The best legal drama in 2026

[shiokalingam]

 

[Dongyi]

Weird shanmugam now using race . He is the seller not the buyer. So now by saying that he knows the buyer is non Chinese?

So this is not in the link, right ?

 

[shiokalingam]

Shanmugam does not know beneficial owner of his S$88m GCB, defamation hearing reveals
☰

• Singapore
• Opinion▾
• Politics▾
• Community
• Civil Society
• International
• Business

Court Cases

Shanmugam does not know beneficial owner of his S$88m GCB, defamation hearing reveals​

Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam admitted under cross-examination that he does not know who the ultimate beneficial owner of his S$88 million Good Class Bungalow is, as the defamation trial against Bloomberg and its reporter opened in Singapore's High Court on 7 April 2026.
The Online Citizen7 Apr 2026

---

The civil defamation lawsuit brought by Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng against United States-based Bloomberg L.P. and its reporter Dexter Low De Wei opened at Singapore's High Court on Tuesday, 7 April 2026. Both ministers were present in court for the opening of proceedings. Low attended alongside senior Bloomberg representatives, including John Fraher, a senior editor at Bloomberg. The trial is presided over by Justice Audrey Lim.

The case centres on a December 2024 Bloomberg article titled "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy", which the two ministers allege defamed them by suggesting they had taken advantage of a lack of checks and disclosure requirements in purchasing Good Class Bungalows (GCBs) in a non-transparent manner.

In their written opening statement, as cited by The Straits Times, the ministers' lawyers from Davinder Singh Chambers argued that the article's title and first sentence made it plain to the reader that it was an exposé on how and why the ultra-rich in Singapore had been increasingly transacting GCBs in a non-transparent manner.

They took issue with Bloomberg's position that paragraphs not expressly naming the ministers had nothing to do with them, arguing that the court would consider what the offending words conveyed to the reader in the context of the publication as a whole. The ministers are seeking general and aggravated damages, and characterised the defendants' conduct during proceedings as reprehensible for withholding relevant documents.

After brief opening statements from both sides, Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan, appearing as instructed counsel for Bloomberg, launched into an intense cross-examination of Shanmugam, who was the first witness called. Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, representing both ministers, interjected on multiple occasions regarding the relevance of lines of questioning, and the presiding judge was required to step in several times to redirect proceedings.

Background to the transaction​

In August 2023, records from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) showed that Shanmugam had transferred ownership of his GCB at 6 Astrid Hill to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd for S$88 million. UBS Trustees was acting as trustee for The Jasmine Villa Settlement, a trust company licensed under the Trust Companies Act 2005.

The transaction was handled by lawyers from Allen & Gledhill — Ho Sheau Farn acting for UBS Trustees, and Ho Kin San acting for Shanmugam. Allen & Gledhill is the law firm where Shanmugam previously practised.

The transaction was first reported publicly by The Online Citizen (TOC) on 12 September 2024.

Minister does not know beneficial owner of his GCB​

Under cross-examination, Shanmugam admitted that he does not know who the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of his GCB is. The property, valued at S$88 million (approximately US$68.5 million), was purchased using a trust structure.

Sreenivasan put to Shanmugam that his press secretary had reportedly said he does not know whom he sold the house to because it was sold to a trustee. When asked to confirm the accuracy of that statement, Shanmugam said: "Yes, Your Honour."

When Sreenivasan further put to him that his press secretary had said only his lawyers and bankers would know the identity of the buyer, Shanmugam rejected that characterisation, describing it as nonsensical and inaccurate. He said it was impossible for his lawyers to know something that he himself did not know.

Minister's press secretary told Bloomberg it was a private matter​

Senior Counsel Sreenivasan put to Shanmugam the substance of communications between his press secretary, Ms Ng Siew Hua, and Low. Counsel asked whether there were any written notes of what Shanmugam had instructed Ng to convey. Shanmugam confirmed there were none.

Defence counsel put to Shanmugam that Ng had conveyed to Low that he could not issue a POFMA direction against TOC's 12 September 2024 article because the transaction was a private matter, that the only available channel would have been to sue TOC, and that he had no intention of doing so.

Shanmugam confirmed this was broadly accurate, saying the TOC article would not have been liable to any action under POFMA as it involved a private matter, and that he had no intention of suing over it.

Shanmugam also testified that the Astrid Hill transaction was a completely private matter and that he had no idea Bloomberg intended to publish a story about it.

Minister believed Bloomberg was setting a trap​

Bloomberg made its first approach to Shanmugam on 19 September 2024, seven days after the TOC article was published, through Ng. Shanmugam testified that he chose not to respond. He explained that he believed engaging with Bloomberg's queries would give the agency material to publish.

"I told her I was sceptical about their reasons. I didn't believe they were not targeting me. I believe that they had an agenda," he told the court.

"They were just trying to find a way of getting the sale published."

He said that on its own, writing a story about a property sale that had taken place the previous year was difficult to justify, but that if he responded Bloomberg could lead with his comment. "They were laying a trap and I refused to walk into it, I refused to answer," he said.

In cross-examination, Sreenivasan put to Shanmugam that Low had sought comment on two separate occasions — first in September 2024, shortly after TOC's article brought the Astrid Hill transaction into the public domain, and again before the article's publication in December 2024. Shanmugam did not deny this. On both occasions the minister's press secretary replied indicating they would not comment. Bloomberg's position is that Low exercised responsible journalism and ensured all references to the ministers' transactions were factually accurate and presented neutrally.

Separately, Bloomberg sent a detailed set of six questions to the SLA on 14 October 2024. The SLA responded the following day by referring Bloomberg to then-Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong's parliamentary answer on GCBs. Sreenivasan put to Shanmugam that Minister Tong's parliamentary answer did not address the same questions Bloomberg had posed, and that the SLA itself does not collect general data on residential properties acquired through trust companies beyond tracking cases involving foreign purchasers. Shanmugam did not fully agree with that characterisation.

Realis does not allow searches for non-caveated transactions​

While general searches can be done on Realis, INLIS requires users to search for one property at a time. Shanmugam conceded during cross-examination that Realis, the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA) property transaction database, does not permit users to search for transactions where no caveat has been filed.

He further conceded that to retrieve information on a non-caveated property, a user must already know the specific property and conduct a targeted search on the Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS) portal administered by the SLA. To track all GCB transactions using INLIS alone, a researcher would have to conduct an individual title search on each of the approximately 2,000 GCBs in Singapore.

Shanmugam agreed that Realis increases transparency precisely because it aggregates caveated transaction data in a way that INLIS does not. He also agreed that INLIS does not allow a member of the public to identify the UBO of a property held through a trust structure, and that information on the statutory declaration and trust documentation is not accessible to any private individual not party to the transaction. Law enforcement and government agencies retain full access.

Sreenivasan described the point as very critical, arguing that the ministers' case was that the defendants had been wrong in saying that non-caveated deals are harder to trace. Davinder Singh responded that he did not agree with Sreenivasan's characterisation of his case.

Internal Bloomberg emails​

Sreenivasan had earlier established the broader news context in which the Bloomberg story was commissioned. He noted that the arrest of ten foreign nationals accused of laundering billions of dollars in Singapore in 2023 had generated extensive public reporting, and that new citizen purchases of GCBs had become a publicly discussed issue. He also pointed Shanmugam to an earlier report by Low showing the reporter's prior interest in GCBs connected to money laundering activity.

Sreenivasan put to Shanmugam a parliamentary statement noting that some of the individuals implicated in the 2023 money laundering scandal had been found renting GCBs, and asked Shanmugam to confirm that insofar as the money launderers were concerned, they were renters and tenants rather than purchasers or sellers of GCBs. Shanmugam responded that there was a common misconception about the case. "There was no evidence for money laundering in Singapore. They were charged for relatively minor offences," he said.

Shanmugam was then shown a series of internal Bloomberg emails obtained through court-ordered discovery, which he read into the record and characterised as revealing the publication's true intent. The emails were authored by Joyce Koh, Asia ex-China Finance Team Leader at Bloomberg; Andrea Tan, Bloomberg's Singapore Bureau Chief; and Low himself.

Shanmugam identified an email from Koh referring to him as "our favourite minister", noting that she had heard from a source that he had recently sold his GCB at Astrid Hill probably for an "eye-watering sum". Koh described it as "quite the politically sensitive story", particularly with elections approaching at the time.

Low responded in the email chain saying he had seen the property records and that the sale was done the year before. He noted the sale was "definitely a hush-hush affair", a characterisation Shanmugam said he disagreed with. Low also wrote that one possible way to get the story out was to "wrap it into a broader story" about how wealthy individuals were using trust structures to purchase property in Singapore.

"So the purpose was to talk about my sale, but wrap it in a bigger story on how rich people are using trusts to buy property in Singapore," Shanmugam told the court, as reported by CNA.

Low had also written in the email chain: "If you think a standalone is necessary, let me know." Shanmugam responded to this by saying: "So much for 'yours is only by-the-by, we're not really interested in you.'"

Another email in the chain described Shanmugam as "Singapore's most powerful minister" and said he was "someone who should lead by example". One journalist noted that apart from "the little known" TOC, "no one else including any mainstream media has reported it", referring to the Astrid Hill sale. Another suggested doing an "own story" based on Low's record search and asking Shanmugam for comment, writing: "He will be forced to say something... and (we) can lede with that."

Shanmugam said Bloomberg had persuaded themselves that they were responsible media. He characterised the email chain as showing the primary aim was to publish his sale, and described the emails as full of venom and nastiness.

Sreenivasan challenged that characterisation, noting that the emails reflected reporters working a beat that was already live in the public domain given the money laundering arrests and the public discussion around new citizen GCB purchases.

Conveyancing timeline questioned​

Defence counsel raised the fact that the Astrid Hill transaction completed in four weeks, characterising this as unusually quick against a normal conveyancing period of eight to twelve weeks.

Davinder Singh opposed the line of questioning on relevance grounds, asking what issue the questions went to and suggesting the cross-examination was being used to pry into details of a private transaction.

The judge disallowed the questioning, ruling that relevance needed to be established before it could proceed. The point was not revisited during the day's proceedings.

Public interest versus public curiosity​

Sreenivasan pressed Shanmugam on whether GCB transactions were matters of public interest, given the public discussion around new citizen purchases and the 2023 money laundering arrests. Shanmugam drew a firm distinction between matters of public interest and matters the public is merely curious about.

"In my mind I draw a distinction between matters of public interest, which would relate to issues of policy which responsible newspapers would be concerned about, and matters that the public would be interested in — and the sale of my property would fall in the second category," he said.

When Sreenivasan asked Shanmugam why he did not want the sale reported, Shanmugam said it was a private transaction and that most people buying or selling property would prefer to keep such transactions private. He said he tended to disagree that the GCB transaction landscape constituted a matter of public interest and that the private transaction of his property was newsworthy.

When Sreenivasan asked whether the sale of the Astrid Hill property had hit a nerve with him, Shanmugam initially said: "No it did not hit a nerve at all. I did the sale."

When Sreenivasan pressed further, asking specifically whether the sale being reported had hit a nerve, Shanmugam said: "The sale being reported, with the suggestion that I was facilitating money laundering, that I run a system without checks and balances, and I took advantage of that to keep it under wraps — certainly."

The exchange grew heated at one point when Sreenivasan characterised one of Shanmugam's responses as a speech. When the minister took issue with the description, Sreenivasan noted he was not there to be cross-examined, to which Shanmugam replied that he was not there to be given ad hominem remarks.

The hearing ended past 12.30pm. As proceedings drew to a close, Sreenivasan noted that Shanmugam had multiple pressing engagements. Shanmugam replied: "Your Honour, I'm used to multiple pressing engagements. It doesn't faze me." Sreenivasan countered: "It fazes me."

Shanmugam had been scheduled to speak in parliament that afternoon on Singapore's response to the Middle East conflict. The trial continues on Wednesday, 8 April 2026, and is expected to run until Friday, 10 April 2026.

Bloomberg's defence​

Bloomberg and Low have filed defences denying that the December 2024 article is defamatory. Bloomberg stated it had no interest or reason to damage the ministers' reputations.

The news agency's position is that the article reported on a broader phenomenon in which some GCB purchases that are not caveated carry privacy benefits and tend to transact at higher prices. It said purchasers who do not wish their identities to be publicly discoverable commonly use trust structures, and that the ministers' transactions were cited as illustrative examples with no suggestion of wrongdoing.

Bloomberg further stated that no reasonable reader would infer any connection between Shanmugam's GCB purchase and money laundering. Should the court find the article defamatory, Bloomberg said it would rely on the defence of responsible journalism in the public interest.

Bloomberg is represented by lawyers from RCLT Law led by Remy Choo, with Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan and Senior Counsel Chelva Retnam Rajah acting as instructed counsel. Low is represented by Wong Thai Yong from his eponymous firm. Both ministers are represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh.

POFMA correction directions and related cases​

The Bloomberg article, published on 12 December 2024, was among several pieces that drew POFMA correction directions on 23 December 2024. Outlets including The Edge Singapore, The Independent Singapore, and TOC received directions relating to their coverage of or commentary on the GCB transactions.

Bloomberg has stated that it respectfully disagrees with the direction and reserves its right to appeal and challenge it, while maintaining that it stands by its reporting. The article remains publicly accessible and continues to carry the POFMA correction notice.

Separately, the two ministers brought a defamation suit against Terry Xu, chief editor of TOC, over TOC's article on the GCB transactions, which had cited Bloomberg's reporting. The ministers obtained a default judgment against Xu after he did not file a defence.

Under Singapore civil procedure, filing a defence would have required Xu to appear in Singapore in person to be cross-examined on his Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief; a defence unsupported by oral testimony at trial would not be accepted by the court. Xu has not entered Singapore since August 2022. Xu was ordered to pay each minister S$210,000 (approximately US$163,200) in damages, with costs to be determined at a later date.

---

Editor's note: The Online Citizen received a POFMA correction direction on 23 December 2024 in connection with its coverage of the Good Class Bungalow transactions referenced in this report. TOC does not agree with the direction.

​

 

[shiokalingam]

So this is not in the link, right ?

is it ownself buy from ownself ?

 

[batman1]

So this is not in the link, right ?

Sell also scared other people know who is the buyer ?Fishy ? 555

 

[Dongyi]

is it ownself buy from ownself ?

Where did you get the information that he said he knew the buyer wasn't a Chinese?

 

[batman1]

is it ownself buy from ownself ?

Who is the buyer ? Make a guess.555

 

[Dongyi]

Why did Sreenivssan chicken out when his cross examination of Shan about the unusually short period that it took to complete the conveyancing process was challenged by 巴咦?​

 

[Dongyi]

Today Sreenivasan proved public interest liao: