Serious Shanmugam v. Bloomberg Defamation Case: Bloomberg winning!

[Hypocrite-The]

Alot of comments about the fact that the Judiciary will side with Sham etc despite the evidence on the contrary...due to kangaroo court etc....however...why no one talks about the consequences of the verdict if it's ruled in favour of Sham despite the evidence? And Singapore position as a finance hub and claimed judicial fairness and independence and good to do business...etc...what will be the implications of Singapore's reputation?Just the fact that it's sold at 3 times the 'valuation' price is the smoking gun and the subsequent cover-up..and this is Bloomberg U are talking about... not independent small fry journalists...today's world is not like dead fart time when he Hantam FEER etc....bloomberg is a different barrel of fish...

 

[True Believer]

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.

Despite the overwhelming evidence against PAP ministers like Shanmugam, the MIW still dares to claim they are an "honest" govt.

 

[shiokalingam]

At least more sinkies are aware of what those staying at GCB can do under the UBS way. At least 33% comprising of other parties are urgently needed
to pry open the can of worms in ministries.

Hear say , Pritam will be asking
how many such Jasmine Trusts packages were done over the past 10 to 20 years.

How many were done above market value ?

How many were done below market value ?

How many were done by UBS ?

A & G done how many ?

.
.
.

 

[Papsmearer]

Many individuals do not sue for defamation even if there may be grounds to do so. This is especially true in many Western countries, especially the US where there's also the extra burden on the plaintiff to prove 'malice'.

So even if Shan were to answer 'yes', it doesn't strengthen Bloomberg's case: not suing has little bearing on whether the article is defamatory. People choose to sue - or not sue - for various reasons; moreover, if an idividual's identity was not disclosed, his reputation cannot be said to have been tarnished.

Just so, how many opposition politicians in the past have sued for outright defamatory remarks made by the PAP? (CSJ comes to mind - he was LKY's favourite punching bag.)

You are not understanding something about the kangaroos of Singapore. When Ministers sue, they always win. U say Shan's skin is Black, and he sue you, u will still lose. A minister Winning a defamation suit in Singapore is like the sun rising every morning. It's a guaranteed. So what the Ministers have done is when they feel the need for some extra pocket money, they launch a defamation suit. The court will award them a few hundred thousands $, plus their legal cost is paid by the victim. So, it's free money for them to cheong and take nice holiday. This is what the Bloomberg case is about.

 

[Papsmearer]

Hear say , Pritam will be asking
how many such Jasmine Trusts packages were done over the past 10 to 20 years.

How many were done above market value ?

How many were done below market value ?

How many were done by UBS ?

A & G done how many ?

.
.
.

Pritam is a coward and PAP lackey. U see any Wayang Party politicians attacking Shan now during the trial?

 

[Papsmearer]

Alot of comments about the fact that the Judiciary will side with Sham etc despite the evidence on the contrary...due to kangaroo court etc....however...why no one talks about the consequences of the verdict if it's ruled in favour of Sham despite the evidence? And Singapore position as a finance hub and claimed judicial fairness and independence and good to do business...etc...what will be the implications of Singapore's reputation?Just the fact that it's sold at 3 times the 'valuation' price is the smoking gun and the subsequent cover-up..and this is Bloomberg U are talking about... not independent small fry journalists...today's world is not like dead fart time when he Hantam FEER etc....bloomberg is a different barrel of fish...

The PAP does not care about any implications and damage to Singapore's reputation. Singapore's reputation is already a joke in many parts of the world. I had dinner in Paris some sometime back with a French KPMG staff, and that's all he could talk about, the Fujian gang $3 billion money laundering scandal. Every Big 4 firm thinks it's a joke the money laundering rules in singapore can be so lax. And this is after the 1MDB scandal where money was funnel thru Singapore to Najib. The biggest joke is the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is located in Singapore. whatever damage to Singapore reputation is overcome by some money to soothe things over. U think SAIC moved here because there are no kangaroos in the courts or the PAP gave them some kopi money to have a show name presence here?

 

[Dongyi]

Many individuals do not sue for defamation even if there may be grounds to do so. This is especially true in many Western countries, especially the US where there's also the extra burden on the plaintiff to prove 'malice'.

So even if Shan were to answer 'yes', it doesn't strengthen Bloomberg's case: not suing has little bearing on whether the article is defamatory. People choose to sue - or not sue - for various reasons; moreover, if an idividual's identity was not disclosed, his reputation cannot be said to have been tarnished.

Just so, how many opposition politicians in the past have sued for outright defamatory remarks made by the PAP? (CSJ comes to mind - he was LKY's favourite punching bag.)

The “several others” were identified by name along with their affiliated organizations and were mentioned in the article alongside the two Ministers.

You are correct that Singapore’s defamation law is generally more favorable to plaintiffs, emphasizing the protection of reputation, whereas U.S. law tends to favor defendants, with stronger safeguards for free speech.

You are also correct that in the United States, plaintiffs must prove “actual malice,” meaning that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, but only if they are public figures. Whether the “several others” qualify as public figures is a moot point in this context; in any case, this requirement applies under U.S. law and would be relevant only in relation to the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest under Singapore law if raised by the defendant.

That said, there may be even stronger grounds for the “several others” mentioned alongside the two Ministers to bring a claim if the alleged false innuendo conveyed by the phrase “transactions shrouded in secrecy” is indeed highly suggestive of involvement in money laundering, particularly if the tort was committed in Singapore, where the law is more favorable to plaintiffs.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why others implicated in the same article have chosen not to sue. At the very least, the presiding judge will be made aware that other individuals mentioned in the article have not brought claims. This would go some way toward supporting Low De Wei’s suggestion that the two Ministers may be “杯弓蛇影.”​

 

[batman1]

此地无银三百两。 555