Woody's son Goh Jin Hian's criminal trial starting on 4th February

[Tragedeigh]

This thread got many legally trained professionals

 

[Boonsiong]

The Court is under no legal or evidential requirement to regard the testimony of one co-accused against another with suspicion. Any resulting prejudice is properly addressed by the affected co-accused through cross-examination.

In other words, I expect SC Tan and his team to come out guns blazing, Clint Eastwood–style, and to blow the co-accused’s credibility to pieces.​

Andy Lau ?

 

[face the facts]

fucking farce, 2018 till now is 8 years, might as well wait till 3018 then try the fucker

 

[Boonsiong]

This thread got many legally trained professionals

I use Google AI mode

 

[Dreamliner787]

Andy Lau ?

Andy looks more like 'N' level ... handsome 'N' level. He lacks that wu takchek look of a lawyer, let alone a barrister.

George Carman, QC would be right.​

 

[Boonsiong]

I think SC Tan must prove to the court if Co-accused made financially gain from market manipulation

 

[Boonsiong]

Andy looks more like 'N' level ... handsome 'N' level. He lacks that wu takchek look of a lawyer, let alone a barrister.

When I was a kid, I was inspired by the movie 法外情 法内情

 

[Dreamliner787]

When I was a kid, I was inspired by the movie 法外情 法内情

"Man in the Net" started the trend of boh takchek handsome male.

Ever since then it's all about 耍帅.

 

[Dreamliner787]

Can co-accused evidence be admitted ?

In Singapore, a co-accused in a joint criminal trial may give evidence, and their confession or testimony can be used as evidence against other co-accused to support a conviction, even for serious charges like drug trafficking. The court has discretion to rely on such evidence, although it is treated with caution and generally requires corroboration.
Key aspects of a co-accused giving evidence in Singapore include:
Admissibility of Confession: Under the Evidence Act, the confession of a co-accused (when jointly tried) is admissible against others, and a conviction can be based solely on this evidence, according to this article from Transformative Justice Collective.
Cross-Examination: If a co-accused gives evidence, they can be cross-examined by the prosecution or by other co-accused, notes this section of the Evidence Act on Singapore Statutes Online.
Voluntary Evidence: A co-accused is generally expected to testify voluntarily to support their own defense, rather than being called by another co-accused, notes this legal document from Lanka Law.
Credibility Issues: Questions regarding the co-accused's testimony are allowed if they are relevant to their credibility as a witness, according to this section of the Evidence Act on Singapore Statutes Online.

Law of Evidence not easy, cannot 死背 one.

 

[Dreamliner787]

I think SC Tan must prove to the court if Co-accused made financially gain from market manipulation

I doubt it. But to answer your question, Huang was paid $60,000 per month and received a three-month deposit upfront for an assignment that was supposed to last six months. Songboh ?

From the prosecution's point of view, the defining element is always intent to create a false or misleading appearance, not merely the fact that a share price moved. SC Tan would have to argue that there was no intent to mislead and that the trades were executed for genuine commercial purposes, namely: returning surplus cash to shareholders, maintaining healthy EPS ratios, and stabilizing liquidity, not price manipulation.

I find it curious that the Company does not appear to have had a General Counsel or Chief Legal Officer. Otherwise, it would likely be easier to demonstrate good faith by showing that the Company relied on legal and financial advisors before executing the buybacks.​

 

[Dreamliner787]

When I was a kid, I was inspired by the movie 法外情 法内情

My mother was inspired by the character of Deanie Ip

 

[Boonsiong]

My mother was inspired by the character of Deanie Ip

I thought Ms Ip stays in Jurong East

 

[Boonsiong]

Today got trial

 

[Dreamliner787]

Today got trial

The relevant account is that of the other co-accused, Kelvyn Oo. The Company did not have a Chief Legal Officer, and Kelvyn, a lawyer, held the role of Chief Corporate Officer.​

 

[Boonsiong]

The relevant account is that of the other co-accused, Kelvyn Oo. The Company did not have a Chief Legal Officer, and Kelvyn, a lawyer, held the role of Chief Corporate Officer.​

Also Goh Jin Hian and his accomplices did not file notice to SGX about their own share purchase