Latest news with #DavidSun
South China Morning Post
2 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong audit watchdog warns of quality risks amid undercutting and tight deadlines
The head of Hong Kong's auditing watchdog has raised concerns that some auditors are accepting jobs from listed companies at cheaper rates and too close to reporting deadlines, warning that this could affect the quality of their work. The Accounting and Financial Reporting Council (AFRC) said that 17 per cent of the 2,631 Hong Kong-listed companies changed auditors last year. The AFRC also said that it had randomly checked the work of 16 auditing firms that were replaced. The regulator found that of these 16 firms, 13 had received lower fees compared with the previous auditors, while 12 had quality issues and urged them to make improvements. 'Many of these audits were conducted under tight timelines due to late changes in auditor appointments, close to the reporting deadline,' said CEO Janey Lai Chui-pik at a media briefing on the annual audit quality review on Tuesday. 'These practices threaten both the independence of auditors and the quality of audits.' Accounting and Financial Reporting Council chairman David Sun and CEO Janey Lai at the regulator's office at Two Taikoo Place. Photo: Enoch Yiu One of the main reasons listed companies changed auditors was cheaper auditing fees, as existing auditors refused to give discounts. 'After the two sides have lengthy discussions and still cannot reach an agreement on cheaper auditing fees, a listed company usually finds a cheaper auditor just one or two months before the auditing deadline,' she said. 'In one case, a company changed its auditor three times in a year.'
Singapore Law Watch
15-07-2025
- Singapore Law Watch
High Court dismisses appeal of drink driver who killed one after treating Tampines road like racetrack
High Court dismisses appeal of drink driver who killed one after treating Tampines road like racetrack Source: Straits Times Article Date: 15 Jul 2025 Author: David Sun The High Court emphasised the severity of his actions, highlighting the betrayal of public trust and the disastrous consequences of drink driving, despite his compensation. Despite severe penalties and jail time, some drivers continue to gamble with their lives and those of others, said the High Court. And in the case of Jeremiah Ng En You, 36, who killed one person and injured six others in December 2021, the heaviest punishment for him will be the lifelong burden of knowing that his irresponsible and selfish action of drink driving claimed an innocent life, it added. On July 14, the High Court published its grounds of decision for dismissing Ng's appeal against his seven-year jail sentence for dangerous driving causing death. It had made the judgment on March 19. The court noted that while he had shown remorse by making voluntary compensation of about $457,000, such efforts were outweighed by the harm caused by the accident. Ng was sentenced in October 2023 after pleading guilty to one count of drink driving and another for causing the death of a Gojek driver by driving in a dangerous manner. He will also be disqualified from driving for 12 years after his release. The district judge who sentenced him at the time had said he treated the roads 'like the Grand Prix driving circuit'. On the night of Dec 23, 2021, Ng had dinner with his brother and two friends at his office in Tampines Street 93, and drank four cans of beer. When they left at about 11pm, Ng got behind the wheel of his brother's car, while the brother sat in the front passenger seat. He sped along Tampines Avenue 1 at around 11.10pm, travelling at between 157kmh and 169kmh, even though the speed limit there is 60kmh. As he approached the junction of Tampines Avenue 1 and Tampines Avenue 10, he slowed down to between 122kmh and 130kmh, but lost control of the vehicle as he was about to turn left. Instead, the car went straight, smashing through the centre divider along Tampines Avenue 10 and crashing into the side of a car driven by a Gojek driver who had two passengers at the time. The private-hire car then struck the right side of a second car and the front of a third car. A motorcycle was passing between the Gojek car and the second car at the time, and the motorcyclist was crushed between both vehicles. The second car also hit the right side of a nearby taxi. Officers who arrived at the scene shortly after found Ng reeking of alcohol. They arrested him after he failed a breathalyser test. The 59-year-old Gojek driver was pronounced dead at 12.01am the next day after he was taken to Changi General Hospital. Six others, including the two passengers in the Gojek car, were injured. The motorcyclist who was crushed between the two cars had the most significant injuries, including traumatic brain injury and fractures that left him with long-term disabilities. In its grounds of decision for dismissing Ng's appeal against his sentence, the High Court said this was considered one of the most serious cases of dangerous driving while under the influence of drink. It said: 'It is plainly foolish and hazardous to drive in this manner on any occasion. Our public roads are not a racetrack.' The High Court added that this warranted the maximum jail term of 10 years, which was reduced by 30 per cent on the basis that Ng pleaded guilty. It said that while it was honourable and remorseful of Ng to make voluntary compensation of around $457,000, this was outweighed by the death, injuries and property damage caused. Hence, it could not find sufficient mitigating reasons to reduce the sentence. For dangerous driving causing death, an offender can be jailed for between two and eight years as a first-time offender. If the offender is a serious offender, he can be jailed for between one year and two years more. The penalties for drink driving for a first-time offender is a jail term of up to 12 months, a fine of between $2,000 and $10,000, or both. Offenders may also face driving bans. The High Court said: 'In a country where order and general public safety define daily life, the decision to drive under the influence stands out not just as a reckless act, but as a dangerous betrayal of public trust. 'Drink driving is not just about broken laws or a mere lapse in judgment; it is about preventable tragedies and an act of seeming convenience with potentially disastrous consequences.' Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Ng En You Jeremiah (alias Huang Enyou) v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 135 Print
Singapore Law Watch
09-07-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
$3b money laundering case: 9 financial institutions handed $27.45m in MAS penalties over breaches
$3b money laundering case: 9 financial institutions handed $27.45m in MAS penalties over breaches Source: Straits Times Article Date: 09 Jul 2025 Author: David Sun & Angela Tan The Monetary Authority of Singapore said eight of the nine financial institutions did not adequately investigate suspicious transactions flagged by their own systems. Credit Suisse (Singapore Branch) and UOB were each handed more than $5 million in penalties for flouting anti-money laundering controls related to the $3 billion money laundering case in 2023. They were among nine financial institutions (FIs) hit with $27.45 million in composition penalties by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). On July 4, MAS announced the penalties and said it also took action against 18 individuals who worked for the FIs at the time. Credit Suisse, which was rescued and taken over by UBS in 2023, faced the highest penalty of $5.8 million. This also took into account its breaches from November 2017 to October 2023 in relation to accounts that the now-defunct Swiss bank maintained on behalf of certain US customers. Its penalties will be collected from UBS. UOB was next with penalties amounting to $5.6 million, and then UBS at $3 million. The other FIs are brokerage UOB Kay Hian, asset manager Blue Ocean Invest, Citibank N.A. Singapore and Citibank Singapore – collectively known as Citi – and the Singapore branches of Julius Baer, LGT Bank as well as fund services firm Trident Trust Company. MAS said the FIs did not adequately check on customers' sources of wealth, even though there were discrepancies in the documents they had provided. In fact, eight of the nine FIs did not adequately investigate suspicious transactions flagged by their own systems. Singapore's largest case of money laundering involving $3 billion in cash and assets saw 10 foreigners arrested in multiple islandwide raids here on Aug 15, 2023. The nine men and one woman, who were originally from Fujian, China, were jailed, deported and barred from re-entering Singapore. The group had dealings with several FIs here. MAS took action against the FI staff involved in managing relationships with members of the gang. Prohibition orders of between three and six years were slapped on four people from Blue Ocean Invest. They are the company's chief executive officer and executive director Tsao Chung-Yi; chief operating officer Wong Xuan Ling; executive director and relationship manager Henry Hsia Lun Wei; and former relationship manager Deng Xixi. MAS said that as senior managers, Mr Tsao and Ms Wong had failed in several areas, including developing adequate policies and ensuring these were subjected to audits. The prohibition orders mean they cannot manage and provide any FI services for the duration of the order. Additionally, MAS issued reprimands to three executive directors from Trident Trust and two former team heads from UOB. Trident Trust's executive directors, Mr Sean Andrew Coughlan, Mr Tan Ho Kiat and Ms Kek Yen Leng, had all failed to detect or adequately assess multiple deficiencies during the onboarding of higher-risk customers. UOB's former team heads of group retail privilege banking, Mr Alvin Ang Sze Hee and Mr Leonard Tan Sheng Rong, had failed to conduct or ensure proper due diligence. MAS said another nine relationship managers and supervisors were privately reprimanded for more limited lapses. They were not named by the authority. Reprimands do not necessarily mean the individual 'is currently unfit or improper', but are issued based on the individual's misconduct at the material time, said MAS. MAS added that it reviewed the conduct of a larger number of employees of the FIs linked to the case, but did not find evidence of significant lapses by most of them. However, action may still be taken against several others, after the conclusion of ongoing court proceedings and investigations. At $27.45 million, the penalties are smaller than the $29.1 million imposed on eight banks in 2017 for various anti-money laundering breaches related to Malaysia's 1Malaysia Development Berhad case. That case saw BSI Bank slapped with $13.3 million, and Falcon Bank with $4.3 million in penalties. Both merchant banks had their bank status pulled and were shut down. The Straits Times understands that while the financial penalties in the $3 billion money laundering case were not the largest, the supervisory engagements are among the most extensive and complex. Action has been taken against several others linked to the case. Wang Junjie, a former director at a corporate service provider, was sanctioned by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority and then charged with forgery in January. Two former relationship managers at banks, Liu Kai and Wang Qiming, were charged in August 2024 with allegedly facilitating the movement of illicit funds. The cases of all three are still pending. Two property agents, Tiew Chin Nee and Zhu Zhengxin, have been fined for their involvement in the case. Liew Yik Kit, the personal driver of one of the fugitives, was the first Singaporean to be dealt with. He was jailed for three months after pleading guilty to lying to the police. MAS said the penalties it has imposed took into account numerous factors, including the extent of the FI's exposure to the money launderers, the number of breaches and the degree of weakness in its anti-money laundering controls. Ms Ho Hern Shin, MAS' deputy managing director of financial supervision, said it will work closely with FIs to promote more consistent implementation of anti-money laundering measures. She added that the vigilance of FIs and their employees is critical, and MAS will take firm action where there are serious failings. The maximum fine for breaching MAS' requirements for the prevention of money laundering on banks, merchant banks, capital market intermediaries and licensed trust companies is $1 million per offence. Blue Ocean Invest acknowledged MAS' findings and said it has implemented measures to enhance its internal policies and procedures. UOB said that since the saga, it has implemented prompt remedial actions to address the deficiencies identified after a comprehensive internal review. These included stepping up its transaction monitoring and customer due diligence processes. The bank added that it has conducted a thorough assessment of the facts and circumstances surrounding the issues and staff involved, and taken appropriate actions to address accountability and discipline. An LGT spokesperson said the bank remains strongly committed to the fight against money laundering and safeguarding the integrity of Singapore's financial system. The composition sums will be paid to the Government's Consolidated Fund, which is similar to a bank account held by the Government, out of which government expenditures are made. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
16-06-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
‘Consultants' luring debtors to borrow more to exploit government bankruptcy avoidance scheme
'Consultants' luring debtors to borrow more to exploit government bankruptcy avoidance scheme Source: Straits Times Article Date: 15 Jun 2025 Author: David Sun At least a dozen debt consultants have been touting their services on TikTok, encouraging debtors to apply for bankruptcy. TikTokers advertising themselves as debt consultants are charging debtors thousands of dollars to exploit a government bankruptcy avoidance scheme. Checks by The Straits Times showed that there are at least a dozen such consultants on the social media platform. One consultant said that for a fee, he can guide debtors through the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) to help them secure a discount on their debt. He said he had helped a client clear a debt of more than $100,000 with a repayment of only one-third of what he owed, or $35,000. 'That's $65,000 savings, no shiok meh? (sic),' the man added. ST understands such firms charge debtors between $1,000 and $5,000 for their services. Credit Counselling Singapore (CCS), a non-profit organisation and registered charity, said it has seen a number of debtors falling prey to exploitative debt consultancy firms. CCS general manager Tan Huey Min said it had a debtor who approached the organisation after he paid a consultancy firm in hopes of getting on the DRS. The man had debts of more than $150,000, above the threshold for the bankruptcy avoidance scheme. Ms Tan said that when the debtor was deemed ineligible for the scheme, the debt consultancy firm did nothing to help him. 'When these debtors go to some of these firms, they are told they have to first fork out several thousand for their services. 'They already have no money, where do you expect them to find a few thousand?' she said. 'What some of them have done is unethical, because they call themselves a consultancy firm, but they don't provide comprehensive information even though they claim to be professionals. 'Then you tell people about the DRS to lure them and get them to borrow even more money to pay you, encouraging them to be irresponsible. It is not right,' she added. The DRS is a pre-bankruptcy programme administered by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) that the Government introduced in 2009. The voluntary scheme aims to help working debtors avoid bankruptcy, and help creditors get higher repayments than they would otherwise receive in the event of insolvency. Under the DRS, debtors with unsecured debts not exceeding $150,000 can enter a debt repayment plan of not more than five years and avoid bankruptcy. The structured repayment plan is under the supervision of an Official Assignee (OA), an officer of the court appointed by the Law Minister. When the debtor meets his financial obligations under the DRS, he will be released from his debts. MinLaw said on June 10 that it has noticed an increasing number of debtors engaging the services of consultancy firms that encourage debtors to self-petition for bankruptcy with the objective of being placed on the DRS. The ministry said this puts the debtor at risk of being pushed further into debt or being declared bankrupt, as they are not guaranteed to be eligible for the DRS. MinLaw data showed that 2,928 bankruptcy applications were filed by debtors in 2024. That represents 59 per cent of all applications made that year. It was the fifth consecutive year since 2020 that the number of self-filed applications was higher than applications by creditors. The firms are also encouraging debtors to borrow even more money from creditors to pay for their services, causing them to rack up more debt, MinLaw said. The ministry is proposing to make it an offence for debt consultancy firms to solicit for clients to file for bankruptcy, among other proposals. Not regulated Ms Tan noted that the MinLaw proposal would exempt professionals like lawyers and accountants and charities like CCS. This is because such entities are regulated. 'Debt consultancy firms are not regulated. They are profit-making (organisations), and may not be thinking about the best interests of debtors,' said Ms Tan. 'The DRS is meant for genuine debtors who are sincere but unable to make payments under their creditors' existing terms and conditions. It is not meant to be abused to circumvent making full repayment of debts.' Lawyer Tris Xavier, an associate director at Yuen Law, said there have been cases of debt consultancy firms filing proofs of debt against their own clients to claim money owed to them by these debtors. He said: 'We have seen some cases where the debt consultancy firms in question filed proofs of debt against the debtor, which dilutes the repayment to other legitimate creditors.' Mr Xavier said debtors do not receive proper advice from some debt consultancy firms. He added: 'There is a risk that the debtor might end up in bankruptcy. Individuals may also fail out of the DRS if they do not make regular payments, and might end up in bankruptcy anyway.' Debtors who file for bankruptcy on their own in the High Court have to pay $1,850 as a deposit. This will not be refunded if the application is successful. The High Court will then determine if these individuals should be referred to the OA, to be assessed for their suitability for the DRS. Debtors referred for the DRS have to pay preliminary fees of $600 for assessment and administrative costs. The consultants on TikTok falsely claim that a debtor can apply for the DRS 'to solve all the issues', with one even claiming the scheme could help settle their debts 'three times faster and save thousands of dollars'. Another claims '100% approval during application'. On its website, MinLaw says it is not possible to directly sign up or apply for the DRS. ST reached out to three debt consultancy firms, which said they are supportive of MinLaw's proposals but argued against a blanket rule for the industry. A spokesman for Viv Associates said: 'We do hope MinLaw will consider making room for selected debt consultancy firms, those with a strong compliance history and client care infrastructure, to be exempted from the blanket restriction. Ultimately, this is about protecting the public and preserving access to quality guidance. We believe that balance is possible and necessary.' Two of the firms contacted said that debtors are free to go ahead and file the paperwork themselves if they so wish. A spokesman for EDUdebt said: 'Our services exist for debtors who prefer professional support with their DRS documentation. We offer full transparency – and our fees only apply after the debtor independently decides to file for bankruptcy and is considered for DRS by the court.' Aside from making it unlawful for debt consultancy firms to solicit for business in such a manner, MinLaw is also making two other proposals. These are to add a new ground of failure for individuals who incur debts with no reasonable ground of expectation of being able to pay, and to impose a four-week time limit for creditors to file their proofs of debt under the DRS. Members of the public are invited to provide their feedback on the proposed key amendments after viewing the full consultation paper at Those who wish to submit their views and feedback may do so by June 27 at Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
10-06-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
MinLaw to propose laws targeting debt consultancy firms exploiting debt repayment scheme
MinLaw to propose laws targeting debt consultancy firms exploiting debt repayment scheme Source: Straits Times Article Date: 10 Jun 2025 Author: David Sun MinLaw said there has been an increasing number of debtors engaging the services of consultancy firms, which encourage debtors to self-petition for bankruptcy with the objective of being placed on the Debt Repayment Scheme. Laws around a scheme to help individuals avoid insolvency may be tightened, with the authorities targeting firms that encourage individuals to borrow money and file for bankruptcy to get a discount off their debts. These consultancy firms are looking to abuse the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS), a pre-bankruptcy scheme administered by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw). On June 9, MinLaw said there has been an increasing number of debtors engaging the services of consultancy firms, which encourage debtors to self-petition for bankruptcy with the objective of being placed on the DRS. 'This is done not with the intention of being adjudged a bankrupt, but with the intention of abusing the DRS to obtain a discount off their debts,' the ministry said. A debtor can avoid being made bankrupt if he is put on the DRS, but he must file for bankruptcy first before being considered for the scheme. MinLaw said that the consultancy firms are charging debtors sizeable fees and encouraging them to borrow money from creditors to pay for their services. 'Due in part to this trend, there has been an increase in the number of debtor-initiated bankruptcy applications, where debtors borrow irresponsibly to pay for such consultancy firms' services in helping them apply for bankruptcy,' MinLaw said. The Straits Times reported in March that more than half of the bankruptcy applications in 2024 were made by the debtors themselves – the fifth consecutive year since 2020 that the number of self-filed applications was higher than applications by creditors. MinLaw data showed that 2,928 bankruptcy applications were filed by debtors in 2024. That represents 59 per cent of all applications made that year. The DRS is a voluntary, debtor-driven scheme intended to help wage-earning debtors with relatively small debts avoid bankruptcy while helping creditors receive higher repayments than they would otherwise receive in the event of insolvency. Under the DRS, debtors with unsecured debts not exceeding $150,000 can enter a debt repayment plan over a fixed period of not more than five years with their creditors and avoid bankruptcy. When the debtor meets his financial obligations under the DRS, he will be released from his debts. MinLaw said it noticed an increasing number of debtors engaging the services of consultancy firms that encourage debtors to self-petition for bankruptcy with the objective of being placed on the DRS. To address the issue, the ministry is proposing a new law that will make it a crime for businesses to solicit and canvass any person to make a bankruptcy application. Regulated professionals, in particular lawyers, accountants and financial advisers, as well as charitable entities that are institutions of a public character, will be exempted. The offence will be punishable with a $10,000 fine or three years' jail, or both. The DRS was introduced in 2009 as people grappled with the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession, which caused many to lose their jobs and take pay cuts. It began with a debt threshold of $100,000, but this was increased to the current $150,000 in 2020 following a review in 2016. Under the scheme, debtors make repayments of their debt by following a structured repayment plan under the supervision of the Official Assignee (OA), an officer of the court appointed by the Law Minister. MinLaw said that as part of a review of the scheme, it is also looking to add two new grounds of unsuitability for the DRS. They include the failure to pay the preliminary fees and incurring of debts with no reasonable ground of expectation of being able to pay. Debtors who are referred to the OA to be assessed for their suitability for the DRS are required to pay preliminary fees totalling $600. In addition, MinLaw is also looking to add as a new ground of failure individuals who incur debts with no reasonable ground of expectation of being able to pay, and imposing a four-week time limit for creditors to file their proofs of debt under the DRS. Members of the public are invited to provide their feedback on the proposed key amendments after viewing the full consultation paper at Those who wish to submit their views and feedback may do so by June 27 at Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
