Serious Shanmugam v. Bloomberg Defamation Case: Bloomberg winning!

[superpower]

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.​

The point is that when a unusually huge cash transaction of $88mil is approved without investigation into the source and legitimacy of the funds and identity of the buyer, it is a failure of the regulatory authorities and reflects very poorly on the incumbent law minister.

Whether there's actually money-laundering is beside the point. This failure of regulation coupled with the fact that the sale involved a minister's house does raise questions of the culture of secrecy and the lack of transparency in deals involving powerful government officers and ultimately, whether there was any impropriety in the approval process.

 

[True Believer]

UBS Trustees you mean. Buyer paid $88mil in cash! - who would do that other than a Tiong money-launderer through his family office.

Is this the reason why the SG govt looks the other way when money launderers wish to invest in S'pore?

 

[True Believer]

If the 2 PAP ministers Shanmugam and Tan See Leng are so confident, why not have the trial outside of S'pore? The reason is that they know that no judge in S'pore will dare rule against these 2 ministers.

 

[True Believer]

one law for you another for me.

Shanmugam admitted in court that he is unaware of the ultimate owner of his GCB. This means that in spite of the $88 million sale being facilitated through UBS Trustees for The Jasmine Villa Settlement, the Minister who oversees Law and Home Affairs is unable to identify the individual purchaser. This is sensitive and even embarrassing since the very official responsible for S'pore’s anti-money laundering framework sold a high-value asset via a trust structure without knowing the identity of the new owner.

 

[True Believer]

Ownself checkmate ownself

It is really ironic that S'pore's Law Minister, who manages our anti-money laundering policy, sells his massive asset to an anonymous trust in an unrecorded, likely cash-based deal, while suing the media for pointing out the system lacks transparency. For anyone with 1/2 a brain looking at the facts, the optics are incredibly troubling.

 

[Papsmearer]

The point is that when a unusually huge cash transaction of $88mil is approved without investigation into the source and legitimacy of the funds and identity of the buyer, it is a failure of the regulatory authorities and reflects very poorly on the incumbent law minister.

Whether there's actually money-laundering is beside the point. This failure of regulation coupled with the fact that the sale involved a minister's house does raise questions of the culture of secrecy and the lack of transparency in deals involving powerful government officers and ultimately, whether there was any impropriety in the approval process.

Put yourself in the position of UBS. Someone comes into your office to open a Nominee Trust account. Obviously a very high net worth individual. The individual gives you his personal information to open the account, he is required to do this. U ask him what is the purpose and goals of the Nominee account. He tells u he wants to open the account for the sole purpose of purchasing a GCB property. U ask him, how much is this GCB. He tells u $88 million. Later, he comes back with the sales agreement, and tells you he is wiring funds into the account for this legitimate purchase of a GCB. U look at the sales contract. It's got Shan's name on it. U escalate to your senior VP. Now exactly how hard will you, your Senior VP, and your money laundering department look into this transaction? Will u ask buyer(your own client) to prove source of funds? Would you ask buyer for how long these funds were at his disposal? Will u ask buyer for 5 years of income statements and net worth statements? Because if the buyer fails any of these steps, the money has to be reported to STRO and so exactly how tightly will u enforce this AML in your own bank? even if the buyer is a drug lord from Thailand, and brings in 20 suitcases full of cash to your office to deposit it to his Nominee account, the minute you flag it to STRO, they will freeze the money and the transaction is dead. Within the hour, u will have a personal call from Shan's listing agent to ask whether you and your boss want to explain to the Minister of Law why u flag this transaction, so he cannot sell his GCB for $88 million. Is this a call u and your boss want to take? This is the man that POFMA people left right and centre. The most vindictive Minister out there.

Now u ask your question again. Is this really a failure of the regulatory authorities or just self preservation?

 

[True Believer]

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

The sale did not appear in the URA’s private residential property transactions database, shielding it from any public scrutiny.

 

[True Believer]

What does $88m paid fully in cash mean ? Cashier's order considered paid in cash ?

The absence of a mortgage suggests a full cash payment, a method often flagged for higher risk in anti-money laundering contexts.

 

[bobby]

So shameful….a full cabinet minister paid $m involved in a scandal like this.

 

[Papsmearer]

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

Put yourself in the position of UBS. Someone comes into your office to open a Nominee Trust account. Obviously a very high net worth individual. The individual gives you his personal information to open the account, he is required to do this. U ask him what is the purpose and goals of the Nominee account. He tells u he wants to open the account for the sole purpose of purchasing a GCB property. U ask him, how much is this GCB. He tells u $88 million. Later, he comes back with the sales agreement, and tells you he is wiring funds into the account for this legitimate purchase of a GCB. U look at the sales contract. It's got Shan's name on it. U escalate to your senior VP. Now exactly how hard will you, your Senior VP, and your money laundering department look into this transaction? Will u ask buyer(your own client) to prove source of funds? Would you ask buyer for how long these funds were at his disposal? Will u ask buyer for 5 years of income statements and net worth statements? Because if the buyer fails any of these steps, the money has to be reported to STRO and so exactly how tightly will u enforce this AML in your own bank? even if the buyer is a drug lord from Thailand, and brings in 20 suitcases full of cash to your office to deposit it to his Nominee account, the minute you flag it to STRO, they will freeze the money and the transaction is dead. Within the hour, u will have a personal call from Shan's listing agent to ask whether you and your boss want to explain to the Minister of Law why u flag this transaction, so he cannot sell his GCB for $88 million. Is this a call u and your boss want to take? This is the man that POFMA people left right and centre. The most vindictive Minister out there.

Now u ask your question again. Is this really a failure of the regulatory authorities or just self preservation?

 

[True Believer]

So shameful….a full cabinet minister paid $m involved in a scandal like this.

This is a battle of perception for Shanmugam and See Leng. By suing, they are forcing Bloomberg to choose to either double down and prove illegal acts in a S'pore court where no PAP Minister has ever lost a case, or admit no such accusation was intended. Once that admission is on public record, the legal charges become secondary and can be dropped. Both ministers wish to ensure that in the court of public opinion, insinuations are met with a retraction. The ministers do not have the balls to sue Bloomberg outside of S'pore.

 

[congo9]

Shanmugum deserve it.

 

[True Believer]

Bloomberg may have a strong case but Singapore Courts rarely rule against PAP politicians. Name me one lawsuit where the a PAP plaintiff has lost...

Both PAP ministers are leveraging the S'pore legal system to compel Bloomberg to clarify its stance, silencing any read-between-the-lines interpretations. It’s a show of force: either Bloomberg says it explicitly and face the full weight of a defamation suit, or Bloomberg publicly states they never meant it. Given Shanmugam’s historical ties to the judicial system he once oversaw, the pressure to settle or clarify is immense, making a quiet withdrawal of charges the most likely and convenient exit strategy. No judge will ever dare to rule against 2 PAP ministers.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Bloomberg winning is let you shiok only that our kangaroos dun want make it so obvious

 

[True Believer]

Bloomberg winning is let you shiok only that our kangaroos dun want make it so obvious

Australian Rachel Gunn performing the "S'pore Court Dance"

 

[True Believer]

Shanmugam and Tan See Leng celebrating before the judge has even made his ruling:

 

[Dongyi]

The point is that when a unusually huge cash transaction of $88mil is approved without investigation into the source and legitimacy of the funds and identity of the buyer, it is a failure of the regulatory authorities and reflects very poorly on the incumbent law minister.

Whether there's actually money-laundering is beside the point. This failure of regulation coupled with the fact that the sale involved a minister's house does raise questions of the culture of secrecy and the lack of transparency in deals involving powerful government officers and ultimately, whether there was any impropriety in the approval process.

I do not disagree with you on the regulatory aspect.

However, the current case is NOT about any alleged failings on the part of Shan as a Minister or the regulatory authorities. It concerns the alleged innuendos arising from the Bloomberg report and whether they would lead members of the public to understand that the Minister may have been involved in “some shady deals and possibly money laundering”.

That phrase reflects the Minister’s pleaded interpretation of the report, not Bloomberg’s own language. The Minister must satisfy the Court that this meaning would be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader. Only if the Court accepts that the report bears the alleged defamatory meaning will it proceed to consider Bloomberg’s defences.

Bloomberg’s lawyer’s cross-examination of the Minister is twofold: first, to persuade the Court that the report does not bear the meaning contended for by the Minister; and second, even if the Court finds that it does, to establish that the report is nevertheless justified on the basis that it is justified or constitutes fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Bloomberg’s case is that the report does not even imply that the Minister is in any way involved in money laundering, and therefore does not require the Minister to prove that he is NOT so involved.

The Minister has argued that the report is NOT justified because it is NOT true that the identity of the user cannot be ascertained by the regulatory authorities. In fact, the payment of Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) at 65% means that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) would be aware of the identity of the beneficial owner. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) would also have access to such information through anti-money laundering requirements, and the trustees as well as the buyer’s lawyers would likewise be aware of the beneficial owner’s identity.

It is not about any alleged failings of the regulatory authorities; rather, it is about the report not being fully accurate or complete in its account of the facts.​

 

[Papsmearer]

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.

Only idiots believe that Shan does not know who is the buyer. Remember, this is the same Kekling that lied straight face to one of his closest friends Lee Wei Ling, and contradicted her in the Oxley saga. The buyer is likely some one so unpalatable to the public (eg OBS) and it was Shan probably told him to put it under a nominee account. If this $88 million price was truly reflective of the market for his GCB, then no worries, he should have declined this offer and sell it to someone who is willing to disclose his identity. Another buyer will come along if this is really the market price for his GCB. But if the price is so outrageously over the market, that he knows he will not see this price again in his lifetime, then he will lan lan agree to the sale even if it's to a total secret buyer. but then what is the motivation of the buyer to pay so much above market for his GCB? The only GCBs I have seen for sale at this price or higher were ones that had development potential into high rise luxury condos, and his does not.

 

[True Believer]

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

The PAP values the Privy Council as long as its rulings align with the govt's interests. However, when the Privy Council overturned the conviction of opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam in 1988. The Privy Council's judgment was highly critical of the S'pore Supreme Court's handling of the case, stating that Jeyaretnam had suffered a "grievous injustice." Shortly after this ruling, the PAP moved to abolish appeals to the Privy Council for certain cases, citing that the judges were "out of touch with local conditions." The hypocrisy of this claim is plain to see, as the same Minister had previously praised the Privy Council as a "litmus test of our judicial system's independence."

 

[Papsmearer]

I do not disagree with you on the regulatory aspect.

However, the current case is NOT about any alleged failings on the part of Shan as a Minister or the regulatory authorities. It concerns the alleged innuendos arising from the Bloomberg report and whether they would lead members of the public to understand that the Minister may have been involved in “some shady deals and possibly money laundering”.

That phrase reflects the Minister’s pleaded interpretation of the report, not Bloomberg’s own language. The Minister must satisfy the Court that this meaning would be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader. Only if the Court accepts that the report bears the alleged defamatory meaning will it proceed to consider Bloomberg’s defences.

Bloomberg’s lawyer’s cross-examination of the Minister is twofold: first, to persuade the Court that the report does not bear the meaning contended for by the Minister; and second, even if the Court finds that it does, to establish that the report is nevertheless justified on the basis that it is justified or constitutes fair comment on a matter of public interest.

Bloomberg’s case is that the report does not even imply that the Minister is in any way involved in money laundering, and therefore does not require the Minister to prove that he is NOT so involved.

The Minister has argued that the report is NOT justified because it is NOT true that the identity of the user cannot be ascertained by the regulatory authorities. In fact, the payment of Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) at 65% means that the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) would be aware of the identity of the beneficial owner. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) would also have access to such information through anti-money laundering requirements, and the trustees as well as the buyer’s lawyers would likewise be aware of the beneficial owner’s identity.

It is not about any alleged failings of the regulatory authorities; rather, it is about the report not being fully accurate or complete in its account of the facts.​

Your last para is not accurate as far as I know. 1) ABSD is paid by the owner of the property, in this case the UBS Nominee Account. UBS holds the property in their name on behalf of the beneficiary. Therefore, UBS pays the ABSD and hence the beneficiary is still unknown. 2) MAS has no access to account holder and beneficiary's details unless they specifically file a formal request for it. As long as UBS says their AML vetted the funds and therefore did not have to report STRO because it was clean, there is usually no reason for MAS to check. In any case, the co-ordinating agency to do all this is CPIB or CAD, where they will put together all the various agencies information. In fact, MAS can easily ask for the account number of the Nominee account and then see which account $88 million flowed from. That will determine who is the beneficial owner. But all this is moot. The bosses of these agencies are not independent and no one wants to fuck with the most vindictive minister.