Serious Shanmugam v. Bloomberg Defamation Case: Bloomberg winning!

[jsctan]

This is the bottom line question. The chances of this GCB appreciating to $100 million is very small, almost non. Usually GCB selling for this price have some development potential to high rise condos. But not Shan's GCB. And the fact that Shan would risk all this scrutiny over such a transaction to a secret buyer, means that he knew this price was so above what he could otherwise obtain for his GCB, that he had to risk it. Then the bottomline question is who would overpay so much to him and for what reason?

We all know the preservation of this area for GCB to keep the value, hence no way a condo will be built like a sore thumb sticking out. So, maybe this buyer is just having too much money till must buy Shan's house. Sure get good connection. Somemore paid so high. Likely TSL also waiting for the same type buyers since sure got buyer with so much cash. Problem is our govt not controlling house prices and let it runaway. Now got a path for money washing since filthy rich can now use GCB used.
Why would govt care since 3% stamp duty will go to coffer. It is just the people will sufer as the prices of houses are now unreacheable with all these transactions.
Can there be a possibility that a seller is just taking $55M per other transaction and the balance put in UBS for them to move back to the buyer? Like a cash back?

 

[WangChuk]

Filthy sewer all over the corrupted body ...... Or LuLu ..... decayed papaya on the ground with flies and maggots all over ...

 

[Hypocrite-The]

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.

One other issue is the tax to be paid to the state. The amount is 50mill in tax...maybe tat why pap soo happy to let the transaction go through....

And another point ..the is Bloomberg we are talking about not some ikan bilis small try news company...n there are political implications as Bloomberg got kawans and is part of the Democrazies establishment...so if the ruling goes against Bloomberg...they can publish poison pen letters in the USA and other global outlets....pap can do wat? Stop Bloomberg from publishing in singkieland? Dont all the trading houses use the Bloomberg system for trades? This is not like the FEER time...just my 2 cents ..

 

[jsctan]

https://forums.fuckwarezone.com.sg/...-and-alleged-retaliatory-deportation.7180480/


Together with my husband, we spent ten years building our business from 2014 to 2023.
Because we refused to cooperate with a Singapore money-laundering syndicate, both my husband and I were allegedly framed by MOM investigators collaborating with the syndicate, and falsely accused of “illegal work.”
We were banned from leaving Singapore for 32 months.
The syndicate destroyed my property and court documents.
After an investigation by 10 police officers, criminal acts were confirmed, but the case was allegedly covered up by Senior Indian Minister Shanmugam, and the investigating officer was transferred.
Under serious business, financial, and personal distress, we defended ourselves without a lawyer and were acquitted.
We then filed a claim in the High Court seeking compensation.
However, after the High Court claim was filed, we were allegedly deported to Beijing by ICA—under Shanmugam’s management—in order to block our lawsuit: HC/OC 276/2023.

Serious allegations by them.

Sure sound like an aggrieved couple.
MOM, Mata, ICA and Court, please come clean,

 

[Hypocrite-The]

https://www.reuters.com/article/bus...t=By Reuters,National Kidney Foundation (NKF).


Sham is thinking this is pap in the old days...the evidence against him is pretty negative...if the court rules in his favour..
Despite the Evidence.. Bloomberg can always retaliate and say the judiciary is not impartial...than wat? The judiciary take Bloomberg to court for contempt of court.? This time the evidence is plain to see correlates with OBS case ...n now looks like Iswaran is the scape goat...to divert attention from the Riddout Snakes...the fact is 88 million for his house is way over priced...n 50 million in state taxes? ..n even if the court rules in favour of Sham...the damage is already done...I suspect for the good of the pap...he will do a mah bow tan...step down from cabinet, become back benccher n throw letter B4 the next errction....if ah wong does not do anything to him...ah wong will look weak n incompetent...n this case makes the Iswaran case look like a storm in a tea cup

 

[Dongyi]

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/media-telecom/singapore-court-rules-feer-magazine-defamed-leaders-idUSSIN56247/#:~:text=By Reuters,National Kidney Foundation (NKF).


Sham is thinking this is pap in the old days...the evidence against him is pretty negative...if the court rules in his favour..
Despite the Evidence.. Bloomberg can always retaliate and say the judiciary is not impartial...than wat? The judiciary take Bloomberg to court for contempt of court.? This time the evidence is plain to see correlates with OBS case ...n now looks like Iswaran is the scape goat...to divert attention from the Riddout Snakes...the fact is 88 million for his house is way over priced...n 50 million in state taxes? ..n even if the court rules in favour of Sham...the damage is already done...I suspect for the good of the pap...he will do a mah bow tan...step down from cabinet, become back benccher n throw letter B4 the next errction....if ah wong does not do anything to him...ah wong will look weak n incompetent...n this case makes the Iswaran case look like a storm in a tea cup

Despite the evidence?

What evidence has been produced by Bloomberg lawyer to prove that the article is not defamatory?

 

[superpower]

W

Despite the evidence?

What evidence has been produced by Bloomberg lawyer to prove that the article is not defamatory?

The optics works against Shan. Even if he won against Bloomberg, he'd have lost in the court of public opinion.

There are only 2 reasons why anyone - even an extremely rich investor - would pay way in excess of market valuation for a property:
1. He's laundering dirty money
2. He wants a favour from the seller.

Generally, the rich they are, the shrewder they come as investors. No one in his right mind would pay $88mil + taxes for a property worth $30mil at most with little upside for appreciation.

 

[Papsmearer]

https://www.reuters.com/article/business/media-telecom/singapore-court-rules-feer-magazine-defamed-leaders-idUSSIN56247/#:~:text=By Reuters,National Kidney Foundation (NKF).


Sham is thinking this is pap in the old days...the evidence against him is pretty negative...if the court rules in his favour..
Despite the Evidence.. Bloomberg can always retaliate and say the judiciary is not impartial...than wat? The judiciary take Bloomberg to court for contempt of court.? This time the evidence is plain to see correlates with OBS case ...n now looks like Iswaran is the scape goat...to divert attention from the Riddout Snakes...the fact is 88 million for his house is way over priced...n 50 million in state taxes? ..n even if the court rules in favour of Sham...the damage is already done...I suspect for the good of the pap...he will do a mah bow tan...step down from cabinet, become back benccher n throw letter B4 the next errction....if ah wong does not do anything to him...ah wong will look weak n incompetent...n this case makes the Iswaran case look like a storm in a tea cup

Lawless Wrong is weak and incompetent lah. When he became PeeM, the first thing he should have done is review this Shan sale of his GCB. And then fire him. But he where got balls. Shan claims he can benchpress twice Lawless weight.

We all know the preservation of this area for GCB to keep the value, hence no way a condo will be built like a sore thumb sticking out. So, maybe this buyer is just having too much money till must buy Shan's house. Sure get good connection. Somemore paid so high. Likely TSL also waiting for the same type buyers since sure got buyer with so much cash. Problem is our govt not controlling house prices and let it runaway. Now got a path for money washing since filthy rich can now use GCB used.
Why would govt care since 3% stamp duty will go to coffer. It is just the people will sufer as the prices of houses are now unreacheable with all these transactions.
Can there be a possibility that a seller is just taking $55M per other transaction and the balance put in UBS for them to move back to the buyer? Like a cash back?

That is too complicated. Simple answer would be as follows:

1) I have a legal problem, I got arrested, looking at jail time because I am a repeat offender, and I am a filthy rich Billionaire.
2) Someone in Law Ministry says, I can help you for $50 million
3) first guy says, how? I don't want to look like I am giving bribe again.
4) Solution, my house is worth $38 million, but I sell my house to you for $88 million instead. So, everything disguised as a legit property transaction. But u must pay cash, and u must leave no trace of who u are.

 

[Dongyi]

The optics works against Shan. Even if he won against Bloomberg, he'd have lost in the court of public opinion.​

There are only 2 reasons why anyone - even an extremely rich investor - would pay way in excess of market valuation for a property:
1. He's laundering dirty money
2. He wants a favour from the seller.

Generally, the rich they are, the shrewder they come as investors. No one in his right mind would pay $88mil + taxes for a property worth $30mil at most with little upside for appreciation.

But Bloomberg's defense is NOT that they have reasonable grounds to suspect the Minister of money laundering or that the higher than usual purchase price was paid in return of a favor.

In fact, if that were Bloomberg's defense, it would directly prove the Minister's case.​

 

[Papsmearer]

From FB:

When did Singapore's Indian-Minister K. Shanmugam receive S$88 million in cash? Between July 3, 2023, and August 15, 2023.

Part 1: Before Singapore's largest money laundering case broke out, Shanmugam had already received an astronomical S$88 million in cash.

1. Singapore's largest money laundering case broke out on August 15, 2023. One week later, on August 24, 2023, Indian-origin Minister K. Shanmugam transferred his property to a shell company set up by a mysterious buyer: UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd.

2. Please note: Singapore's SLA (Singapore Land Authority) records only show that on August 24, 2023, Shanmugam's property was registered as transferred to the buyer's trust company.

3. The SLA does not show when Shanmugam received the purchase payment. This point is crucial. The SLA only registers the transfer of property title; it does not record the source of funds, method of payment, or date of receipt.

4. Because, according to facts Shanmugam himself admitted in court on April 7, 2026, while suing Bloomberg, the buyer paid entirely in cash, and cash leaves no transfer trail. Therefore, the buyer's payment time has no traceable or recorded history in banks.

5. Hence, we can boldly infer that the time Shanmugam received the S$88 million must have been before the "S$3 billion money laundering case" broke out on August 15, 2023.

6. The exposure of Singapore's largest money laundering case came from international pressure, which was entirely beyond Shanmugam's control. He couldn't suppress it! He never wanted the money laundering case to be exposed, because its exposure would inevitably implicate his S$88 million.

7. Furthermore, according to Shanmugam's ministerial statement on "automatic deletion of SMS" regarding the rental of Ridout Road black-and-white bungalows in the Singapore Parliament on July 3, 2023, when explaining his rental motives and asset arrangements, he voluntarily mentioned that when he rented the black-and-white bungalow in 2018, his own house had been continuously rented out to collect rental income.

8. This means that as of July 3, 2023, Shanmugam's own house had not been listed for sale.

9. Therefore, we can infer that Shanmugam only "announced" the sale of his house after the parliamentary incident on July 3, 2023.

10. And the time he received the S$88 million cash was completed within the one month and 21 days between the July 3, 2023 parliamentary incident and the transfer on August 24, 2023.

11. On August 15, 2023, Singapore's largest money laundering case broke out. Thus, we deduce that Shanmugam received the S$88 million cash before the outbreak of the money laundering case.

12. Because he received the S$88 million before the largest money laundering case broke out, he had no choice but to grit his teeth and complete the transfer on August 24, 2023. Since the money launderers had been arrested, Shanmugam could not cancel the property sale transaction. This fact is something he cannot delete, and Shanmugam has continued down this dark path ever since.

13. Afterwards, Shanmugam hastily repatriated the money launderers, trying to cover up the truth. But what he didn't expect was that Singapore then saw an even larger money laundering case after the Fujian money laundering case — the case of their leader, Chen Zhi's money laundering. Chen Zhi's extradition back to China was something Shanmugam could not have anticipated.

Summary: Shanmugam started selling his house after the parliamentary incident on July 3, 2023. He received S$88 million in cash from the buyer between July 3, 2023, and August 15, 2023. Afterwards, on August 15, 2023, Singapore's largest S$3 billion money laundering case broke out. One week later, Shanmugam completed the transfer on August 24, 2023.

Part 2: The buyer's trust company is implicated in the "S$3 billion largest money laundering case"

1. Related to the "Fujian money laundering gang's S$3 billion money laundering case penalties" is precisely the trust of the mysterious buyer in Shanmugam's property sale case: "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd."

2. And associated with "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" is the notorious "UBS AG, Singapore Branch."
3. "UBS AG, Singapore Branch" is different from "UBS Bank (Singapore) Limited." The former is implicated in the largest money laundering case; the latter is not.

1. UBS AG, Singapore Branch (penalized)
· UEN: S98FC5560C

2. UBS Bank (Singapore) Limited (not involved)
· Not involved in the money laundering case; not penalized.

· Full name: UBS Bank (Singapore) Limited

· Former name: Union Bank of Switzerland (Singapore) Limited

· UEN: 198402145R

· Entity type: Singapore local public company

4. The same group company as Shanmugam's buyer "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" — "UBS AG, Singapore Branch" — is implicated in Singapore's S$3 billion money laundering case and is notorious.

Seller: Shanmugam

Buyer's shell: UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd

5. "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" is a trust company within the same group as "UBS AG, Singapore Branch."

The essence of a trust is the separation of legal title and beneficial ownership.

Although banks have KYC obligations, the "Singapore S$3 billion money laundering case" has proven that even funds that pass bank checks can still be dirty money. Therefore, "purchasing a property through a UBS trust" cannot logically equate to "the buyer having a clean background."

6. "UBS AG, Singapore Branch" had lax checks, harbored a lot of dirty money, and was implicated in the August 2023 S$3 billion money laundering case, resulting in a penalty of S$3 million (according to the MAS announcement on July 4, 2025).

Part 3: There is currently no evidence that the buyer on the contract, "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd," paid the purchase price to Shanmugam.

In the defamation trial, Shanmugam admitted two core facts:

Shanmugam received cash for the property sale.

He claimed not to know the true identity of the buyer.

No evidence shows that the money Shanmugam received came directly from the bank account of "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd."

Precisely because the purchase price was not transferred directly from that account to Shanmugam, but paid through other channels, Shanmugam can only admit to receiving "cash!" Since there are no bank records.

1. The "Anonymity" of Legal Records (Nominee Structure)

In the public records of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), the party contracting with Shanmugam is not the real buyer, but the buyer's nominee: UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd.

The records only show ownership: The caveat only proves that property title was transferred from Shanmugam's name to "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd." It does not record which specific bank account the cash payment came from to Shanmugam.

And Shanmugam has emphasized it was an all-cash payment, meaning there was no bank transfer.
2. Concealed Source of Funds: "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" is only the trustee, not the actual buyer.

According to the trust agreement, the purchase price could be paid by the real buyer directly from their account at any bank in any country into Shanmugam's law firm's escrow account, or paid in cash.

Therefore, even if Shanmugam's astronomical property transaction contract was signed with "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd," it is possible that the money did not come from an account under the name of "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd."

Part 4: Summary

If Shanmugam himself does not even know who the buyer is, then legally he cannot be 100% certain that before the cash entered his law firm's escrow account, it did not pass through "underground banks" or "private settlement" stages.

The only "evidence" he can currently produce is proof that his lawyer received the full amount in cash and completed the transfer. That is all.

 

[joemartini]

secret buyer?? secret buyer is Ayatollah or IRGC or North Korean govt or Al Qaeda how???

 

[Papsmearer]

secret buyer?? secret buyer is Ayatollah or IRGC or North Korean govt or Al Qaeda how???

Secret Buyer can be donald trump too.

 

[jsctan]

From FB:

When did Singapore's Indian-Minister K. Shanmugam receive S$88 million in cash? Between July 3, 2023, and August 15, 2023.

Part 1: Before Singapore's largest money laundering case broke out, Shanmugam had already received an astronomical S$88 million in cash.

1. Singapore's largest money laundering case broke out on August 15, 2023. One week later, on August 24, 2023, Indian-origin Minister K. Shanmugam transferred his property to a shell company set up by a mysterious buyer: UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd.

2. Please note: Singapore's SLA (Singapore Land Authority) records only show that on August 24, 2023, Shanmugam's property was registered as transferred to the buyer's trust company.

3. The SLA does not show when Shanmugam received the purchase payment. This point is crucial. The SLA only registers the transfer of property title; it does not record the source of funds, method of payment, or date of receipt.

4. Because, according to facts Shanmugam himself admitted in court on April 7, 2026, while suing Bloomberg, the buyer paid entirely in cash, and cash leaves no transfer trail. Therefore, the buyer's payment time has no traceable or recorded history in banks.

5. Hence, we can boldly infer that the time Shanmugam received the S$88 million must have been before the "S$3 billion money laundering case" broke out on August 15, 2023.

6. The exposure of Singapore's largest money laundering case came from international pressure, which was entirely beyond Shanmugam's control. He couldn't suppress it! He never wanted the money laundering case to be exposed, because its exposure would inevitably implicate his S$88 million.

7. Furthermore, according to Shanmugam's ministerial statement on "automatic deletion of SMS" regarding the rental of Ridout Road black-and-white bungalows in the Singapore Parliament on July 3, 2023, when explaining his rental motives and asset arrangements, he voluntarily mentioned that when he rented the black-and-white bungalow in 2018, his own house had been continuously rented out to collect rental income.

8. This means that as of July 3, 2023, Shanmugam's own house had not been listed for sale.

9. Therefore, we can infer that Shanmugam only "announced" the sale of his house after the parliamentary incident on July 3, 2023.

10. And the time he received the S$88 million cash was completed within the one month and 21 days between the July 3, 2023 parliamentary incident and the transfer on August 24, 2023.

11. On August 15, 2023, Singapore's largest money laundering case broke out. Thus, we deduce that Shanmugam received the S$88 million cash before the outbreak of the money laundering case.

12. Because he received the S$88 million before the largest money laundering case broke out, he had no choice but to grit his teeth and complete the transfer on August 24, 2023. Since the money launderers had been arrested, Shanmugam could not cancel the property sale transaction. This fact is something he cannot delete, and Shanmugam has continued down this dark path ever since.

13. Afterwards, Shanmugam hastily repatriated the money launderers, trying to cover up the truth. But what he didn't expect was that Singapore then saw an even larger money laundering case after the Fujian money laundering case — the case of their leader, Chen Zhi's money laundering. Chen Zhi's extradition back to China was something Shanmugam could not have anticipated.

Summary: Shanmugam started selling his house after the parliamentary incident on July 3, 2023. He received S$88 million in cash from the buyer between July 3, 2023, and August 15, 2023. Afterwards, on August 15, 2023, Singapore's largest S$3 billion money laundering case broke out. One week later, Shanmugam completed the transfer on August 24, 2023.

Part 2: The buyer's trust company is implicated in the "S$3 billion largest money laundering case"

1. Related to the "Fujian money laundering gang's S$3 billion money laundering case penalties" is precisely the trust of the mysterious buyer in Shanmugam's property sale case: "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd."

2. And associated with "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" is the notorious "UBS AG, Singapore Branch."
3. "UBS AG, Singapore Branch" is different from "UBS Bank (Singapore) Limited." The former is implicated in the largest money laundering case; the latter is not.

1. UBS AG, Singapore Branch (penalized)
· UEN: S98FC5560C

2. UBS Bank (Singapore) Limited (not involved)
· Not involved in the money laundering case; not penalized.

· Full name: UBS Bank (Singapore) Limited

· Former name: Union Bank of Switzerland (Singapore) Limited

· UEN: 198402145R

· Entity type: Singapore local public company

4. The same group company as Shanmugam's buyer "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" — "UBS AG, Singapore Branch" — is implicated in Singapore's S$3 billion money laundering case and is notorious.

Seller: Shanmugam

Buyer's shell: UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd

5. "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" is a trust company within the same group as "UBS AG, Singapore Branch."

The essence of a trust is the separation of legal title and beneficial ownership.

Although banks have KYC obligations, the "Singapore S$3 billion money laundering case" has proven that even funds that pass bank checks can still be dirty money. Therefore, "purchasing a property through a UBS trust" cannot logically equate to "the buyer having a clean background."

6. "UBS AG, Singapore Branch" had lax checks, harbored a lot of dirty money, and was implicated in the August 2023 S$3 billion money laundering case, resulting in a penalty of S$3 million (according to the MAS announcement on July 4, 2025).

Part 3: There is currently no evidence that the buyer on the contract, "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd," paid the purchase price to Shanmugam.

In the defamation trial, Shanmugam admitted two core facts:

Shanmugam received cash for the property sale.

He claimed not to know the true identity of the buyer.

No evidence shows that the money Shanmugam received came directly from the bank account of "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd."

Precisely because the purchase price was not transferred directly from that account to Shanmugam, but paid through other channels, Shanmugam can only admit to receiving "cash!" Since there are no bank records.

1. The "Anonymity" of Legal Records (Nominee Structure)

In the public records of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), the party contracting with Shanmugam is not the real buyer, but the buyer's nominee: UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd.

The records only show ownership: The caveat only proves that property title was transferred from Shanmugam's name to "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd." It does not record which specific bank account the cash payment came from to Shanmugam.

And Shanmugam has emphasized it was an all-cash payment, meaning there was no bank transfer.
2. Concealed Source of Funds: "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" is only the trustee, not the actual buyer.

According to the trust agreement, the purchase price could be paid by the real buyer directly from their account at any bank in any country into Shanmugam's law firm's escrow account, or paid in cash.

Therefore, even if Shanmugam's astronomical property transaction contract was signed with "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd," it is possible that the money did not come from an account under the name of "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd."

Part 4: Summary

If Shanmugam himself does not even know who the buyer is, then legally he cannot be 100% certain that before the cash entered his law firm's escrow account, it did not pass through "underground banks" or "private settlement" stages.

The only "evidence" he can currently produce is proof that his lawyer received the full amount in cash and completed the transfer. That is all.

Like the plot thickens.... yet cannot find the true culprit & accomplices. Failure of our system. No checks & balance. Haizz.

 

[Papsmearer]

Like the plot thickens.... yet cannot find the true culprit & accomplices. Failure of our system. No checks & balance. Haizz.

Checks and Balance have not existed in Singapore since Lee Con You came to power. Where u been?

 

[KingFook Sr]

That is why I have said Singapore was better under the Colonial govt.

You know the colonial govt?
You sang 'God Save the King' in school?

 

[superpower]

But Bloomberg's defense is NOT that they have reasonable grounds to suspect the Minister of money laundering or that the higher than usual purchase price was paid in return of a favor.

In fact, if that were Bloomberg's defense, it would directly prove the Minister's case.​

Correct. Bloomberg has no reasonable grounds to suspect Shan of selling his house for a favor or that money laundering was involved. Bloomberg's defence is that the article was not defamatory - their lawyer asked Shan to point out ONE single defamatory sentence, and Shan couldn't do that. All he said was that the overall tone is defamatory. LOL.

But Bloomberg's defence is beside the point. In the court of public opinion Shan has lost. Singaporeans are kiasi but not stupid. They can see through the charade. And what can they do to Bloomberg even if the court found Bloomberg guilty of defamation?

 

[jsctan]

Checks and Balance have not existed in Singapore since Lee Con You came to power. Where u been?

Well, ever since I am able to vote, I did my part trying to get as many alternative parties as possible. Boundaries kept changing, Media spinning stories..& majority kept buying their koyok. Election committee, States Times ... are organs of the state. Problem of the Majority that just really cannot be helped.

 

[Dongyi]

Correct. Bloomberg has no reasonable grounds to suspect Shan of selling his house for a favor or that money laundering was involved. Bloomberg's defence is that the article was not defamatory - their lawyer asked Shan to point out ONE single defamatory sentence, and Shan couldn't do that. All he said was that the overall tone is defamatory. LOL.

But Bloomberg's defence is beside the point. In the court of public opinion Shan has lost. Singaporeans are kiasi but not stupid. They can see through the charade. And what can they do to Bloomberg even if the court found Bloomberg guilty of defamation?

It's a false innuendo, and the Court will construe the meaning based on the entire article. It's perfectly legal.

Bloomberg's defense is beside the point if you are not referring to the outcome of the trial.

The public opinion, if it can be collated, will only strengthen the Minister's case.​

 

[Papsmearer]

Well, ever since I am able to vote, I did my part trying to get as many alternative parties as possible. Boundaries kept changing, Media spinning stories..& majority kept buying their koyok. Election committee, States Times ... are organs of the state. Problem of the Majority that just really cannot be helped.

voting for oppo is not check and balance. Check and balance is between the judicial, executive and legislative arms of the govt. We don't have this.

 

[Papsmearer]

Correct. Bloomberg has no reasonable grounds to suspect Shan of selling his house for a favor or that money laundering was involved. Bloomberg's defence is that the article was not defamatory - their lawyer asked Shan to point out ONE single defamatory sentence, and Shan couldn't do that. All he said was that the overall tone is defamatory. LOL.

But Bloomberg's defence is beside the point. In the court of public opinion Shan has lost. Singaporeans are kiasi but not stupid. They can see through the charade. And what can they do to Bloomberg even if the court found Bloomberg guilty of defamation?

Of course Bloomberg has grounds. For the simple reason that Shan cannot say that the sale of his house was not involving money laundering. By his own admission, he does not know who the buyer is. Could be a Thai drug lord laundering his money. What makes dirty money look more legit is if you give it to the Minister of Law for his house. So how the fuck can Shan say definitively there was no money laundering?

Bloomberg lawyer should push all his chips to the middle of the table, and point at Shan and ask him to prove that his sale was not involving money laundering. Shan will not be able to do that. If you ask 50 other house sellers to prove their sales was not money laundering related, they can do it. But not Shan. Cash sale from a secret and hidden buyer has all the hallmarks of money laundering. If Shan cannot proof that the it was not money laundering, then the whole case is bullshit, as we all know.