other posts of yours, it looks like you chose "then" instead of 'than'

 

[KingFook Sr]

Nobody can beat PAP in SG courts.

 

[jsctan]

whole shbang (or caveat) is that it will absolve ministar of ministars from any wrongdoing and to ascertain that his reputation is smeared. a scapegoat other than ridout rajah will be thrown under the bus. very formulaic and predictable.

Iswaran was thrown under the bus, but not sure about this mountain.

 

[Dongyi]

Part 1: Shanmugam admitted in court that the "buyer paid in cash" for the huge property transaction:

Part 2: Shanmugam admitted in court that he "did not know the buyer's identity and information."

Part 3: Fatal weaknesses in Shanmugam's defense during the trial

Part 4: "all-cash payment + anonymous trust + unknown source of funds + non-disclosure" = multiple violations by Shanmugam, constituting a prosecutable evidentiary chain for money laundering and tax evasion.

The article mischaracterizes the Minister’s admission in court as part of his defence, thereby creating the false impression that he is a defendant in a money laundering trial when he is in fact the plaintiff in a defamation action. It then relies on that same admission to support the allegation that he was involved in money laundering.

In doing so, the more the article seeks to persuade readers that the dealings are connected to money laundering, the more it reinforces the very foundation of the Minister’s defamation claim, namely that the Bloomberg report defames him by implying that he is involved in money laundering.

The defence of justification is NOT intended as an allegation that the Minister is involved in money laundering, but rather that, in light of the Minister’s admission that the transaction was paid fully in cash and that the Minister did not know the identity of the buyer, there is truth in the words used in the Bloomberg report, including statements such as “deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy” and “people buy homes with trusts, hiding owners’ identities”, with Bloomberg’s case being that this truth is supported by and reflected in those admissions.

Bloomberg’s lawyers have been careful during cross-examination of the Minister to avoid any suggestion or implication that he is involved in money laundering. The article, however, does the complete opposite. The Minister is not in court to prove that he is not involved in money laundering; rather, he is there to establish that the Bloomberg report causes the public to believe that he is involved in money laundering.​

 

[potato29]

cashier’s check cobsidered cash payment.

when you get a mortgage, the seller will get cashier’s check from the bank. ???

 

[Papsmearer]

By saying he did not know who the buyer is under oath, Shan had hoped to show that it's not bribery. But at the very least, it reflects poor regulatory oversight and lack of due diligence. And he is the law minister for crying out loud!

All property agents have to submit an STR (suspicious transaction report) if a client pays for an apartment in cash... what more $88 mil+ tax? Why wasn't this transaction red-flagged and investigated and owner identified and cleared? The secrecy is what makes this transaction so fishy.

Shan checkmated himself. But at the end of the day we know our courts are not impartial... so the verdict is probably cast in stone. We can call this case the kangaroo test. LOL.

Shan can say what he wants. he says he does not know who the buyer is. Ok, that's possible. But because he is the ultimate policeman against money laundering, he has set an example to at least make some inquiries into where is the source of funds coming from. If his GCB was really worth $88 million, he can turn the offer down on the grounds that it's from a secret buyer and hence could be money laundering. I am sure there would be another offer coming in for around that amount if that is really the market value of the GCB. But he lan lan must accept the offer, even from a secret buyer, because he knows he cannot get this high price from anyone else. That is why he is in the mess that he is.

The facts are:
His GCB was on the market for a couple of years with no takers. That tells me it wasn't worth $88 million
He was approached by a secret buyer with a high offer. Instead of declining the offer on the grounds of possible money laundering, he accepted it.
Why did he accept it? Because it was an exceptional offer. Maybe the only offer.
Why would the sell make such an overprice exceptional offer knowing full well its the Minister's house?

 

[Papsmearer]

The article mischaracterizes the Minister’s admission in court as part of his defence, thereby creating the false impression that he is a defendant in a money laundering trial when he is in fact the plaintiff in a defamation action. It then relies on that same admission to support the allegation that he was involved in money laundering.

In doing so, the more the article seeks to persuade readers that the dealings are connected to money laundering, the more it reinforces the very foundation of the Minister’s defamation claim, namely that the Bloomberg report defames him by implying that he is involved in money laundering.

The defence of justification is NOT intended as an allegation that the Minister is involved in money laundering, but rather that, in light of the Minister’s admission that the transaction was paid fully in cash and that the Minister did not know the identity of the buyer, there is truth in the words used in the Bloomberg report, including statements such as “deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy” and “people buy homes with trusts, hiding owners’ identities”, with Bloomberg’s case being that this truth is supported by and reflected in those admissions.

Bloomberg’s lawyers have been careful during cross-examination of the Minister to avoid any suggestion or implication that he is involved in money laundering. The article, however, does the complete opposite. The Minister is not in court to prove that he is not involved in money laundering; rather, he is there to establish that the Bloomberg report causes the public to believe that he is involved in money laundering.​

The bottom line is Shan is NOT ABLE to disprove that the money is not from money laundering, or even from a bribe by OBS. If can do this, Bloomberg will not have a case. Since he cannot prove it's not Money Laundering, then circumstantially, all evidence does point to that fact. Not knowing the identity of the buyer is not the same as not knowing the money is not from money laundering proceeds. This fucking half pass 6 lawyer from Alan Gledhill should have known that. I am telling you this sale was already approved by Pinky, and Lawless Wrong is the unfortunate fuck who inherited the mess. The fact Pinky never ordered CPIB or MAS to look into this transaction already indicated that he was informed and rubber stamped it. Most likely because of the all the favours Shan did for him in the Oxley case.