[2026] SGDC 186

IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

[2026] SGDC 186

District Arrest Case No. DAC-929315-2017 & Ors
Magistrate’s Appeal No. MA-9197-2025-02 & 03
District Arrest Case No. DAC-927051-2018
Magistrate’s Appeal No. MA-9198-2025-01

Public Prosecutor
Against

1) Loy Wei Ezekiel

2) Gian Juat Ngim

GROUNDS OF DECISION

[Criminal Law]- [Penal Code] — [Criminal Breach of Trust by agent] — [Dishonest misappropriation of company funds by director] — [Conviction and sentencing on basis of “layered” transactions, absence of authorisation, and sole personal benefit]

[Criminal Law] — [Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act] — [Transferring benefits of criminal conduct] — [Conviction and sentencing of primary offender on tracing of misappropriated funds through multiple accounts]

[Criminal Law] — [Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act] — [Facilitating control of benefits of criminal conduct] — [Conviction and sentencing of secondary offender on basis of reasonable grounds to believe in criminal conduct]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

THE CHARGES 1

SPECIMEN CHARGES FOR REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS 3

BACKGROUND 4

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS 5

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 5

WITNESSES AND THEIR ROLES 9

PROSECUTION WITNESSES 9

DEFENCE WITNESSES 10

THE DEFENCE'S CASE 11

MEDICAL WITNESSES SUPPORTING RONALD YIP’S DEMENTIA

DIAGNOSIS 12

EVIDENCE OF PW14 DR MERVYN KOH 12

IMPLICATIONS OF DR MERVYN KOH’S EVIDENCE TO THIS CASE 14

EVIDENCE OF DR JEROME GOH 15

RONALD’S ASSESSED INABILITY TO GIVE A COHERENT PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF

SALIENT EVENTS CONNECTED TO THE CASE 15

NO SERIOUS REBUTTAL BY DEFENCE TO SHOW RONALD WAS COMPETENT TO GIVE

TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 16

TESTIMONY OF RONALD’D DAUGHTER PW8, YIP LI-FEN 17

EVIDENCE OF YIP LI-FEN 17

LI-FEN’S ACCOUNT OF RONALD'S HOSPITALISATION IN JULY 2016 18

FIRST CONTACT WITH THE FIRST ACCUSED, EZEKIEL LOY 18

OBSERVATIONS OF RONALD'S DETERIORATING MENTAL STATE 18

LIFEN’S RETURN IN SEPTEMBER 2016 AND MEDICAL APPOINTMENT BEFORE DR KOH

RONALD’S FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE COUTTS LOAN 20

LI-FEN’S NOVEMBER 2016 TRIP AND DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE ETHOZ LOAN

RONALD’S TEXT MESSAGES OF 30 DECEMBER 2016 21

LI-FEN’S MAY 2017 VISIT TO HELP UNCOVER THE TRAIL OF MONIES AND

DISPOSITIONS 22

FURTHER DISCOVERIES UPON LI-FEN’S JUNE 2017 RETURN AND PREPARATIONS FOR

CIVIL ACTION 23

WHY LI-FEN WAS A CRITICAL WITNESS 23

RONALDS’S MESSAGES TO VARIOUS PARTIES, HIS REPORTS TO THE

POLICE, AND LETTER TO AGC & CAD 24

RONALD’S DOCUMENT TRAIL 24

RONALD’S LETTER TO ONE LEGAL LLC DATED 29 DECEMBER 2016 25

REACTION BY ETHOZ TO THE 29 DECEMBER 2016 LETTER 26

PW13’S ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT MR LOY IN THE WAKE OF THE LETTER 27

PW13’S ACCOUNT OF MR LOY’S EVASIVE RESPONSES 27

REACTION BY ONE LEGAL LLC TO THE 29 DECEMBER 2016 LETTER 27

RONALD YIP’S 9 JANUARY 2017 LETTER 29

RONALD’S ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD ON MR LOY’S PART AND COMMUNICATION OF INTENT TO REPORT TO CAD IN HIS SECOND LETTER REPRESENTED A SIGNIFICANT

ESCALATION 30

RONALD’S DIRECT MESSAGE TO MR LOY 31

RONALD YIP’S FIR OF 12 JANUARY 2017 32

RONALD’S LETTER TO CAD AND AGC 33

INTERIM ANALYSIS 35

RECONSTRUCTING RONALD’S INTENTIONS AND STATE OF MIND FROM HIS STATEMENTS JUXTAPOSED FROM HIS MEDICAL HISTORY AND LI-FEN CONCURRENT

EVIDENCE 35

RONALD’S PATTERN OF ESCALATION WAS COHERENT AND METHODICAL, SUGGESTING

HE WAS IN CONTROL OF HIS FACULTIES AT THE MATERIAL TIME 36

LI-FEN CORROBORATED RONALD’S EVIDENCE AND HAD NO MOTIVE TO FRAME THE

TWO ACCUSED PERSONS 37

CORROBORATION BY INDEPENDENT WITNESSES PW13 BRENDAN CAI AND PW19

TRACY CHEN 38

RONALD’S DISCLOSURES IN HIS ENCOUNTERS WITH PW13 AND PW19 WERE

CONTEMPORANEOUS, UNSCRIPTED AND SPONTANEOUS 39

THE FIRST ACCUSED WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO NOTICE ON RONALD’S POSITION BY

PW13’S TEXT MESSAGES 40

THE PROSECUTION’S CASE 40

THE FIRST ACCUSED'S INCORPORATION OF Y&L AND HIS IMMEDIATE ACTIONS WHEN THE BALANCE SUM BECAME AVAILABLE RAISE THE INDEX OF SUSPICION .... 41

THE ABSENCE OF ANY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR THE TRANSFER THROUGH Y&L

THE OPENING OF THE CITIBANK ACCOUNT AND ITS DORMANCY BEFORE THE

AVAILABILITY OF THE BALANCE SUM 42

GROSS MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ABOUT THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE FUNDS

MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE FUNDS AND REASONS FOR THEIR

TRANSFER 43

RONALD’S IGNORANCE OF THE TRANSFER 43

THE FIRST ACCUSED'S FUND MOVEMENTS DISCLOSE A CONSCIOUSNESS OF

WRONGDOING 44

NO COMMERCIAL RATIONALE PRESENTED ITSELF FOR THE TRANSFER THROUGH

Y&L'S ACCOUNT 44

THE BALANCE SUM WAS SPENT SOLELY FOR THE FIRST ACCUSED'S PERSONAL

BENEFIT 45

THE LUCKY PLAZA PROPERTY 45

THE LUCKY PLAZA TRANSACTION HAD LITTLE SEMBLANCE TO A JOINTLY AGREED

INVESTMENT 45

MR LOY’S MISREPRESENTATION TO OCBC THAT A DOWNPAYMENT CAME FROM DIRECTORSHIP FEES, SALES OF INVESTMENTS, SAVINGS AND BUSINESS INCOME

RATHER THAN THE BALANCE SUM	46
SHARE PURCHASES	46
PAYMENTS TO INNOMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES (“INNOMEDIA”)	47
EVIDENCE OF DW3, DEXTAN FUN	48
THE ROLEX YACHT-MASTER WATCH	49
THE MERCEDES SPORTS CAR	50
USE OF BALANCE SUM FOR RETAIL PURCHASES AND COURT BAIL	52

THE DEFENCE CASE 52

THE DEFENCE CASE ON THE CENTRAL QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE WAS A

DISHONEST MISAPPROPRIATION BY THE FIRST ACCUSED 52

RONALD'S MENTAL CAPACITY 53

ANALYSIS OF DEFENCE SUBMISSIONS ON RONALD’S MENTAL CAPACITY 55

SUBMISSIONS ON RONALD’S APPARENT CAPACITY ARE CONTRARY TO ACTUAL

MEDICAL EVIDENCE 55

NO COMPETING DEFENCE EXPERT TO GIVE AN OPPOSING MEDICAL VIEWPOINT56

WHY RONALD’S CONDITION WAS ONLY ONE PART OF THE EQUATION 57

THE ALLEGED INVESTMENT AGREEMENT 57

THE DEFENCE SUBMISSION DID NOT ENGAGE ISSUES CONCERNING THE FIRST

ACCUSED’S CREDIBILITY 58

FINAL ANALYSIS 59

WOULD RONALD HAVE APPROVED THE FIRST ACCUSED’S USE OF THE BALANCE SUM,

IF IT WAS NEVER USED FOR YHPL'S BENEFIT 59

ANALYSING THE FIRST ACCUSED AS WITNESS 60

EXTERNAL CONSISTENCY 60

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY 61

DEMEANOUR AND OVERALL CREDIBILITY 63

THE FIRST ACCUSED'S TENDENCY TO MAKE UNFOUNDED CLAIMS AND PERSONAL

ATTACKS ERODED HIS CREDIBILITY 65

THE CDSA CHARGES AGAINST THE FIRST ACCUSED 67

THE SECOND ACCUSED'S INVOLVEMENT AND CULPABILITY 69

MDM GIAN'S AWARENESS OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATION INTO MR LOY 71

THE DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THE SUMS RECEIVED AND ANY LEGITIMATE SOURCE

MDM GIAN'S SILENCE WHEN MR LOY MISREPRESENTED HER ROLE TO BHUPESH 73

MDM GIAN'S EVIDENCE AND ITS RELIABILITY 73

THE CDSA CHARGES AGAINST MR LOY 75

VERDICT 76

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS 76

FINDINGS AT TRIAL RELEVANT TO SENTENCE 76

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES 78

SENTENCE FOR THE CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST CHARGE 79

MITIGATING FACTORS FOR THE CBT CHARGE 82

THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE FOR THE CBT CHARGE 83

SENTENCES FOR THE CDSA CHARGES 84

SENTENCE FOR MDM GIAN'S CDSA CHARGE 86

CONCLUSION ON MDM GIAN'S SENTENCE 88

CONCLUSION ON MR LOY'S SENTENCES AND THE GLOBAL SENTENCE 89

THE GLOBAL SENTENCE 89

SENTENCES IMPOSED: 91

BACKDATING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL REMAND DATES 92

CONCLUDING SENTENCING REMARKS 92

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THESE GROUNDS 94

DISPOSITION OF ACCUSED PERSONS 94

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.

Public Prosecutor

1) Loy Wei Ezekiel

2) Gian Juat Ngim

[2026] SGDC 186

District Arrest Case No. DAC-929315-2017 & Ors
Magistrate’s Appeal No. MA-9197-2025-02 & 03
District Arrest Case No. DAC-927051-2018
Magistrate’s Appeal No. MA-9198-2025-01

District Judge Marvin Bay

26-30 August 2019, 29 January 2020, 18-22 January 2021, 1-2 , 4-5 & 8-12 March 2021, 9 April 2021, 14 May 2021, 28 June 2021, 30 August 2021, 6 December 2021, 6 April 2022, 25-28 October 2022, 9-11, 14-18 & 30 November 2022, 1 & 13 February 2023, 9 March 2023, 10 & 18 April 2023, 2 & 12 May 2023, 30 May 2023, 3 & 24 July 2023, 14 & 21 August 2023 , 4 ,15 & 28 September 2023, 5 & 19 October 2023, 11 &

19 January 2024, 19 & 20-21 March 2024, 19 & 22-25 April 2024, 10-14 & 18-21 June 2024, 12 & 17 July 2024, 15-16 & 19-22 August 2024, 16-20 & 23-25 September 2024,

20 January 2025, 12 February 2025, 10 July 2025, 6 August 2025, 16 October 2025, 18 December 2025

26 June 2026

District Judge Marvin Bay

INTRODUCTION

The Charges

1 These are my grounds of decision in respect of the prosecution brought against

two accused persons, namely the First Accused Ezekiel Loy Wei ("Mr Loy"), currently

aged 32, and the second accused Gian Juat Ngim ("Mdm Gian"), aged 61, who is the First Accused's mother.

2 The First Accused, Mr Loy, faced one charge under section 406 of the Penal Code for the initial transfer of the $1,268,500 (referred to as the "Balance Sum") into his sole control. Mr Loy faces a further 34 charges under section 47 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act ("CDSA") for his subsequent transfers and uses of the Balance Sum.

3 In all, Mr Loy faced 35 charges. The primary charge under section 406 of the Penal Code for Criminal Breach of Trust ("CBT") concerns the misappropriation of funds from YHPL's bank account into another company, Yip & Loy Pte Ltd ("Y&L"), on 18 November 2016.

4 The 34 CDSA charges under section 47(1)(b) and (c), punishable under section 47(6), break down into several categories. These included payments of $116,500 towards a Lucky Plaza property; transfers totalling $150,000 to Mdm Gian's first POSB1 account; transfers totalling $550,000 to Mdm Gian's second POSB account; $600,000 in cheque transfers to his mother; $113,987.89 in transfers to Mr Loy's personal OCBC account; $125,519.40 in Electronic Payment for Shares ("EPS") transactions; and $18,259.95 in housing loan payments.

5 Mdm Gian faced one charge under section 44(1) of the CDSA for knowingly facilitating the control of criminal proceeds through her bank accounts between November 2016 and June 2017. The prosecution has argued that Mdm Gian had reasonable grounds to believe in Mr Loy's criminal conduct, given his status as a National Serviceman of Private rank with limited income, the unusually large sums deposited into her accounts, and her knowledge that he was under police investigation for cheating.

6 It is not disputed that these events occurred while Mr Loy was serving full-time National Service, his NS liability extending between May 2016 and May 2018. Within that period, Mr Ronald Yip, the complainant, was hospitalised and diagnosed with post-

1 In the context of these grounds, the reference to “POSB” accounts pertains to accounts from DBS Bank Ltd.

ICU delirium. The case culminated in Mr Loy's arrest on 16 August 2017, followed by Mdm Gian's arrest on 14 November 2017.

Specimen charges for reference and analysis

7 I will now set out specimen charges preferred against both accused person to allow a contextual reference point and to facilitate an analysis of the case. For Mr Loy, I will set out the single proceeded criminal misappropriation charge as well as one of the CDSA charges.

8 For the First Accused, Mr Loy, this is the criminal misappropriation charge proceeded against him:

DAC-929315-2017

(Mr Loy is) charged that (he), on or about 18 November 2016, in Singapore, having been entrusted with dominion over property, to wit, S$1,268,500 in Yip Holdings Pte Ltd’s Citibank account xxxxxxxxxx, did dishonestly misappropriate the said property, and (he has) thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224

9 This is a specimen CDSA charge against the First Accused: DAC-922482-2018

(Mr Loy is) charged that (he), on 7 February 2017, in Singapore, did transfer property, namely a sum of S$450,000, that in whole directly represents (his) benefits from criminal conduct, namely, criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Penal Code, to Gian Juat Ngim via cheque, and (he has) thereby committed an offence under Section 47(1)(b) and punishable under Section 47(6)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A).

10 For reference, the sole proceeded CDSA charge against the Second Accused; Mdm Gian is set out below:

DAC-927051-2018

(Mdm Gian is) charged that (she), between November 2016 and June 2017, in Singapore, entered into an arrangement involving your DBS Bank accounts No. xxx-xxxxx-x and No. xxx xxxxx-x, when (she) had reasonable grounds to believe that one Loy Wei Ezekiel was engaged in criminal conduct, and further that (she) had reasonable grounds to believe that by the arrangement, the control of the said Loy Wei Ezekiel’s benefits of criminal conduct would be facilitated, and (she has) thereby committed an offence under Section 44(1)(a) and punishable under Section 44(5)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A).

Background

11 I turn now to the background touching on the provenance of the stated Balance Sum. The sequence of events began between late 2015 and early 2016 when Mr Loy met Mr Ronald Yip ("Ronald"). Ronald2 was at the time a divorcee and unemployed elderly man who lived alone in his Telok Kurau bungalow. He was the sole director and shareholder of Yip Holdings Pte Ltd ("YHPL"), and his property had an outstanding mortgage with Coutts & Co Ltd. Ronald's only family member of note was a daughter, Yip Li-Fen ("Li-Fen"), who resided in New York.

12 Upon his association with Ronald, Mr Loy subsequently became a director of YHPL, a directorship created while he was serving full-time National Service at the rank of Private. The prosecution contends that Mr Loy began executing his scheme by incorporating Y&L on 15 August 2016, making himself the sole director and shareholder of that company. This incorporation occurred during the very period when Ronald was hospitalised at Tan Tock Seng Hospital during July and August 2016, where he later received a diagnosis of post-ICU delirium on 14 September 2016.

13 In late September 2016, Mr Loy acquired a controlling 52.5% stake, amounting to 105,000 shares, in YHPL. He then secured a $4 million loan from Ethoz Capital on 6 October 2016, using Ronald's Telok Kurau property as collateral. Of this $4 million loan, $2.45 million was utilised to discharge the existing Coutts mortgage, $281,500 was retained by Ethoz, and the remaining $1,268,500 was disbursed to YHPL on 17 November 2016.

14 The day after, Mr Loy transferred the entire Balance Sum through Y&L to his personal Citibank account. The prosecution contends that Mr Loy then systematically dispersed these funds, including delivering some $850,000 to his mother's accounts and purchasing a Lucky Plaza property for $1,495,000. The property purchase was funded through various means, including an OCBC Housing Loan of $1.0465 million and transfers routed through his mother's accounts.

2 I will refer to Mr Ronald Yip as “Ronald” rather than “Mr Yip” as, unlike the two accused persons who have distinctly different surnames “Loy” and “Gian”, he shares his surname with another critical witness, his daughter, PW8 Yip Li-Fen. Aside from the accused persons, both father and daughter are the most frequently referred to parties in these grounds and often in the same paragraph or even sentence, hence for ease of reference Ms Yip Li-Fen will also be referred to as “Li-Fen” rather than “Ms Yip”.

15 It was especially notable that during this period, Mdm Gian was working as a part-time tutor and caring for her husband, who had suffered a stroke. The prosecution characterised Mdm Gian as an active participant in the alleged scheme, playing a facilitative role and following Mr Loy's instructions to use the deposited monies for specific purposes, including a payment of $368,823.97 for the Lucky Plaza property and subsequently $30,000 for Mr Loy's court bail.

The Undisputed Facts

16 Before turning to the contested issues, it is useful to set out what is not in dispute. It is undisputed that Mr Loy was entrusted with dominion over the Balance Sum as an authorised signatory for YHPL's bank account. Also undisputed was that the First Accused transferred the Balance Sum from YHPL's account into Y&L's account on 18 November 2016, just one day after the funds were deposited.

17 It was also not in contention that Mr Loy then transferred $1,268,400.78 from Y&L's account into his personal Citibank account on the same day. There was no dispute that the First Accused subsequently transferred $850,000 to Mdm Gian's personal bank accounts, and $113,987.89 to his own personal OCBC account.

18 It was also an undisputed fact that Mr Loy purchased the Lucky Plaza property in his sole name, purchased shares in his sole name, and made payments to a firm Innomedia Technologies for personal projects. Finally, it is undisputed that no monies from the Balance Sum was ever paid over, remitted or otherwise returned to YHPL.

19 The central question in the CBT charge is therefore whether Mr Loy dishonestly misappropriated these moneys. As I shall explain, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

Sequence of events

20 I have set out a timeline of significant events to facilitate ease of analysis:

(1) End 2015/Early 2016 — Mr Loy meets Ronald Yip Fook Chong, who at the time was the sole director and shareholder of Yip Holdings Pte Ltd (YHPL), unemployed, living alone, and divorced.

(2) 14 July–4 August 2016 — Ronald is hospitalised at Tan Tock Seng Hospital and is subsequently diagnosed with post-ICU delirium on 14 September 2016.

(3) 15 August 2016 — Mr Loy incorporates Yip & Loy Pte Ltd (Y&L) with himself as the sole director and shareholder, with neither Ronald nor YHPL holding any shares or positions in Y&L.

(4) 14 September 2016- Ronald’s geriatric physician Dr Mervyn Koh provides a diagnosis of post-ICU delirium after Ronald is hospitalised, which featured short-term memory loss, aphasia (or word-finding difficulty), and disorganised thinking where he was unable to reason with his daughter logically.

(5) 22–23 September 2016 — 105,000 shares in YHPL, constituting 52.5% of YHPL's total shares, are transferred from Ronald to Mr Loy and lodged with ACRA.

(6) 6 October 2016 — YHPL enters into a Secured Term Loan Facility Agreement with Ethoz Capital for a loan of S$4,000,000, secured by a mortgage on Ronald's Telok Kurau property and personal guarantees from both Ronald and Mr Loy.

(7) 17 November 2016 — The Balance Sum of S$1,268,500 (being the residue of the Ethoz Loan after discharge of the Coutts mortgage and retention of fees) is deposited into YHPL's Citibank account.

(8) 18 November 2016 — Mr Loy transfers the entire Balance Sum from YHPL's account into Y&L's Citibank account, and on the same day transfers S$1,268,400.78 from Y&L's account into his own personal Citibank account in three transactions — just one day after the Balance Sum was received by YHPL.

(9) 21–24 November 2016 — Mr Loy withdraws cash totalling S$14,6003 from his personal Citibank account, passes the money to Mdm Gian, who deposits it into her account and uses her Visa credit card to purchase a Rolex Yacht-Master watch for S$14,800 on Mr Loy's behalf. The invoice for the purchase bore only Mr Loy's name, and he signed the field confirming that the item was received in good order.

3 The payment of $14,800 was from withdrawals of S$600, S$11,000 and S$3,000 totalling S$14,600, with the difference of S$200 made up from the existing balance in Mdm Gian's account.

(10) 21 November–16 December 2016 — Mr Loy applies S$116,500 from his personal Citibank account towards the purchase of a property at Lucky Plaza #12-03 in his sole name, covering the deposit, stamp duty, and legal fees.

(11) 15 December 2016–10 January 2017 — Mr Loy makes retail purchases totalling at least S$164.45 from his personal Citibank account at Shell, Esso, and NTUC FairPrice outlets, all traceable to the Balance Sum. Mr Loy claimed these were for "petty expenses" required for "investments", but this was unsupported by any evidence of claimed use.

(12) 8 December 2016–17 March 2017 — Mr Loy uses S$125,519.40 from his OCBC account to purchase shares in his sole name via the Electronic Payment for Shares (EPS) service over 11 payments. All shares were purchased in his sole name and no moneys flowed from his trading account back to YHPL.

(13) 3 January–15 February 2017 — Mr Loy transfers a total of S$850,000 from his personal Citibank account into Mdm Gian's two personal DBS bank accounts, wholly traceable to the Balance Sum. Mr Loy's actions had the effect of mixing money and obfuscating the trail.

(14) 2 January 2017 — Mr Loy visits Sng Auto Trading, expresses interest in purchasing a Mercedes sports car bearing registration SKE350H, goes on a test drive, and tells the car dealer that he would be the driver of the vehicle. Mr Loy did not mention that the Mercedes car was for any other purpose, such as for investment.

(15) 9 February 2017 — On a single day, Mdm Gian transfers S$400,000 from one of her DBS accounts to another, withdraws the sum in cash in two tranches of S$254,000 and S$146,000, and deposits the same amounts in cash into Mr Loy's OCBC account, which is then used the following day to satisfy the fixed deposit required for the OCBC Housing Loan for the Lucky Plaza Property.

(16) 16 February 2017 — Acting on Mr Loy's instructions, Mdm Gian applies for
and is issued a Cashier's Order for S$30,000 payable to the State Courts to put up court bail for Mr Loy, traceable to the Balance Sum.

(17) 22 February 2017- TTSH Senior Consultant Geriatrician Dr Mervyn Koh diagnoses Ronald with Post-ICU Cognitive Impairment, noting his (CMMSE) scores falling in the mild dementia range.

(18) 27 February 2017 — Mdm Gian issues a Cashier's Order for S$368,823.97 from her DBS account towards the balance of the purchase price of the Lucky Plaza Property, substantially traceable to the Balance Sum.

(19) 25 March–11 July 2017 — Mr Loy makes seven payments totalling S$24,500 to Innomedia Technologies Pte Ltd for two IT projects, "Car Street" and "Property Street", both for his own benefit and with no involvement of Ronald or YHPL. Neither project ultimately came to fruition, and Mr Loy did not fully pay for either project.

(20) 16 August 2017 — Mr Loy is arrested by the Police in relation to this case.

(21) 14 November 2017- Mdm Gian is also arrested. Both voluntarily give numerous statements to the Police.

(22) 25 July 2019 — Mr Loy's former lawyers file the Case for the Defence for both Mr Loy and Mdm Gian prior to the commencement of trial. Mr Loy would later claim, over five years after filing, that he had never seen the Case for the Defence before.

(23) 26 August 2019- The trial begins.

(24) 18 October 2020 — Ronald is medically assessed by IMH to be unfit to testify due to significant cognitive deficits, and his dementia had progressed to the moderate stage by July 2020. He does not testify at trial.

(25) 13 December 2021- Mr Loy is reported to have absconded in the middle of trial.

(26) 22 April 2022- Mr Loy is arrested and produced before a mentions court, allowing the trial to continue. The First Accused makes allegations against the prosecuting DPPs and the Attorney General before the mentions judge.

(27) 25 September 2024-The trial proper concludes after 64 hearing days, and parties opt for written submissions.

(28) 6 August 2025- After parties filed their sets of closing and reply submissions, court to convicted Mr Loy on all 35 charges (one CBT charge under Section 406 of the Penal Code and 34 CDSA charges) and Mdm Gian on one CDSA charge.

(29) 18 December 2025 – Mr Loy and Mdm Gian are sentenced. WITNESSES AND THEIR ROLES

21 The trial involved a very considerable slate of witnesses. These included the following material witnesses:

Prosecution Witnesses

22 The prosecution’s slate included two medical witnesses on account of Yip Fook Chong ("Ronald"), the complainant and former sole director and shareholder of YHPL, not testifying at trial due on account of his certified medical unfitness:

	NAME OF WITNESS	ROLE	CONNECTION WITH CASE
PW1	Chun Yong Seng	Investigation Officer	Investigating Officer from the Singapore Police Force.
PW2	Heng Kwang Han	Relationship Manager, Citibank	Assisted in opening YHPL's Citibank bank account in October 2016.
PW3	Leong Chee Kok Desmond (“Mr Leong”)	Relationship Manager, Citibank	Helped Mr Loy open Y&L's bank account and was allegedly misrepresented to by Mr Loy about the purpose of the transfers.
PW4	Bhupesh Kalra (“Bhupesh”)	Innomedia Technologies Oficer	Worked on the Car Street and Property Street projects for Mr Loy through Innomedia Technologies
PW5	Charmine Yee Jia Min	Mortgage Specialist, OCBC	Facilitated Mr Loy's taking of the OCBC Housing Loan to fund the purchase of the Lucky Plaza Property.
PW6	Tan Jin Long Javier	Relationship Manager, Ethoz Capital	Facilitated the Ethoz loan
PW7	Kenny Lim (“ASP Kenny”)	Police Inspector	A (then) Inspector from the Singapore Police Force who called Mdm Gian to inform her that Mr Loy

			was under investigation for cheating offences.
PW8	Yip Li-Fen (“Li-Fen”)	Ronald Yip’s daughter	Ronald's daughter who resided in New York and testified about Ronald's lack of knowledge of any agreement to Mr Loy's dealings with the Balance Sum.
PW9	Dr. Jerome Goh Hern Yee	IMH Psychiatrist	Gave evidence regarding Ronald's fitness to testify.
PW10	Lim Hock Thiam	Manager at The Hourglass	Gave evidence on encounter with Mr Loy
PW11	Ahmad Salihin	Statement Recorder	Investigating Officer from the Singapore Police Force.
PW12	Ng Shiunn Jye	Statement Recorder	Investigating Officer from the Singapore Police Force.
PW13	Brandan Cai Xiande	Team Leader, Ethoz Capital	Questioned Mr Loy about his dealings with Ronald.
PW14	Dr. Mervyn Koh Yong Hwang	Ronald Yip’s doctor	Senior consultant specialist on geriatrics/palliative care, who was Ronald's geriatric physician who testified about Ronald's cognitive condition, including his diagnosis of post-ICU delirium on 14 September 2016 and subsequent progression to moderate dementia
PW15	Renie Rozanah Binte Juma’at	Statement Recorder	Investigating Officer from the Singapore Police Force
PW16	Charmine Yee Jia Min	Mortgage Specialist, OCBC	Facilitated Mr Loy’s transactions with the Balance Sum
PW17	Tan Siong Khim	SNG Auto	Sales representative at Sng Auto Trading who dealt with Mr Loy in connection with the purchase of the Mercedes sports car.
PW18	Tracey Yuen Chih-Chian	Li-Fen’s friend / Eyewitness	Corroborated Li-Fen’s contemporaneous account of events
PW19	Tracy Chen Lai Fong	Director at OneLegal LLC	Testified on dealings with Mr Loy and subsequent receipt of correspondence from Ronald questioning the transactions

Defence Witnesses

23 The defence’s slate only comprised the accused persons and one other witness.

Mr Loy had initially elected to remain silent after the close of the prosecution’s case but later changed his mind and opted to testify on his own behalf. Mdm Gian testified on her own behalf. Aside from the two accused persons, the only other witnesses offered was:

(1) DW2- Jonathan Ow, a lawyer who met with Ronald in April 2016 and found him seemingly well.

(2) DW3 — Dextan Fun, Mr Loy's cousin, who testified that he did not pay for the Rolex watch and agreed that based on the evidence Mr Loy was the customer of The Hour Glass watch boutique.

The Defence's Case

24 The defence case essentially centred on the contention that Mr Loy's actions were legitimate and stemmed from an agreement with Ronald made in May 2016, whereby Ronald, who was desperate for funds to pay his outstanding mortgage, requested Mr Loy's help to find funding, leading to their agreement to obtain a loan exceeding the mortgage amount. The claimed intent was that Ronald wished the balance to be invested in property development projects.

25 It was the defence's case that Ronald seemed mentally competent when signing the $4 million Loan Agreement with Ethoz, citing testimony from lawyer Jonathan Ow who met with Ronald and found him apparently capable of understanding complex loan agreements, as well as corroborating evidence from Ethoz employees who observed Ronald's active participation in loan discussions and his objection to certain terms.

26 The defence further contended that Mr Loy's subsequent transfer of funds to his personal account was not misappropriation but rather done in accordance with his agreement with Ronald to avoid double taxation on investments. Since there was no criminal conduct, the defence argued, the subsequent CDSA charges against both Mr Loy and Mdm Gian could not stand, with Mdm Gian having had no reasonable grounds to believe she was facilitating criminal activity through her accounts.

27 Over the 64-day trial, Mr Loy spun multiple disjointed strands of his having been a victim of deceit on the part of Ronald, which was largely unsubstantiated by any evidence. In the process, he continued to maintain serious accusations at numerous individuals, including accusing Ronald and Bhupesh of being cheats, Li-Fen of being dishonest, police officers of egregious misconduct, his former lawyers of malpractice, the prosecution of malicious prosecution, and even the DPPs and Police of fabricating evidence.

28 Upon careful analysis, I found the defence's case to be wholly unpersuasive, for the reasons I shall elaborate upon at length further in these grounds.

MEDICAL WITNESSES SUPPORTING RONALD YIP’S DEMENTIA DIAGNOSIS Evidence of PW14 Dr Mervyn Koh

29 Ronald was deemed medically unfit to testify at trial, having been diagnosed with post-ICU delirium in 2016 and later developing dementia. His physician, Senior Consultant Geriatrician Dr Mervyn Koh (“Dr Koh”), testified that Ronald had significant cognitive deficits that would have impaired his ability to make complex financial decisions, noting Ronald exhibiting “significant deficits in terms of orientation, short term memory recall, as well as subtraction of a $100 minus seven”4.For the final aspect, Ronald returned a wrong answer on two occasions when he was given five tries.

30 Dr Koh first saw Ronald on 14 September 2016 at the Geriatric Medicine Clinic, Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), for a Cognitive Assessment after he was referred from a Polyclinic. Ronald had a past medical history of hyperlipidaemia and benign prostatic hypertrophy and had been admitted to TTSH’s Orthopaedics department from 14 July to 4 August 2016 to treat his left upper limb necrotising fascitis5, which required three surgeries and a prolonged ICU stay.

31 At the time of referral on 14 September 2016, Dr Koh diagnosed Ronald with post-ICU delirium, as he had features consistent with that condition, including short-term memory loss, aphasia (or word-finding difficulty), and disorganised thinking where he was unable to reason with his daughter logically.

32 On 22 February 2017, Dr Koh followed up and further diagnosed Ronald with Post-ICU Cognitive Impairment, with his Chinese Mini-Mental State Examination (CMMSE) scores falling in the mild dementia range. Dr Koh noted that Ronald “subsequently went on to develop mild Alzheimer’s disease or dementia in September

4 Please see Notes of Evidence,4 March 2021, Page 73, Lines 4-7.

5 This was a severe bacterial infection which destroyed fascial and muscular tissue beneath the skin.

2017”6 and that Ronald's dementia progressed to the moderate stage by July 20207 on account of his developing hallucinations and increasingly “profound word-finding abilities”8. Dr Koh informed that his last review of Ronald occurred on 20 January 2021, where the latter remained in a moderate stage of Alzheimer’s dementia, and was wheelchair dependent, and dependent on his helper with most of his activities of daily living.

33 I noted that Dr Koh's professional opinion was tethered on a firm foundation, where he based his views from a specific well-recognised cognitive test on Ronald on 14 September 2016, and where he, as stated above, concluded that Ronald had significant deficits in orientation and short-term memory recall and would likely have experienced difficulties making complex financial decisions.

34 Critically, Dr Koh opined that he had serious doubts that Ronald was capable of gaining a complete understanding of the Ethoz loan documents, given that Ronald was computationally challenged and had issues with short-term recall memory9. While Ronald would understand that he was taking a four-million-dollar loan, he would have difficulty understanding the rest of the 30-page document, especially terms involving interest calculations and his specific repayment obligations.

35 Dr Koh further noted that the effects of Ronald's cognitive impairment may not have been perceptible to a layman who only had superficial interaction with him Generally, someone who knew Ronald longer would notice clear memory lapses and difficulty with complex decisions. He added that any person engaging in in-depth financial discussions, would have to properly check Ronald's understanding, by asking him to repeat information back, as to be able to detect his cognitive deficits10.

36 The prosecution's evidence in establishing that Mr Loy had used the Balance Sum without authorisation came from a reconstruction of contemporaneous documents

6 At Notes of Evidence, 4 March 2021, Page 70, Lines 26-28.

7 Please see Notes of Evidence,4 March 2021, Page 70, Lines 32 to Page 71, Line 4.

8 At Notes of Evidence, 4 March 2021, Page 96, Line 30 to Page 97, Line 3.

9 At Notes of Evidence,4 March 2021, Page 79, Lines 1-29.

10 Please see Notes of Evidence,4 March 2021, Page 74, Lines 8-32.

and the testimony of Li-Fen. Notably, the defence, notwithstanding the observations stated above, did not proffer any expert evidence to counter Dr Mervyn Koh's professional expert opinion. The defence's reliance on lay observations, (particularly the perceptions of Ethoz employees and lawyer Jonathan Ow, who had seen Ronald on 25 April 201611, many months prior to Dr Koh’s CMMSE test), of Ronald's apparent competence, without any countervailing medical evidence, must therefore be given little weight.

Implications of Dr Mervyn Koh’s evidence to this case

37 In my judgement, Dr Koh’s evidence is enormously consequential in two respects. The first was that Ronald’s diagnosis was gradually evolving process of cognitive impairment, where he was believed by Dr Koh to merely suffer from post-ICU delirium in mid-September 2016. Dr Koh upgraded his diagnosis in February 2017 to diagnose Ronald with Post-ICU Cognitive Impairment, with his functions and traits falling in the mild dementia range, and where he was further confirmed to have mild dementia in September 2017, which unfortunately exacerbated to moderate dementia in mid-2020, and had debilitated to being wheelchair bound and entirely dependent on his helper by January 2021, even as he was deemed to have plateaued in the moderate range.

38 The evidence thus showed that Ronald’s disease followed a fairly rapid progression, and hence the cognitive features of Ronald that lawyer Jonathan Ow observed in April 2016, which impressed him that the former was competently in command of his faculties, might have no longer been the same in the later part of 2016 and early 2017, when the principal developments of this case occurred.

39 On the second aspect of Dr Koh’s evidence that only a lay person who had spent considerable time with Ronald, and who repeatedly discussed financial plans, figures and concepts with him, would have perceived the patient’s cognitive deficits, the undisputed facts of the case would show that at the time Ronald lived alone in his Telok Kurau bungalow, and only the First Accused, Mr Loy would be in such a position as to

11 At Notes of Evidence, 17 November 2022, Page 6, Lines 2-7.

be able to sense the onset and development of his Alzheimer’s dementia. The prosecution’s case, of course, is that he exploited this knowledge.

Evidence of Dr Jerome Goh

40 To clarify on Ronald’s ability to give evidence, the prosecution called Dr Jerome Goh Hern Yee (“Dr Goh”), Chief of Forensic Psychiatry at IMH, who had been called upon to assess Ronald.

41 Dr Goh explained the substance of his report12, and his findings that Ronald at the time of his examinations on 21 September 2020 and 8 October 2020 had by then developed significant cognitive deficits affecting multiple domains, specifically planning, language, memory, attention, and orientation to time and place, Dr Goh opined that as Ronald’s cognitive condition significantly impaired his ability to accurately recall past events, he was unfit to testify in court.

42 The clinical picture Dr Goh painted was quite stark, where he revealed that Ronald scored only 4 out of 30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test, against a normal threshold of 26 and above. During the aforementioned two interviews conducted in September and October 2020, Ronald was unable to state his age, address, the names of his children's occupations, or even the year.

Ronald’s assessed inability to give a coherent personal account of salient events connected to the case

43 Dr Goh added that Ronald could not identify where he was, misidentifying IMH as a polyclinic on the second visit. He had difficulty recalling the names of, and his interactions with, the key individuals in the case he was involved in, and gave only vague, repetitive responses when pressed.

44 For reference, Dr Goh stated the following in his report13:

12 (Ronald) was unable to provide details about the names mentioned in the case, apart from saying "Loy Wei Ezekiel" is a young man who "try to claim make all kinds of claims because of the accident". He said he met the latter "because of the accident” but could not provide details. In the second interview, he said "Loy Wei Ezekiel" is a

12 Please see Exhibit P-129.

13 Exhibit P-129 at [12].

young man who was trying to cheat him every now and then, but he could not furnish further details. He said he did not know "Gian Juat Ngim".

[Emphasis added]

45 At cross-examination, Dr Goh explained how he tried to get Ronald to explain his account of being “cheated” by this young man identified as “Loy Wei Ezekiel”, Ronald was, however, unable to provide coherent or detailed responses throughout the conversation.

46 When asked how the cheating happened, Ronald deflected to his helper rather than answering directly. Ronald could not recall the name of the person Dr Goh had just mentioned moments earlier and had to ask his helper for the name. When pressed on specifics as to how the cheating occurred, when it happened, how much money was involved, Ronald either gave vague, generic answers, shook his head, or failed to respond meaningfully. The only substantive thing he managed to state was that there were "all kinds of funny proposals."14

47 Dr Goh’s overall observation from this exchange was that Ronald was unable to give a coherent personal account of events, showed significant memory difficulties, and could not provide any concrete details about the alleged cheating

48 Dr Goh expressed his view that this assessment, along with collateral history from his helper15 and daughter16, as well as his consultation of a prior specialist report17 from Dr Mervyn Koh of TTSH, corroborated a diagnosis that Ronald suffered from dementia.

No serious rebuttal by defence to show Ronald was competent to give testimonial evidence

49 From an analytical standpoint, Dr Goh's evidence was significant as his recommendation that Ronald was unfit to testify would have had major implications for the conduct of the trial as Ronald was undoubtedly intended to serve a role as a key

14 At Notes of Evidence, 1 March 2021, Page 32, Line 23 to Page 33, Line 13.

15 One “Millicent”, a domestic helper who had been employed for two years at the time of the examination/interview.

16 PW8, Yip Li-fen.

17 Please refer to Exhibit P97: TTSH Report of Yip Fook Chong prepared by Dr Mervyn Koh dated 29 August 2017.

witness. While the defence sought to undermine Dr Goh’s findings, it was a fact that they never produced a competing medical expert, prepared to take a professional stance that Ronald was competent to take the stand.

50 Given this, aside from lawyer Jonathan Ow (and also certain Ethoz employees) who had seen Ronald in April 2016, but not in October 2020, the defence was limited to giving anecdotal impressions, mostly supplied by the First Accused, to undergird their stance that Ronald was somehow cognitively competent to furnish oral evidence, and be cross-examined, at a court trial.

51 With respect, none of these witnesses could possibly stand as a serious challenge to Dr Goh’s and Dr Koh’s testimonies that Ronald had since late 2016, been suffering from progressive cognitive decline, which would have, by October 2020, developed to dementia of a level of severity as to render him profoundly unfit to testify in court. I was accordingly satisfied of Ronald’s incapacity to stand as a witness for this criminal trial.

TESTIMONY OF RONALD’D DAUGHTER PW8, YIP LI-FEN
Evidence of Yip Li-Fen

52 This would be an appropriate juncture to segue to salient aspects of Li-Fen’s testimony and why I found her to be a credible witness. Essentially, Li-Fen’s testimony was integral in filling in the gaps left by Ronald’s incapacity, and in curating and connecting the document trial left by Ronald and his friend, Kulip Singh, which included a trove of messages and letters.

53 Li-Fen was Ronald's only child and worked as an accountant at a hedge fund in New York. She described her father as a well-educated, articulate man with a master’s degree in mechanical engineering who had a long career in oil and gas before running his own marine business, YHPL. By the time of the material events, the company was largely dormant, and Ronald was burdened by a significant debt of approximately $2.5 million to RBS Coutts, which had snowballed from a failed tugboat-building venture in China that collapsed during the 2008 Lehman crisis.

Li-Fen’s account of Ronald's Hospitalisation in July 2016

54 Li-Fen entered the present milieu when she found out about her father's hospitalisation through an email from her aunt, who had coincidentally discovered Ronald was in Tan Tock Seng Hospital while visiting another relative. Li-Fen flew back to Singapore within 12 hours. Ronald had been admitted for necrotising fasciitis, which was a severe flesh-eating infection on his left arm, and which required four surgeries including skin grafting. At this first instance, she stayed for two weeks before returning to New York.

First Contact with the First Accused, Ezekiel Loy

55 Li-Fen had heard her father mention a "young man" who had a profile of successful real estate projects in Malaysia and been awarded a “Datuk-ship” by one of their states but had not paid much attention to this reference at the time. After she returned to New York, a friend named “Joanne” who had been caring for Ronald called her in a panic because she could not contact him. Through another contact, Li-Fen was given Ezekiel's number and called him. Mr Loy told her he had been bringing Ronald food, taking him to hospital appointments and his financial travails.

56 When Li-Fen spoke to Mr Loy, he told her that because of his network of business relationships, he had a group of funders that he could easily draw funds from, and that he was willing to help Ronald settle his Coutts problem. When Li-Fen asked why he was helping, Mr Loy had allegedly said, "Don't worry, he is a good friend of mine,"18 and that he was helping him find a solution to the Coutts problem. Li-Fen's initial impression was cautious she found it hard to believe someone would help a friend to the extent of lending credit for over $2 million with no formal agreement.

Observations of Ronald's Deteriorating Mental State

57 An equally cogent part of Li-Fen’s testimony was her first-person account of Ronald’s cognitive deterioration. After communication was restored through a landline and repaired handphone, Li-Fen began speaking to her father almost daily and noticed clear signs of cognitive decline which encompassed these observations:

18 Notes of Evidence, 20 January 2021, Page 32, Lines 8-9.

(1) Ronald spoke much more slowly than before and struggled to find words, which was markedly out of character for someone she described as very articulate.

(2) Ronald had good and bad days but was never back to his former self.

(3) In one alarming incident in late August 2016, Ronald called her in a panic believing he had been in a motorbike accident and that someone was suing him. She had to repeat the correct account of his hospitalisation twice before he calmed down. She noted that Ronald himself admitted he could not differentiate between reality and dreams.

(4) Li-Fen’s friend “Tracey”19, who visited Ronald in person, independently confirmed that Ronald "seems kind of spaced out" and was speaking slowly with a loss of words between sentences.

58 I noted that Li-Fen’s observations were consistent with and corroborated the clinical findings in Dr Mervyn Koh's report20, which diagnosed Ronald with Post-ICU Delirium in September 2016 and later Post-ICU Cognitive Impairment in February 2017. In my judgment, Li-Fen's testimony was essential to prosecution’s case for several reasons, being:

(1) Firstly, it provided a lay witness account of Ronald's cognitive decline from someone who knew him well and could speak to the contrast between his pre-and post-hospitalisation state.

(2) Secondly, Li-Fen’s observations from as early as late August 2016, which was before Dr Koh's formal assessment in September 2016, and suggested that the cognitive impairment was already manifesting in Ronald’s daily life.

(3) Thirdly, Li-Fen’s account of Ezekiel's involvement beginning almost immediately after Ronald's discharge from hospital, including bringing him food, taking him to appointments, and being present at his home, establishes the proximity and access Mr Loy had to a vulnerable and cognitively impaired Ronald during a critical period. Finally, her scepticism about Ezekiel's claimed generosity particularly his offer to help resolve the Coutts debt with no formal

19 This individual gave evidence as PW 18 Tracey Yuen Chih Chian.

20 Exhibit P-97.

agreement, foreshadowed the alleged cheating that formed the basis of the charges.

Lifen’s return in September 2016 and medical appointment before Dr Koh

59 Li-Fen arrived in Singapore on 11 September 2016 and departed on 20 September 2016. She testified that her primary goal was to bring her father to see a doctor, first at the polyclinic, then at Tan Tock Seng hospital to see a geriatric specialist. Li-Fen showed up without telling her father, as she was concerned that he might not feel he needed help, given his confused state. She also discovered that Mr Loy occasionally came to the house to stay, and on her first arrival noticed a car parked outside, so she waited until the next day before going in.

60 When Li-Fen spoke to her father about Mr Loy’s presence, Ronald stated Mr Loy was helping him to get a new funder, but he could not describe where he had gone or who he had met. He said they had gone out for meetings but was unable to give any cogent description of what progress had been made.

61 She brought her father to see Dr Koh at TTSH. During the assessment, Ronald could not remember he had a master's degree. Dr Koh explained it could be post-ICU delirium and said that some people would improve to 50% of their former state, some to 100%, and some would stay as they were. He arranged a follow-up in 3 months.

Ronald’s financial circumstances and the Coutts loan

62 Li-Fen described her father as "cash poor, asset rich", and that Ronald had not had any significant income for a long time, and she had occasionally helped him pay small bills. He collected rent from shophouses and an apartment at Rangoon Road, but tenants often did not pay.

63 Li-Fen stated that her father’s travails over the Coutts credit facility was alleviated by the Ethoz loan of 4 million dollars was released, which was used to partially pay off the RBS Coutts loan, where Ronald’s Telok Kurau bungalow was used as collateral.

64 Regarding the Telok Kurau property, Li-Fen explained that selling it was never an option in her father's mind. He had explicitly told her that selling it would feel like a failure in life, as it was a prized possession passed down from his grandfather. This was one of the reasons the outstanding loan had snowballed from approximately $1 million to over $2 million between 2008 and 2016.

Li-Fen’s November 2016 trip and developments concerning the Ethoz loan

65 When Li-Fen returned in mid-November 2016, her father told her that Mr Loy, who used to come on two or three occasions a week, had not been seen for a few weeks. When they tried to get Mr Loy to come over using an excuse, he agreed to come the next day but did not show up, later messaging to say he was tied up.

66 Ronald was unable to tell Li-Fen whether there was a loan coming or whether any progress had been made on the Coutts debt. He said he had been to a few places to meet some people but could not say anything specific.

67 Li-Fen then texted Mr Loy directly asking if there was a loan. She recalled Mr Loy’s response was vague, stating "it's already settled"21 and that he would call her, but she never received that phone call.

68 While helping her father clear his mail, Li-Fen discovered two Coutts statements showing a credit of approximately $2.45 million and another of approximately $185,000. She emailed their Coutts' contact person Andrew Turner to confirm the loan had been paid off, and he confirmed the crediting of the sums on the next day22.

Ronald’s text messages of 30 December 2016

69 One of the most significant parts of Li-Fen's evidence is her recollection of Ronald’s frenzied messages on 30 December 2016. On that day, Ronald sent Li-Fen a series of text messages stating that Mr Loy had taken over Yip Holdings23, pledged the

21 At Notes of Evidence, 20 January 2021, Page 47, Line 24; and also, Notes of Evidence, 20 January 2021, Page 49, Line 16.

22 At Notes of Evidence, 20 January 2021, Page 54, Lines 2-21.

23 I have reverted to the long form name of “YHPL” as this part deals with Li-Fen’s recall.

Telok Kurau property for a four-million-dollar loan from Ethoz, and that the money and property were "most probably gone."24 He also noted that Mr Loy had disconnected his phone and had not been spoken to in two weeks.

70 Li-Fen noted that the messages were not drafted in her father's usual style, as Ronald was English-educated and competently articulate. She realised that the messages contained spelling uncharacteristic grammatical errors and even gibberish, which she sensed to be consistent with the cognitive decline she had been observing. She said that whenever she received such texts during this period, she would just call him instead.

71 When she called Ronald, he explained that his friend Kulip Singh, a retired police inspector, had helped him write to One Legal LLC, the law firm that handled the Ethoz loan, demanding loan documents. They had only just realised that Mr Loy had put himself as director of Yip Holdings and potentially taken the $4 million sum, less the $2.5 million owed to Coutts. She recalled Ronald’s text stating “Kulip is helping me and we would make a police report. And we will (sic) demand Ethoz to make sure they don’t release the funds”25. At that point, Li-Fen also recalled that they were not yet aware of the Mr Loy’s specific dispositions of the Balance sum.

Li-Fen’s May 2017 visit to help uncover the trail of monies and dispositions

72 When Li-Fen returned to Singapore in May 2017, she found that Ronald had taken extensive action, noting a considerable collection of police reports and letters, which she believed to be drafted by Kulip Singh in the house. Li-Fen herself recalled visiting the Citibank branch at Lau Pa Sat and obtaining bank statements for the Yip Holdings account, which showed that funds had come in and the very next day had been wired out to a company called "Yip & Loy Private Limited.”26 Ronald stated that he had no knowledge of this company, causing Li-Fen to wonder if her father had been victimised by “this scam even beyond what I understand”27.

24 Please see Notes of Evidence, 20 January 2021, Page 59, Line 30 - Page 60, Line 1.

25 At Notes of Evidence, 20 January 2021, Page 61, Lines 11-13.

26 I have reverted to the longform name of “Y&L” as this part deals with Li-Fen’s recall.

27 Please see Notes of Evidence, 20 January 2021, Page 66, Lines 24-29.

73 When Li-Fen made an ACRA search, she found that the directors of Yip & Loy Private Limited were Mr Loy and another individual who was not her father, Ronald, and indeed, was not known to her.

Further discoveries upon Li-Fen’s June 2017 return and preparations for civil action

74 When Li-Fen returned in June 2017, she met with the Citibank relationship manager and obtained the account opening documents for the Yip Holdings Citibank account. These revealed that the mailing address on the account was Mr Loy’s home address, not Ronald's, and that Mr Loy was already listed as a 52.5% shareholder of Yip Holdings when the account was opened in October 2016. The account was also set up to require only one signature to release funds28.

75 Li-Fen also realised during this trip, that her father could no longer quantify numbers, and seemed not to appreciate the difference between $100,000 and $1 million. She had to type out the figures and explain what the $20,000 monthly interest meant in practical terms before he could grasp the severity of his situation. Li-Fen also added that she had been involved in a civil suit filed against Mr Loy in the High Court in connection with the sums taken.

Why Li-Fen was a critical witness

76 I have set out Li-Fen’s testimonial evidence in some detail as she was uniquely placed within the prosecution’s roster of 19 witnesses as she was there at the material time to provide a contemporaneous account of the critical events of their case, where she was able to connect the intersection between Mr Loy’s actions and her observations of her father’s concurrent deterioration while the former was taking place.

77 Essentially Li-Fen's was able to give a first-person account of the following critical aspects of the prosecution’s case:

(1) First, Li-Fen’s testimony enabled the corroboration of documentary in establishing a clear timeline of how Mr Loy systematically gained control of

28 At Notes of Evidence, 20 January 2021, Page 72, Lines 22-32.

Ronald's company and assets, even as she was able to see how Ronald was becoming increasingly cognitively impaired and financially desperate.

(2) Second, Li Fen conducted her own investigations into the Citibank account, having the gumption to meet Citibank manager Heng Kwang Han and describing her discovery of troubling and suspicious details, including Mr Loy using his home address as the mailing address and setting up a single-signatory arrangement, which was suggestive of deliberate structuring efforts to facilitate the misappropriation of funds without Ronald's knowledge or meaningful consent.

(3) Third, Li-Fen's observation that her father could no longer quantify large sums of money by mid-2017 further corroborated the medical evidence of progressive cognitive decline, from nothing less than her own lived experience.

(4) Finally, Li-Fen was able to give direct testimony of her own encounters with Mr Loy, including his sudden disappearance from contact after the loan was disbursed. Li-Fen also testified on Mr Loy’s vague and evasive responses to Li-Fen's direct questions at that juncture, which appeared consistent with the behaviour of an individual who had already obtained what he wanted and was adroitly distancing himself.

RONALDS’S MESSAGES TO VARIOUS PARTIES, HIS REPORTS TO THE POLICE, AND LETTER TO AGC & CAD

Ronald’s document trail

78 While Ronald was assessed to be cognitively unable to give evidence for this trial, he left a considerable document trail in December 2016 and January 2017 which were quite telling in revealing his anxiety, disquiet and panic. When he suspected that Mr Loy has taken the Balance Sum, Ronald reacted by seeking help from Li-Fen and his legally trained friend Kulip Singh, a retired police prosecutor, to lodge a police report, and wrote several letters to various agencies seeking clarity and assistance in recovering the Balance Sum. To say the least, these actions are wholly inconsistent with the existence of any agreement authorising Mr Loy to deal with the Balance Sum in the manner that he did.

79 Ronald’s concerns were all too clear in his police report was filed on 31 December 2016 where Ronald reported that Mr Loy had apparently reset his Singpass password on his behalf, retained his OneKey device, and gone uncontactable. Ronald lodged the report to disclaim liability for unauthorised transactions and to void the device.

80 The prosecution's case was further supported by the tenor of Ronald's police statements, which were admitted into evidence in lieu of his oral testimony. Aside from a series of police statements29 recorded between 31 December 201630 and 20 April 201831, Ronald had also crafted a series of letters and statements32 with the help of Mr Kulip Singh, a retired police prosecutor, who had passed on33 prior to these proceedings, and thus could not be a witness.

81 In this series of statements, Ronald was unequivocal that he had no knowledge of any property investment in Lucky Plaza, that he was not involved in trading in commodities, and that he had no agreement with Mr Loy to develop software or applications. I will now touch on the contents of these letters and statements:

Ronald’s letter to One Legal LLC dated 29 December 2016

82 The first of these documents was a two-page letter34 dated 29 December 2016 and addressed to One Legal LLC marked "Without Prejudice, By Hand and Registered Mail" which was Li-Fen believed to have been drafted by Kulip Singh and opened with the salutation "Most Honourable Gentlemen."

83 The letter made four key points:

29 Exhibits P1, P109, P110, P111, P112, P113 and P114.

30 Exhibit P114.

31 Exhibit P113.

32 Exhibits P103, P105, and P106.

33 P145 shows Mr Kulip passed on on 18 October 2018.

34 Admitted as P101.

(1) Firstly, Ronald stated that he is aged 74 years, was “suffering slightly from dementia”, had no knowledge or expertise with legal terms or legal contracts, and that his understanding of any contract would be dependent on the lawyers.

(2) Secondly, Ronald stated that he had come to One Legal LLC's office on some occasions at the behest of their client35, and that legal contracts were drawn up which he could not fully understand, being dependent much more on what their client and the law firm conveyed to him.

(3) Thirdly, Ronald stated that as One Legal LLC was acting for their client and obviously in that client’s interest, he now found on hindsight that he should have been advised to engage his own counsel to peruse the contracts and assure they were fair in the protection of his legal rights.

(4) Fourthly, and most critically, Ronald stated that no copies of the contracts were given to him, and that if copies were given to their client, that client had failed, refused or neglected to give him copies for his retention and for his seeking legal advice on them, stating "This is not (sic) accordance to Law."

84 Ronald concluded the letter with a demand that copies of all contracts signed in One Legal LLC's office bearing his signature be given to him on or before 4 January 2017 at 5pm, reserving all his rights to legal redress if he did not receive the same by that deadline.

Reaction by Ethoz to the 29 December 2016 letter

85 PW 13 Brandan Cai Xiande (“Mr Cai”) was a team leader at Ethoz Capital Limited (“Ethoz”) who managed the relationship managers involved in the $4 million loan to Yip Holdings Pte Ltd. He was the primary point of contact between Ethoz and Mr Loy throughout the loan transaction. At trial, Mr Cai’s testimony covered the lead-up to the loan, the signing of the letter of offer, and critically, the events that followed.

86 The most significant part of Mr Cai's testimony concerned Ethoz's reaction upon receiving the 29 December 2016 letter. While the letter was addressed to One Legal

35 Ronald appears to have used the term “client” as a reference to Mr Loy in his personal capacity, but One Legal LLC’s Tracy Chen (PW19) clarified in her testimony that the firm regarded YHPL was their actual client.

LLC, there was considerable alarm at Ethoz caused by Ronald’s reference that he was suffering from dementia. Mr Cai testified that Ethoz was very concerned about the whole deal, having suddenly received a letter from one of the personal guarantors claiming to be suffering from dementia.

PW13’s attempts to contact Mr Loy in the wake of the letter

87 Following receipt of this letter, Mr Cai made repeated attempts to contact Mr Loy for updates and to arrange a meeting but testified that during this period Ethoz officers could not obtain definitive answers from Mr Loy at all with the latter not responding to their messages or their calls.

PW13’s account of Mr Loy’s evasive responses

88 WhatsApp messages tendered in evidence showed Mr Cai asking for updates on 6 January 2017, 12 January 2017, and 19 January 2017, with Mr Loy giving only vague responses such as "No update yet" and "We are in the midst of it." When asked urgently to meet to clarify loan matters, Mr Loy responded, "After CNY" and then "Not at the moment."

89 By 1 February 2017, Brendan Cai was reduced to messaging Mr Loy to beseech "Can you spare me 3 minutes? Please give me a call back. Please call your partner, Mr. Yip. He is also concerned on the whole deal."36 Mr Cai testified that no substantive response was ever received. Mr Cai described a pattern of evasion on Mr Loy’s part, which was also recounted by other witnesses and pointed to the latter’s motive of deliberately making himself scarce to avoid accountability.

Reaction by One Legal LLC to the 29 December 2016 letter

90 The final prosecution witness; PW 19, was Tracy Chen Lai Fong (“Ms Chen”), a director and corporate lawyer at One Legal LLC, where she has practised since 2005. Ms Chen testified that One Legal LLC was instructed by Ethoz and YHPL in connection with the $4 million loan facility, acting for those entities rather than for Mr Loy personally.

36 Please see Notes of Evidence, 4 March 2021, Page 34, Lines 16 to Page 35, Line 31.

91 Ms Chen recalled that Ronald had attended at One Legal LLC's office on 30 December 2016, one day after the date on P101, bringing the letter with him and requesting a set of documents for the transaction. Ms Chen was not present that day, and her staff attended to Ronald and delivered the documents to him by hand.

92 Ronald returned on 10 January 2017 with a second letter37. Ms Chen met him together with two other lawyers, including one Toh Jiawen who had handled the actual transaction. At the meeting, Ronald raised concerns about One Legal LLC acting for Mr Loy whereupon Ms Chen responded that they had not acted for him in his personal capacity. She remembered that Ronald had sought clarification on the disbursement of the loan proceeds, and that he confirmed he had no issue with the mortgage redemption but was concerned about the balance funds.

93 Ronald’s confused state of mind at the meeting is exemplified by this exchange with Ms Chen when he claimed to have met Mr Loy in a hospital after his accident, and informed that he was only recently made aware that the latter was a director of YHPL38:

DPP: Did Mr. Ronald mention to you anything about Mr. Ezekiel?

PW19: Yes.

DPP: What did he say?

PW19: He mentioned that he had, uh, an accident 6 months ago and he met Ezekiel at the hospital. He also mentioned that the loan transaction was arranged by Ezekiel. And when we told him that---when I told him that Ezekiel was reflected as a shareholder and director of his company---of the company, Yip Holdings, he expressed that he had just recently been aware of it when he saw the business profile of the company.

[Emphasis added]

94 Strikingly, when Ms Chen asked whether Ronald remembered signing the documents or visiting the office previously, Ronald did not seem to recollect either visit. He mentioned he was suffering from memory lapses, saying he could be normal one moment and forget everything five minutes later. He broke down in tears when speaking about his accident and stated that he had been taken advantage of by Mr Loy39.

37 This was Exhibit P103.

38 Please see Notes of Evidence, 14 May 2021, Page 10, Lines 7-16.

39 At Notes of Evidence, 14 May 2021, Page 12, Lines 8-26.

95 In my judgment, Ronald’s 29 December 2016 letter was significant in the context of this case as it corroborated Ronald's vulnerability, his lack of independent legal advice, and his acting upon a gaining awareness that something had gone wrong with the contracts he had signed, all of which were central to the prosecution's case against Mr Loy.

Ronald Yip’s 9 January 2017 letter

96 As stated above, Ms Chen had received another a two-page letter dated 9 January 2017, from Ronald, with the subject heading "Request for Full Accounts of Monies Drawn from Contract of Loan and the Dispensation Account." This letter, which was couched in a far stronger tone than the missive of eleven days earlier, stated as follows:

Your client, Loy Wei Ezekiel brought me to your office in order to conscript a loan which loan documents and processing was handled by you. The principal purpose was to clear Coutts of the outstanding loan and I was told the balance would be given to me.

In the interim, your client Loy Wei Ezekiel had brought me to make a key device and took my password and installed himself without my knowledge and consent as a 51%40 Director of my company, Yip Holdings Pte Ltd.

Have you paid Coutts and please give an account of the balance due and payable to me as it was my house that was mortgaged. Also note that Loy Wei Ezekiel did not invest a single dollar in the company and he has installed himself by deceit and fraud in order to get his hand on all monies that come out of my house mortgage.

Please give me a full account if the balance had not yet been deposited into Yips (sic) Holdings Pte Ltd, I am giving you written instructions not to do so and hold it back until my further instructions.

Any monies that he takes out of Yip (H)oldings Pte Ltd from proceeds of my mortgage clearly touch on the Criminal Law of Section 420 of the Penal Code and at this time all his actions go towards an attempt of Section 420

Please give me full statements of account soonest and into what account the balance was deposited as I am awaiting full statements before I lodge a report to the Commercial Affairs Department

Once again, if the monies are still with you, I am instructing you not to be put into Yip Holdings Pte Ltd with immediate effect.

Please forward a full statement of account to me of that transaction forthwith.

...

40 The actual shareholding was 52.5%.

[Emphasis added]

Ronald’s allegations of fraud on Mr Loy’s part and communication of intent to report to CAD in his second letter represented a significant escalation

97 To say the least, Ronald’s second letter represented a significant escalation from his first. Where the letter of 30 December 2016 was primarily a request for documents with a general complaint about the lack of independent legal advice, the subsequent letter was a far more pointed and legally specific document. Ronald now explicitly named Mr Loy as the person who brought him to One Legal LLC's office, described Mr Loy’s manipulation of his SingPass credentials, and characterised Mr Loy's conduct as nothing less than deceit and fraud.

98 Ronald also invoked Section 420 of the Penal Code and made clear his intent to report the matter to the Commercial Affairs Department. This rapid escalation coheres with Li-Fen’s testimony of Ronald enlisting the help of Kulip Singh, and suggests Ronald had in the intervening period been able piece together the sequence of events and the nature and extent of Mr Loy’s alleged actions with the Ethoz loan monies.

99 The account of the SingPass incident is particularly significant as a contemporaneous written record made very shortly after the events in question. This is entirely consistent with the evidence of other witnesses including PW13 Brandan Cai, who testified41 that Ronald told him during the Chinese New Year visit to the latter’s residence, that he did not know how Mr Loy had obtained his SingPass and been able to change the shareholding of the company as to confer a majority share of 52.5% to himself, and leaving Ronald with a minority interest.

100 The most remarkable aspect of this subsequent letter was Ronald's invocation of Section 420 of the Penal Code, effectively alleging that Mr Loy had committed the criminal offence of cheating. This was notable as the allegation was in a letter written before any police report or formal proceedings had commenced and amply demonstrates that Ronald had a clear enough understanding of what had happened to characterise it in criminal law terms. This directly undermined any suggestion that Ronald consented to or was content with the arrangements Mr Loy had put in place.

41 Please see Notes of Evidence, 4 March 2021, Page 37, Lines 1-4.

101 Taken together, the letters of 29 December 2016 and 9 January 2017 to One Legal LLC, which prompted responses by both the law firm and Ethoz, constitute compelling contemporaneous evidence for the prosecution’s case that Ronald did not consent to Mr Loy's actions and was deceived into a transaction whose true purpose and consequences he did not understand.

Ronald’s direct message to Mr Loy

102 Among the documents presented by the prosecution was one-page letter42 dated 11 January 2017. It is addressed directly from Ronald to Mr Loy. The letter stated:

11th January 2017
Dear Mr. Loy,

WHEREABOUT THE S$1,268,500 COLLECTED BY YOU ON THE 10th NOVEMBER 2016 AFTER WHICH YOU COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED FROM CONTACT

You are completely aware that the above proceeds arose up of the mortgage of my house at Telok Kurau to which you have no ownership nor share.

Surprisingly, after you collected the cheque enclosed at Annex "A" of which we have evidence you chose to disappear completely. You are not contactable on the handphone and in the last two months you don't even bother to call me.

We give you till 5p.m. on the 18 of January 2017 to contact me Mr. Yip at (number stated) and arrange to meet at Mr. Kulip Singh's office failing which we have to take the next effective step to solve this mystery by referral to due authorities.

It is in your interest to meet up and resolve this issue.

We thank you.

Mr. Yip Fook Chong

[Emphasis added]

103 A perusal of the text will show that Ronald made three points:

(1) Firstly, Ronald asserted that Mr Loy is completely aware that the sum of S$1,268,500 arose from the mortgage of his house at Telok Kurau, to which Mr Loy has no ownership nor share.

42 Admitted as P105

(2) Secondly, Ronald stated that after Mr Loy collected the cheque, of which they have evidence, he chose to disappear completely, becoming uncontactable on his handphone and failing to call Ronald for the last two months.

(3) Thirdly, Ronald imposed an ultimatum giving Mr Loy until 5pm on 18 January 2017 to make contact and arrange to meet at Kulip Singh's office, failing which they would refer the matter to “due authorities”, and underscored that it would be in Mr Loy's interest to meet up and resolve the issue.

104 In my view, this letter joins the other two prior letters of 29 December 2016 and 9 January 2017 as contemporaneous evidence that rebutted any suggestion that Ronald consented to or was content with Mr Loy's handling of the Balance Sum. Written just two months after the Ethoz loan was disbursed, it demonstrated that Ronald was acutely aware that S$1,268,500 of proceeds from the mortgage of his own home had been collected by Mr Loy, that Mr Loy had no entitlement to those funds, and that Mr Loy had deliberately made himself scarce after collecting them.

Ronald Yip’s FIR of 12 January 2017

105 Ronald did, three days after second letter to One Legal LLC, take the step of making a formal complaint to the authorities. Given Ronald’s inability to give evidence in court, it would be apropos to reproduce in full, his statement to the police, which was recorded on 13 January 2017, and which stated as follows43:

I am the Director of Yip Holdings Pte Ltd, and previously the company deals with Marine Works (Tugboats, Barges & Offshore Works). However in 2008, the economy collapsed and the company had seized the Marine Job.

Yip Holdings Pte Ltd has a UOB account and had also opened a new account with Citibank (xxxxxxxxxx). I took a loan on my house pursuant in which the loan, was presented to me by cheque.

The cheque was issued on 10/11/2016 to "Messrs Yip Holding Pte Ltd" amounting to SGD$1,268,500.

The cheque was deposited by Ezekiel without my knowledge into the Citibank Account.

I found out from Citibank that the cheque was cleared and Ezekiel had withdrawn the money and deposited it into his own personal bank account. I am unable to contact Ezekiel now, and had spoken to my Lawyer on this matter. I was advised to lodge a report

43 Exhibit P1, which is reproduced verbatim and unedited for any grammatical or spelling mistakes.

on this matter and also inform the Bank to stop the money from being transfer or withdrawn any further.

I had known Ezekiel when I was having Coffee at one of the Coffee shop. A conversation strike between me and him and he told me that he had assisted the Sultan of Johore. At that moment, I started to be friends with him and he assisted me with many personal things which makes me able to trust him.

However I met with an accident 6 months ago and on the first operation that I had, I suffered a Heart Attack. Since then I realized that I was not the same person anymore and doctor explained that it is due to the heart attack that makes me unable to think well. Since then Ezekiel had assisted me in my business as he seems honest.

Due to this matter, I felt that Ezekiel had make use of this opportunity to take my money. Ezekiel had also once took me to get a SingPass password and the 2FA Token, and he is holding on to the tokens and I do not know of my password. Due to this, Ezekiel has changed the ACRA of the business putting him to be a principal Director (51% Shareholders) of the company. I am unsure how the changes was made and I can only assumed that Ezekiel might have access ACRA website online and used my SingPass to change the Directorship.

A letter dated 04/10/2016 from "ETHOZ Capital Ltd" was received by me in which it stated that a loan of SGD$4 million was taken up under the name of Yip Holdings Pte Ltd which I believed it was Ezekiel's doing. I have yet to confirm if the loan had been deposited into one of the Company Accounts. The officer from ETHOZ Capital Ltd had informed me that he will met up with me on this matter but he have yet arrange for an appointment. I am worried that I will be liable for the loan should Ezekiel be untraceable.

{Emphasis added]

106 Most tellingly, Ronald’s statements included one recorded before IO Chun Yong Seng which stated in clear terms that he "did not tell [Mr Loy] to do any investment at all."44:

Q6) Did Ezekiel told you that he will be giving you any returns from any investment that he had made on your behalf?

A6) No. I did not tell him to do any investment at all. Ronald’s letter to CAD and AGC

107 A letter was drafted, apparently by Ronald, to AGC and CAD just two days after the prior message to Mr Loy. This letter is reproduced in full as the contents included a significant amount of background detail on his prior relationship and dealings with Mr

44 Please see Exhibit P113 at A6 being a police statement recorded on 20 April 2018.

Loy, and thus afforded an insight into Ronald’s perspective and state of mind at that point of time:

The Learned Attorney-General
Attorney-General's Chambers
1 Upper Pickering Street
Singapore 058288

The Commercial Affairs Department

Police Cantonment Complex Block D

391 New Bridge Road #06-701

Singapore 088762

Thru: The Learned Member of Parliament

13th January 2017

Most Honourable Gentlemen,

POLICE REPORT OF YIP FOOK CHONG

Sometimes last year, I happened to meet by chance one Loy Wei Ezekiel, I was at the said time having coffee at the coffee shop at opposite 102/106 Rangoon Road which belong to me and my family. I saw his Mercedes 400 parked along the road and I noticed a decal stuck on his car bumper and asked him what it was and he told me it was awarded by the Sultan of Johore to him as a Datuk. He told me he has developed and sold property for the Sultan and in the course of conversation, the issue of the Development of my Rangoon Road property came about. He also convinced me he was involved in the development of the 5th Airport Terminal in Singapore.

Our relationship developed and he became aware that my Telok Kurau property was mortgaged to RBS/Coutts Bank. He then offered to help me raise the monies to clear the mortgaged and the possible eviction of me from my home.

He brought me to Legal One LLC, a Lawfirm to do the legal paper work for a loan from Ethoz. I was told that due to MAS policy, I could not get a loan and he volunteered to be a guarantor and convinced me to take the loan in my company's name which is Yip Holdings Pte Ltd. I went along with the legal paper works and the Legal One LLC lawyer did not advise me to get my own lawyer.

He convinced me that I needed a Singpass. In order to get the loan to clear Coutts from Ethoz, he then brought me to get a Singpass and a key device but did not give the key device to me and get access to my Singpass as such.

Sometimes in early November 2016, he suddenly became uncontactable. Sometime in January 2017 after being unable to contact him for quite sometimes, I establish from Legal One LLC that a four million loan was granted to Yip Holdings Pte Ltd and an account balance of one million two hundred and fifty thousand by way of a cheque had been handed to him. I checked with ACRA and realized that at some point, he had made himself 51% shareholder of Yips Holdings Pte Ltd.

Prior to this, he brought me all the way to open a new account with Citi Bank and upon my checking on the 12 January 2017 with Citi Bank, I found that he had banked in the Yip Holdings Pte Ltd's cheque for the above sum in November upon receiving it and drawn out the entire sum and transferred it

to his own personal account but the bank would not give me details. The bank advised me to get the police to follow the money trail.

I was told the loan was to clear Coutts and was shocked when I found out that a 4 million loan had been applied for and approved.

I have all documents to verify the above in my physical possessions including my police report at Bedok Police station on the issue of my Singpass and key device and as such since the property belongs only to me, he has committed Criminal Breach of Trust of the monies due to me and let me an old man suffering from slight dementia to hold the baby of a 4 million dollars loan.

That is all!

I thank you, Gentlemen.

Mr. Yip Fook Chong

INTERIM ANALYSIS

Reconstructing Ronald’s intentions and state of mind from his statements juxtaposed from his medical history and Li-Fen concurrent evidence

108 Absent Ronald’s court testimony, his letters and statements are the closest links to understanding Ronald’s intentions and his state of mind at the time of his apparent discovery of Mr Loy’s transfer of the balance sum, and the pattern of his subsequent actions. These would, of course, be closely related to questions of his cognitive state at the material time, which spanned 30 December 2016 to 17 January 2017.

109 Turning first to the final letter of this series, which was the one dated 17 January 2017, the letter's significance in the overall case is threefold:

(1) Firstly, it is a contemporaneous document written just two months after the Balance Sum was disbursed, which makes it highly probative of Ronald's state of mind and understanding at the material time.

(2) Secondly, it is addressed to both investigative and prosecutorial authorities in Singapore, the AGC and the CAD which demonstrated that Ronald understood the seriousness of what had happened and was apparently seeking the most effective possible remedy.

(3) Thirdly, it is wholly inconsistent with the defence's case that Ronald had agreed to let Mr Loy use the Balance Sum for investments. A man who had agreed to such an arrangement would have no reason to write to the CAD alleging Criminal Breach of Trust two months later.

Ronald’s pattern of escalation was coherent and methodical, suggesting he was in control of his faculties at the material time

110 Forensically analysis Ronald's escalation from One Legal LLC to the AGC and CAD within fifteen days revealed Ronald’s coherence in the manner he progressively piecing together the extent of a fraud allegedly perpetrated against him.

111 The first letter to One Legal LLC on 29 December 2016 was tentative and procedural. Ronald asked for documents and admitted his dementia (which was to cause considerable consternation) but eschewed from naming Mr Loy as a wrongdoer. He seemed to suspect something was wrong but had not yet assembled the full picture.

112 By his second letter on 9 January 2017, Ronald’s tone had transformed entirely. Ronald now invoked Section 420 of the Penal Code, explicitly naming Mr Loy, describing the SingPass manipulation, and threatening to go to the CAD. Essentially, in just eleven days, Ronald had moved from requesting documents to making specific criminal allegations.

113 Running in parallel, Ronald’s direct letter to Mr Loy on 11 January 2017 imposed a formal ultimatum, which was to respond by 5pm on 18 January 2017 or face referral to "due authorities." This is not the behaviour of a confused man but of someone following a deliberate strategy, possibly under the guidance of his friend Kulip Singh, a retired police inspector. The logical implication being that Mr Loy's failure to respond to this ultimatum would effectively remove any remaining ambiguity about his intentions.

114 On 13 January 2017, Ronald filed his police report and simultaneously wrote to the AGC and CAD, routing the letter through his Member of Parliament, which was a sophisticated move reflecting a clear understanding of how to ensure a complaint would receive attention. In that letter, Ronald was specific in characterising Mr Loy's conduct as Criminal Breach of Trust and describing himself as "an old man suffering from slight dementia" left holding a four-million-dollar loan, which was a contemporaneous acknowledgement of his own vulnerability that was a poignant observation within a forensically significant statement as to his cognitive ability and his motivation.

115 Simply stated, Ronald seemed self-aware that he had developed “slight dementia” but appeared to demonstrate that he was sufficiently in control of his faculties as to prosecute a highly strategic pattern of escalation in his letters and statements. Ronald’s behaviour, to say the least, was wholly inconsistent with the defence's case that Ronald had agreed to let Mr Loy use the Balance Sum for investments. A man who had made such an agreement would not, upon discovering that Mr Loy had become uncontactable, respond by invoking criminal statutes, filing police reports, and writing to investigative and prosecutorial agencies within a fortnight.

116 Notwithstanding his condition, Ronald was methodical in approach as each step in the escalation was triggered by new information obtained in the previous step, and each step was calibrated to the appropriate authority. This was more the fully thought-through behaviour of an individual uncovering a fraud, not regretting an agreement.

Li-Fen corroborated Ronald’s evidence and had no motive to frame the two accused persons

117 The evidence gleaned from Ronald’s document trail was largely corroborated by Ronald’s daughter. Li-Fen testified that when she walked Ronald through Mr Loy's claims about the investment of the Balance Sum, Ronald told her he had no recollection of ever discussing these matters with Mr Loy, let alone agreeing to them, and also categorically stating that he had never been taken to Lucky Plaza to see an apartment unit45. Li-Fen's evidence did not waver under cross-examination. She denied without qualification that Ronald had ever agreed to let Mr Loy use the Balance Sum for investment purposes.

118 By her own account, before Ronald’s health crisis in the latter part of 2016, Li-Fen had been largely resident in the United States since the commencement of her master’s degree studies in in 200446, where she was based in New York and worked in the finance sector there as an accountant after obtaining her MBA. Li-Fen’s overseas residence even predated her parents’ divorce in 2007. Under cross-examination Li-Fen stated that she was financially independent, and indeed supported Ronald when the

45 Please see Notes of Evidence, 20 January 2021, Page 97, Lines 21-26.

46 At Notes of Evidence, 21 January 2021, Page 20, Lines 7-31.

latter had difficulty collecting rent from his tenants, and also when her father was involved in litigation with shipping companies, before his business went into dormancy47. Li-Fen’s evidence has already been set out in extensio earlier. Overall, I found Li-Fen to be a credible and reliable witness, and I accept her evidence. It was especially clear that Li-Fen, who spent most of her time overseas and did not know the two accused persons prior to the material time, would have had no motive to frame Mr Loy, or Mdm Gian for that matter.

Corroboration by independent witnesses PW13 Brendan Cai and PW19 Tracy Chen

119 I had set out Mr Cai and Ms Chen’s evidence earlier, as both were independent third-party witnesses, who had dealt with Ronald during the critical period of early 2017, and were thus able to provide eyewitness accounts of their interactions with Ronald that corroborated his document trail in several important respects.

120 Mr Cai’s most significant contribution was his account of the Chinese New Year visit in early 2017. When he raised matter of the loan with Ronald directly, Ronald told him he was very upset about losing control of his company and could not understand how Mr Loy had obtained his SingPass to change the shareholding. Notably, this was a spontaneous, unguarded account given to a commercial lender, and not a lawyer, a family member, or an investigator, which mapped precisely onto the grievances Ronald had set out in his escalating letters. Also remarkable was the fact that Ronald was not reciting a prepared complaint; but appeared to be expressing genuine distress to someone he had no particular reason to perform for.

121 Mr Cai’s account of Mr Loy's progressive evasiveness from January 2017 onwards in ignoring calls, deflecting meetings, and eventually going silent, also mirrored Ronald's own account in his letters and statements that Mr Loy had become uncontactable.

122 Ms Chen’s corroboration operated on a different but equally important level. She met Ronald only once, on 10 January 2017 as she had not been the One Legal LLC

47 Please see Notes of Evidence, 21 January 2021, Page 25, Lines 3-31.

lawyer directly involved in the transaction and had not been present at Ronald’s earlier attendance at her law firm.

123 Ms Chen’s account was remarkable precisely because she had no prior relationship with him. She described Ronald as distraught, breaking down in tears, and unable to recall having visited the office just ten days earlier. He told her he had memory lapses and could be “normal” one moment and “forget everything” five minutes later. This is a contemporaneous, independent observation of Ronald's cognitive state made by an experienced lawyer, which corroborated both Dr Koh's medical findings and Ronald's own self-description in the CAD letter, that Ronald was quite able to comprehend and express himself, but experienced gaps of recollection where his memory recall was compromised by the nascent signs of his ultimately debilitating condition.

Ronald’s disclosures in his encounters with PW13 and PW19 were contemporaneous, unscripted and spontaneous

124 What made both Ms Chen’s and Mr Cai’s accounts so significantly valuable as corroborative evidence was their independence and informality in settings at these respective encounters. I accept that Ronald's letters were drafted with Kulip Singh's assistance and obviously professionally scripted in a manner as to be directed at formal parties and authorities to demand action. The accounts to rendered to Mr Cai and Ms Chen were unscripted and spontaneous, and clearly without any intervention from Kulip Singh. It was thus telling that their substance is entirely consistent throughout in rendering the same message that Ronald did not authorise the shareholding change, did not understand what had happened to the Balance Sum, and felt he had been exploited.

125 Overall, Ronald’s consistency was very difficult to explain away, and I thus hold that the content of his document trail from 29 December 2016 to 13 January 2017 were a truthful and reliable articulation of the facts and his situation as he understood them to be. In these two occasions, we thus heard, from the two testimonies, a contemporaneous rendition of Ronald’s direct voice on his position in relation to the Balance Sum.

The First Accused would have been put to notice on Ronald’s position by PW13’s text messages

126 Further, even if Mr Loy were to claim, as he did, that he did not receive the ultimatum of 11 January 2017, he would, from Mr Cai’s testimony have been put to notice that Ronald was deeply unhappy with his taking and handling of Balance Sum by Ethoz’s Mr Cai’s series of urgent texts coming from 6 January 2017, which culminated with his message of 1 February 2017 stating "Can you spare me 3 minutes? Please give me a call back. Please call your partner, Mr. Yip. He is also concerned on the whole deal”48.

127 Mr Loy evidently did not act on this message and instead continued to make dispositions of the Balance Sum till 11 July 2017, just over a month to the point of his arrest on 16 August 2017.

THE PROSECUTION’S CASE

128 At its core, the prosecution submitted that this case is not about whether Ronald appeared articulate to laypersons or signed a loan agreement. It is about what Mr Loy did after he gained control of the Balance Sum, which was to layer the funds through shell accounts, misrepresenting his mother as an investor and using it for luxury purchases, and all done without transparency or consent.

129 The prosecution's case was built on three main planks.

(1) First, Mr Loy took the Balance Sum entirely out of YHPL and Ronald's control and placed it under his sole dominion. Y&L had no connection to YHPL. The learned DPPs noted that Ronald held no shares or positions in Y&L, and there was consequently no legitimate reason to route the money through Y&L's account other than to add a layer of obfuscation. The prosecutors also contended that Mr Loy also lied to bank relationship managers about the purpose of the transfers, telling Mr Leong that the funds were "from my own personal means" when they were wholly traceable to the Balance Sum.

48 Emphasis added.

(2) Secondly, the DPPs observed that every single use of the Balance Sum was for Mr Loy's personal benefit. The Lucky Plaza Property and shares was purchased in his sole name. The Rolex watch and the Mercedes sports car were purchased for him. They noted that Mr Loy even used the Balance Sum for his court bail. Not a single cent was returned to YHPL or applied towards the Rangoon Road redevelopment that Mr Loy claimed was the purpose of the investment agreement.

(3) Third, the prosecutors contended that Mr Loy failed to advance any credible explanation. He was unable to give a consistent account of the alleged oral agreement. While Mr Loy claimed in his CFD the existence of an oral agreement, at trial he pivoted to claim that the Balance Sum was his money, as he had earned it. Under cross-examination, when confronted with this inconsistency, Mr Loy sought to reconcile it by adopting the position that he had the option of investing the money or treating it as his own.

The First Accused's incorporation of Y&L and his immediate actions when the Balance Sum became available raise the index of suspicion

130 The prosecution's case against Mr Loy centred on the assertion that he has committed a criminal breach of trust involving the $1,268,50049 Balance Sum from YHPL. While it was beyond dispute that Mr Loy was validly entrusted with dominion over these funds as an authorised signatory for YHPL's bank account, the fundamental question is whether Mr Loy's actions show that he dishonestly misappropriated the money. I found the evidence of dishonest intent to be strong after considering the prosecution’s points in their submissions, which I shall liberally refer to for this section.

131 I agreed with the prosecution’s stance that the sheer immediacy of the transfer to Y&L to lend to deep suspicion. In just a single day after the funds were deposited into YHPL's account, Mr Loy transferred the entire amount to Y&L, a company he had incorporated with himself as the sole director and shareholder. It serves to remind that Y&L had no connection whatsoever to YHPL. Neither Ronald nor YHPL held any shares or positions in Y&L.

49 It should be noted Mr Loy transferred S$1,268,400.78 of the Balance Sum from the Y&L bank account into his personal Citibank account in three transactions.

The Absence of Any Legitimate Purpose for the Transfer Through Y&L

132 It was incongruous, in my view, that the name of Y&L bore Ronald's “Yip” surname in its company name along with Mr Loy’s, when in fact Mr Loy fully owned Y&L. In this regard, the prosecution had made a valid observation50 that if the Balance Sum were truly to be used on behalf of YHPL, there was nothing stopping Mr Loy from doing so directly out of YHPL's account. This being the case, this court accepted the prosecution’s opinion that the transfer through Y&L's account served no purpose other than to add “another layer” before the Balance Sum arrived in Mr Loy's personal bank account.

The opening of the Citibank account and its dormancy before the availability of the Balance Sum

133 It is also significant that Mr Loy had incorporated Y&L on 15 August 2016 and opened its bank account with the assistance of PW3 Desmond Leong (“Mr Leong”), a relationship manager with Citibank, some months before the Balance Sum was even disbursed. The account was opened in August 2016 and lay dormant until the Balance Sum arrived. The only transaction that ever passed through Y&L's account was the through-flow of the Balance Sum itself. This is wholly inconsistent with the picture of a legitimate business vehicle that Mr Loy sought to paint.

Gross misrepresentations made about the business purpose of the funds

134 The suspicion against Mr Loy's intent is further evidenced by the multiple misrepresentations he told to bank employees about the reasons for his actions. When opening Y&L's bank account, Mr Loy told Mr Leong that Y&L was in the wholesale business of Korean cosmetic products and that he had secured a contract to distribute such products in Southeast Asia. He also told Mr Leong that he was in discussions with a Chinese company to distribute industrial equipment for palm oil extraction. The prosecution appropriately observed51 that these claims were “not only unsubstantiated by any evidence” but “were directly contradicted by the complete absence of any

50 Please see Exhibit B at [39].

51 Exhibit B at [40](a).

transactions in Y&L's account” and noting that Mr Leong’s account of what Mr Loy told him was “unchallenged” during cross-examination.

135 It was significant that Mr Loy repeated this account when asked about his transfer of the Balance Sum out of YHPL's account just one day after it was deposited. He told Mr Leong that this was because he needed urgently to start his business as he had just secured the contract to distribute Korean cosmetic products. At trial, I observed that Mr Loy studiously avoided responding directly to the DPP’s characterisation of this statement to be a lie, and when questioned by the DPP52 whether this was a convenient reason so that Mr Leong would agree to open a bank account for him, Mr Loy had cryptically stated: “He needed a reason. I gave him the reason”53.

Misrepresentations as to the origin of the funds and reasons for their transfer

136 It was similarly problematic for the First Accused that upon Citibank’s Mr Leong questioning Mr Loy about the transfer of $1,268,400.78 from Y&L's bank account into his personal Citibank account, Mr Loy had stated in a recorded phone call that "these funds are from my own personal means."54 The prosecution validly observed that “Under cross-examination, he conceded that the referenced sum was instead wholly traceable to the Balance Sum”55.

Ronald’s ignorance of the transfer

137 From the accounts covered earlier in these grounds, it was clear that Mr Loy did not inform Ronald when he transferred the Balance Sum out of YHPL's account into Y&L's and later his personal accounts, nor did he inform Ronald of the various payments he made prior to 30 December 2016. To recapitulate, on 30 December 2016, Ronald told Li-Fen that Mr Loy had apparently disconnected his phone SIM card and that he had not spoken to Mr Loy for two to three weeks. Mr Loy had disappeared and did not come to see Ronald or call him prior to and following the Balance Sum being deposited into YHPL's account and being transferred out of it. To say the least, this

52 DPP Eric Hu.

53 At Notes of Evidence, 20 August 2024, Page 19, Lines 1-4.

54 At Exhibit P37, At Sequence 40.

55 Please see Exhibit B at [40](d).

pattern of evasion and disappearance is wholly inconsistent with the conduct of a person acting pursuant to a legitimate agreement.

The First Accused's fund movements disclose a consciousness of wrongdoing

138 Beyond the initial transfer, the learned DPPs contended56 that Mr Loy engaged in a deliberate pattern of layering transactions through multiple bank accounts, which I agreed should found further suspicion of his dishonest intent. After transferring the money into his personal Citibank account, Mr Loy transferred a total of $850,000 from his personal Citibank account into Mdm Gian's personal bank accounts: $300,000 into her first POSB account and $550,000 into her second POSB account. This $850,000 is wholly traceable to the Balance Sum.

139 From the uncovered evidence, the prosecution described57 the layering continuing in a particularly elaborate fashion in connection with the Lucky Plaza property purchase. The movement of the $400,000 on 9 February 2017 is telling. Mdm Gian transferred the sum between her two POSB accounts, withdrew it in two cash tranches of $254,000 and $146,000, and both amounts were deposited into Mr Loy's OCBC account on the very same day. Within 24 hours, that same $400,000 had been deployed as the fixed deposit underpinning the OCBC Housing Loan for the Lucky Plaza property.

No commercial rationale presented itself for the transfer through Y&L's account

140 The elaborate sequence of cash withdrawals and redeposits served no discernible commercial purpose. If there was a genuine investment agreement between Mr Loy and Ronald, the $400,000 could have been transferred directly from YHPL's account or Mr Loy's own personal account. The decision to route the funds through Mdm Gian's accounts and move them in cash tranches was unnecessary for any legitimate purpose. The only plausible explanation for this circuitous route was to distance the Balance Sum from its origins.

56 Please see Exhibit B at [42].

57 At [42](b).

141 I also found Mr Loy's explanation for routing the $400,000 through Mdm Gian's accounts was that he wanted to obtain $800 worth of Takashimaya vouchers to be implausible, and agree with the prosecution’s characterisation58 of this as a “bare” and “belated” claim, and an “afterthought” which was never mentioned in any of his police statements, nor in his Case for the Defence, which was unsupported by evidence whatsoever.

142 In my judgment, Mr Loy's observed pattern of layering transactions through multiple bank accounts, engaging in deceptive behaviour with various parties, and becoming evasive and uncontactable when questioned about his dealings with the Balance Sum served to bolster the prosecution's contention of his dishonest intent.

The Balance Sum Was Spent Solely For The First Accused's Personal Benefit

143 I turn now to the specific uses to which Mr Loy put the Balance Sum. The prosecution has demonstrated, and I accept, that every single use of the Balance Sum was for Mr Loy's personal benefit, with not a single cent ever being applied for the benefit of YHPL.

The Lucky Plaza Property

144 Every aspect of the Lucky Plaza transaction pointed in the same direction. The property was purchased solely in Mr Loy's name. The entire purchase price was funded from the Balance Sum, disbursed across three streams, comprising $116,500 from Mr Loy's personal Citibank account for stamp duties, legal fees and the deposit; $368,823.97 by cashier's order from Mdm Gian's second POSB account; and $400,000 routed through Mdm Gian's accounts as the fixed deposit for the OCBC Housing Loan. The loan was taken out in Mr Loy's personal capacity, and the monthly repayments of $18,259.95 were met from his personal account.

The Lucky Plaza transaction had little semblance to a jointly agreed investment

145 The Lucky Plaza transaction bore none of the indicia of a jointly agreed investment. From the testimonies of PW5 Charmine Yee (“Ms Yee”), Mr Loy never

58 Please see Exhibit B at [44].

mentioned Ronald or YHPL to the very OCBC officer who facilitated the loan. Despite Mr Loy's claim that Ronald had agreed to the purchase, the latter was uninvolved in any viewings. The prosecution calculated59 that the property would generate a monthly loss of $651.99, with rental proceeds consistently falling short of mortgage repayments. Conspicuously, all title and contractual documentation were in Mr Loy's name alone. To recap again from the foregoing part of these grounds, Ronald told Li-Fen that he had no recollection of discussing the Lucky Plaza property with Mr Loy, nor of any agreement between them to purchase it.

Mr Loy’s misrepresentation to OCBC that a downpayment came from directorship fees, sales of investments, savings and business income rather than the Balance Sum

146 I also note PW5, Ms Yee’s, testimony60 that Mr Loy made a declaration, while completing an OCBC form that the downpayment came from directorship fees, sales of investments, savings and business income. This was, by any measure, false, as the monies would have ineluctably come entirely from the Balance Sum. When this was put to him at trial, Mr Loy’s response was that the truth of his declaration was contingent on his relationship with Ronald.

147 This is a remarkable position which was tantamount to saying that a patently false statement to a bank became true if such a private agreement could be claimed. Mr Loy was seemingly alluding to an evolving element of his defence which was that Ronald owed him money for inter alia, remuneration as a director for running the companies. It is plainly unsustainable given the clear context of OCBC’s questionnaire, and it illustrated the increasingly strained lengths to which Mr Loy was driven in attempting to justify what was, at its core, a straightforward misappropriation.

Share Purchases

148 The share purchases tell a similar story. Mr Loy used $125,519.40 from his OCBC account to purchase shares via 11 EPS payments, all through a trading account held solely in his name. No proceeds were ever returned to YHPL, and Ronald played no part in any of these transactions. The prosecution traced each of the 11 payments

59 Please see Exhibit B at [115] (b).

60 At Notes of Evidence, 29 August 2019, Page 15, Lines 2-6.

back to the Balance Sum with care, and I was satisfied that the sums were at least substantially, if not entirely, traceable to it.

149 The traceability issue was resolved, in part, by Mr Loy's own evidence. The defence had contested whether the EPS payments could be conclusively traced to the Balance Sum specifically. But in re-examination, Mr Loy conceded that several of these payments were made pursuant to his alleged “investment agreement” with Ronald.

Payments to Innomedia Technologies (“Innomedia”)

150 The payments to Innomedia followed the same pattern. Mr Loy paid $24,500 to Innomedia Technologies for two projects "Car Street" and "Property Street" from his personal bank account, without mentioning Ronald or YHPL to PW4, Bhupesh Kalra (“Buphesh”). The prosecution established that YHPL was not a party to either project or derived any benefit from them. The only person Mr Loy introduced to Bhupesh as an investor was his own mother, the Second Accused, Mdm Gian, whom he misrepresented in that capacity. Neither project was completed, and Mr Loy did not make full payment for either, with Bhupesh explaining that he did not hand over the source code upon the aforesaid failure to pay.

151 While Mr Loy claimed that the payments to Innomedia came from his own money, the prosecution has satisfactorily proven otherwise. A tracing exercise61 established that the funds are at least partially and substantially traceable to the Balance Sum.

152 I was also satisfied that both Mr Loy and Mdm Gian’s financial circumstances of at the material time made it implausible that these payments could have come from their own means. Mdm Gian was the sole breadwinner of the household, paying for her sons' school fees, her husband's medical bills, and household expenses, and her bank account statements reflected average monthly balances of below $10,000. Mr Loy's personal bank accounts reflected consistently low monthly balances, offering no support for his claim to have maintained a private cash reserve of between $1.9 million and $2.1 million stored in bags at home. The only evidence offered in support of this

61 Please see Exhibit B, Annexes A&B.

claim was a set of grainy photographs that could not be reliably attributed to him. The was not credible reason to accept his account.

Evidence of DW3, Dextan Fun

153 Before proceeding to the next two transactions concerning a Mercedes sports car and a Rolex Yacht Master, I will first turn to the evidence of DW3, Dextan Fun (“Mr Fun”).

154 Mr Fun was Mr Loy's cousin and Mdm Gian's nephew was called as a defence witness to provide exculpatory explanations for two transactions: the purchase of a Mercedes SLK sports car and the Rolex Yacht-Master watch. On the watch, Mr Fun’s account62 was that he had identified a Chinese buyer willing to pay around $18,000 for the watch, and introduced the opportunity to Mdm Gian, who purchased it at retail for $14,800 and passed it to him for onward sale, with a view to a planned profit split 50/50 between them.

155 In my view, Mr Fun’s account did not withstand scrutiny. The most damaging of the account was the fact that the tax invoice was made out solely to Mr Loy, and it was also Mr Loy who signed the receipt field confirming collection of the watch. Indeed, Mr Fun’s name appeared nowhere on the invoice.

156 When this was put to Mr Fun in cross-examination, DW3 could offer no satisfactory explanation. This thus produced a fundamental difficulty to the defence case that if the transaction were genuinely a commercial arrangement between Mr Fun and Mdm Gian, there is no reason why Mr Loy would appear as the named customer or sign for receipt of the item.

157 Mr Fun’s account was also directly contradicted by Mdm Gian's own evidence. Mdm Gian’s consistent position was that she purchased the watch on Mr Loy's instructions and passed it directly to him, and not to Mr Fun. Naturally one of these accounts must be false, and Mdm Gian's version was the more plausible as it was corroborated by the documentary record. The existence of the alleged Chinese buyer

62 Notes of Evidence, 30 November 2022, Page 9, Lines 6-26.

remained uncorroborated, and no evidence of the subsequent sale or profit from the timepiece was produced.

158 In relation to the Mercedes sports car, where Mr Fun claimed he had identified the Mercedes on SGCarMart, and asked Mdm Gian to take out the bank loan in her name because he could not obtain one himself after leaving the army, and that he funded the purchase by passing her approximately $40,000 to $41,000 in cash63, similar difficulties arose against Mr Fun’s account. Mr Loy's phone number appeared on the vehicle sales agreement alongside Mdm Gian's, which Mr Fun could not adequately explain. Taken together, Mr Fun’s evidence on the two transactions assumed the appearance of a constructed narrative designed to provide cover for transactions that the documentary record pointed firmly towards Mr Loy.

The Rolex Yacht-Master Watch

159 Payments toward the acquisition of the Rolex Yacht-Master was readily traceable to the Balance Sum. The purchase price of $14,800 was charged to Mdm Gian's credit card, but the tax invoice was made out solely to Mr Loy, and his signature appeared on the receipt field, which was a field the jeweller confirmed was reserved for the person who physically received the watch. As stated above, Mdm Gian's account was consistently that she made the payment on Mr Loy's instructions and passed the watch directly to him upon purchase.

160 I noted that the fund trail was unambiguous. Following the disbursement of the Balance Sum into Mr Loy's personal Citibank account, he made a series of cash withdrawals totalling $14,600 across two days in November 2016. Near-identical sums were deposited into Mdm Gian's first POSB account on the same or following day. Remarkably, this was an account that had held only $2,940.47 prior to those deposits. Mdm Gian then applied $14,900 towards her Visa credit card for the watch purchase. The withdrawals from Mr Loy's account, the near-identical deposits into Mdm Gian's account on the same or following day, and the subsequent application of those funds towards the watch purchase, taken together, admit of no other reasonable explanation than that the cash was passed from Mr Loy to Mdm Gian for that purpose.

63 Notes of Evidence, 30 November 2022, Page 6, Lines 24-30.

161 Ultimately, Mr Loy's attempt to distance himself from the transaction did not withstand scrutiny. While he denied receiving the watch and sought to attribute the purchase to his cousin, Mr Fun. Mr Fun's unequivocal evidence debunked this account upon his confirmation at cross examination that he did not pay for the watch64.

The Mercedes Sports Car

162 Turning now to the Mercedes sports car, which bore registration number SKE350H. The car dealer, PW17 Tan Siong Khim (“Mr Tan”), testified that on 2 January 2017, Mr Loy had gone to his dealership in the daytime, having seen the car on sgCarMart. He went around the car, expressed interest in buying it, and asked Mr Tan to reserve it, saying he would return later that day with his mother to negotiate further.

163 Mr Loy returned with Mdm Gian, and the parties negotiated on price, agreed on a figure, went for a test drive, and then completed the paperwork. Mr Tan added that the sales agreement listed two contact numbers, one belonging to Mdm Gian and the second belonging to Mr Loy. The car was intended to be registered in Mdm Gian's name. Mr Loy, however, told Mr Tan on the day of purchase that he would be the driver of the car65.

164 Less the finance loan from Maybank, the negotiated immediately payable sum of approximately $67,000 was paid in cash ($60,000), NETS ($2,000), and cheque ($5,126). On 18 January 2017, when the car was handed over, Mdm Gian and a person identified as Mr Loy's brother were present. Mdm Gian handed over the $60,000 as a cash sum66.

165 Mr Tan also gave evidence that Mdm Gian's Notice of Assessment was insufficient to substantiate the loan, and that Mr Loy eventually came in as a guarantor. Tan recalled clearly Mr Loy provided a bank statement showing a balance of approximately $1 million.

64 Please see Notes of Evidence, 30 November 2022, Page 23, Lines 3-15.

65 At Notes of Evidence, 9 March 2021, Page 52, Lines 2-8.

66 Please see Notes of Evidence, 9 March 2021, Page 50, Lines 2-8.

166 When asked by the DPP, Mr Tan stated that the names “Dextan Fun”, “Ronald Yip”, “Yip Holdings”, and “Yip & Loy” were never mentioned during the transaction, and that there was no reference of the car being intended as any kind of investment. Mr Tan vividly recalled Mr Loy to be "the person that actually showed the interest to purchase the car."67

167 Here, the prosecution was able to show that the funds for the purchase of the Mercedes are traceable to the Balance Sum, with $65,126 being wholly traceable, and a further $8,846.69 being at least partially traceable. The $150,000 transferred from Mr Loy's personal Citibank account into Mdm Gian's first POSB account on 3 and 4 January 2017 is wholly traceable to the Balance Sum, as the only deposits into Mr Loy's personal Citibank account prior to those transfers were from the Balance Sum itself.

168 The learned DPPs noted that prior to the receipt of that $150,000, Mdm Gian's first POSB account contained only $2,140.32. The subsequent payments towards the Mercedes, including a $60,000 cash withdrawal, a $5,126 cheque, and a $2,000 NETS payment were therefore wholly traceable to the Balance Sum.

169 Mr Loy's claim that he was merely paying a $2,000 deposit as a favour for his cousin Dextan Fun is wholly inconsistent with his observed conduct by PW17. The learned DPPs observed68 that Mr Loy first denied test driving the car at all, then shifted his position and claimed he drove it on a different date, and also that neither position was put to Mr Tan when he was on the stand. Their stance was that Mr Loy effectively conceded that Mr Tan's testimony was unchallenged when he said he "couldn't be bothered"69 to challenge it. Mr Fun himself also did not corroborate Mr Loy's account.

170 In my judgment, the totality of Mr Loy's conduct, where he had expressed an ardent interest, negotiating the price, test driving the car, and telling the dealer he would be its driver was wholly inconsistent with the claim that he was merely doing his cousin a favour. The evidence trail pointed to Mr Loy intending the vehicle to be a personal acquisition.

67 Please see Notes of Evidence, 9 March 2021, Page 43, Lines 6-7.

68 At Exhibit B at [129]-[130].

69 At Notes of Evidence, 22 August 2024, Page 33, Lines 10-15.

Use of Balance sum for retail purchases and court bail

171 Mr Loy also spent at least $164.45 from the Balance Sum on various retail purchases at petrol stations and supermarkets apparently for his own benefit. These sums are entirely traceable to the Balance Sum, as the only deposits into his personal Citibank account were from the Balance Sum itself. Mr Loy contended that that these were "petty expenses" required for "investment activities”70, which were stated to be petrol for transport to carry out investments, and stationery for printing investment pitches. Mr Loy did not attempt any further substantiation of these expenditures but conceded that he did not submit any of these expenses to the corporate secretary71.

172 Rather extraordinarily, Mr Loy applied $30,000 from the Balance Sum towards his own court bail, after his arrest. Acting on Mr Loy's instructions, Mdm Gian applied for and was issued a cashier's order on 16 February 2017 for $30,000 payable to the State Courts. This sum was wholly traceable to the Balance Sum, having been transferred from Mr Loy's personal Citibank account into Mdm Gian's second POSB account before being applied to his bail. To say the least, Mr Loy’s use of misappropriated funds to pay his own court bail does not conduce to give a good impression of his distinguishing between personal assets and corporate property held under his care.

THE DEFENCE CASE

The defence case on the central question of whether there was a dishonest misappropriation by the First Accused

173 Essentially both sides agree that the core issue is whether Mr Loy dishonestly misappropriated the Balance Sum. As can be seen from the forgoing, the prosecution framed this as straightforward proposition for the undisputed facts speak for themselves. This being that Mr Loy transferred the money out of YHPL the very next day, routed it through a company he solely controlled, moved it into his personal account, and apparently expended the monies on himself and his own interests. The defence counters that Mr Loy genuinely believed he was legally entitled to do so

70 Please see Notes of Evidence, 21 August 2024, Page 30, Lines 15-17.

71 At Notes of Evidence, 18 September 2024, Page 36, Lines 10-11.

pursuant to an oral investment agreement with Ronald, and that genuine belief negates the dishonesty element.

174 In this regard the defence relied72 on the Court of Appeal's definition of "dishonest" in Poh Yuan Nie v Public Prosecutor [2022] SGCA 74, which requires that the accused intended to mislead or cheat, submitting that this definition cannot apply to Mr Loy because Ronald allegedly agreed to and was fully aware of the investment plan, which would include the transfer of funds to Y&L's account, the purchase of the Lucky Plaza property in Mr Loy’s personal name, and the investment in shares.

175 The defence offered two practical justifications for the property being purchased in Mr Loy’s personal name: first, it would avoid the additional buyer's stamp duty that would have applied if purchased in Ronald's name or through a corporate entity; and second, Mr Loy’s willingness to be a personal guarantor for the Ethoz loan showed he was not trying to take advantage of Ronald, since he would be personally liable if Ronald died before the loan was repaid.

Ronald's mental capacity

176 The defence then pivoted to Ronald's mental capacity as the central issue, with counsel arguing that if Ronald were mentally capable at the material time, as certain lay witnesses suggested, then the irresistible inference must be that he validly entered into the Loan Agreement and was fully aware of and consented to the investment arrangement with Mr Loy73.

177 This is where the two sides diverged most sharply. The defence devoted considerable space to arguing that Ronald was mentally competent at the material time, relying on the lay witnesses including DW2 Jonathan Ow, PW6 Javier Tan, PW13 Brendan Cai, and PW2 Heng Kwang Han who all observed nothing unusual about him.

72 Please see Defence’s Closing Arguments at [26]-[30].

73 Defence’s Closing Arguments at [31]-[33].

178 In relation to these four witnesses, the defence essentially made the following points74:

(1) Mr Jonathan Ow (DW2), a practising lawyer of 30 years, met Ronald on three occasions in 2016. Ronald sought legal advice on a complex loan agreement involving a 1% monthly interest rate, a 3% service charge, and a mortgage over two properties. Ronald introduced Mr Loy to Mr Ow as "the person who arranged for the loan" and made clear he had appointed Mr Loy to make loan arrangements on his behalf. Mr Ow's evidence was that Ronald was able to understand complex corporate and financial matters.

(2) Mr Tan Jin Long Javier (PW6), the Ethoz relationship manager, attended multiple meetings with Ronald and Mr Loy. He observed that Ronald's demeanour was normal, that he seemed to understand what he was signing, and that he was aware the loan was $4 million and not $5 million as originally requested.

(3) Mr Cai Xiande (PW13), Ethoz's team leader, corroborated Mr Tan's account. He noted that Ronald was actively involved in discussions, raised concerns about the negative pledge clause in the letter of offer, and even proposed finding another financier. Mr Cai agreed that Ronald's participation showed he could comprehend and engage with the content of the discussions.

(4) Mr Heng Kwang Han (PW2), the Citibank relationship manager who attended to Ronald and Ezekiel on 10 October 2016, testified that Ronald "looks normal to me, like any other man you would see on the street," was able to describe his business and personal experience in the industry, and signed the account opening documents without reluctance. Mr Heng also confirmed that Ezekiel being the sole authorised signatory despite Ronald being a director was "not

74 At Defence’s Closing Arguments at [34]-[58].

uncommon," and that there was "nothing suspicious" arising from Citibank's due diligence.

179 Learned defence counsel75 concluded that four independent witnesses unanimously observed Ronald to be mentally capable across three different contexts, legal, financial, and banking between April and October 2016, and that this is inconsistent with the prosecution's case that he was mentally deficient and unable to make complex decisions.

Analysis of defence submissions on Ronald’s mental capacity

180 On its surface, this is the defence's strongest argument, that four independent witnesses, including two called by the prosecution had consistently observed Ronald as mentally capable. Ronald's objection to the negative pledge clause, a specific commercial concern among nineteen clauses, might have been difficult to explain away as the behaviour of someone cognitively impaired.

Submissions on Ronald’s apparent capacity are contrary to actual medical evidence

181 While I commend counsel for their assiduous analysis, their argument is vulnerable to the actual medical evidence presented. The prosecution's medical evidence from Dr Mervyn Koh was not simply that Ronald was visibly confused or incoherent, but rather that he had specific deficits in short-term memory and orientation that might not be perceptible to a layman in a brief or superficial interaction, which the encounters undoubtedly were. Dr Koh explicitly noted that the effects may not be perceptible by a layman who only had superficial interaction with Ronald, but that these would come out if the inquisitor performed due diligence in checking for understanding and asking him to repeat himself. I refer specifically to this fragment of Dr Koh’s testimony76:

...(I)f it’s just a superficial interaction with Mr. (Ronald) Yip as if he was ordering a drink at a coffeeshop, I don’t think it would have been perceptible to any layman. However, if this was a person who knew him for a longer period of time, then it would be the evident that he would have clear memory lapses at even difficulty

75 Aristotle Eng from Andre Jumabhoy LLC.

76 Please see Notes of Evidence, 4 March 2021 at Page 74, Lines 11-26. Repeated and hesitation words “um” and “ah” have been edited for flow and readability.

making complex decisions. And with regards to even complex Financial matters, taking a loan and all that, I would believe that somebody who engaged in a very in depth conversation with him with regard to financial matters and did due diligence in checking for his understanding and getting him to repeat himself to show that understanding would be able to pick up these cognitive deficits.

182 In their submissions, the defence critiqued Dr Koh's evidence77, pointing out that he never conducted a formal assessment of Ronald's decision-making capacity for financial matters and effectively conceded this under cross-examination. Counsel argued that Dr Goh's evidence is similarly unhelpful78 as he only assessed Ronald in 2020 and admitted he could not reliably extrapolate backwards to 2016.

183 Dr Jerome Goh, the IMH psychiatrist who assessed Ronald in September and October 2020, while being candid about his the limits of ability to “extrapolate backwards”79 to even just seven months of deterioration between February 2020 and September-October 2020, much less ascertain Ronald’s condition at the material time in 2016, was nevertheless clear that a person's cognitive impairment may not always be apparent to laypeople around them, and it was not a certainty that it would be picked up. Notably Dr Goh had assessed Ronald in 2020, when the latter was fully in the thrall of dementia as to be unable to give evidence in court. Dr Goh noted that since dementia was a progressive condition, Ronald's deficits in 2016 would likely have been milder80 and implicitly less perceptible.

No competing defence expert to give an opposing medical viewpoint

184 I acknowledge the points made by learned counsel, but also note the defence’s inability to produce a competing medical expert to give a contrary medical opinion on Ronald’s mental capacity, it was open for the prosecution to validly argue that the lay witnesses' observations, while genuine, might not have picked up specific cognitive deficits that would have become evident to a trained geriatric physician.

77 The passages can be found at Defence’s Closing Arguments at [59]-[75] under the subheading “The evidence of Ronald’s doctors does not help the Prosecution’s case”.

78 The passages can be found at Defence’s Closing Arguments at [76]-[86] under the subheading “Dr Jerome Goh’s evidence does not corroborate Dr Koh’s”.

79 Notes of Evidence, 1 March 2021 at Page 49, Lines 15-25.

80 Please see Notes of Evidence, 1 March 2021, Page 66, Lines 11-32.

185 In my judgment, the presented evidence convinced me that there should also a

clear distinction between Ronald being able to generally follow a conversation, on the one hand, and being able to make fully informed, independent decisions about complex financial arrangements, on the other. With respect, the defence conflated these two aspects. Hence, Ronald raising the negative pledge clause, for instance, seemed reflect a residual ability to engage with familiar concepts to the seasoned businessman that he was without necessarily demonstrating full comprehension of the overall transaction.

Why Ronald’s condition was only one part of the equation

186 The prosecution's position, as discerned from their submission arguments

treated the medical evidence as corroborative rather than central, and without it, the objective evidence of Mr Loy’s conduct and the absence of any credible agreement was sufficient, in their estimation, to prove the charge.

187 Simply stated, the prosecution did not rest its case primarily on Ronald's

incapacity, but rather on the objective conduct of Mr Loy and the absence of any credible evidence of an agreement. Hence, while the prosecution did rely on Dr Koh's and Dr Goh's evidence to establish Ronald's vulnerability, the main thrust of their argument was essentially that Mr Loy’s own behaviour, which included disappearing after the transfer, misrepresenting investment goals to bank officers, and paradoxically never mentioning Ronald to anyone involved in the alleged investments, were wholly inconsistent with a genuine agreement.

The alleged investment agreement

188 The defence asserted that there was a genuine oral agreement to invest the

Balance Sum in the Lucky Plaza property, shares, and the Rangoon Road redevelopment. The prosecution systematically engaged, deconstructed and generally dismantled this claim by, inter alia, pointing out that:

(1) the alleged agreement was entirely oral despite Mr Loy having dealt with Ronald in writing on other occasions;

(2) that Mr Loy could not even have known the quantum of the Balance Sum in October 2016 when he claimed the agreement was made;

(3) that none of the investments were in YHPL's name or for YHPL's benefit; and

(4) that Mr Loy never mentioned Ronald to any of the counterparties in the alleged investments; and that no monied from the Balance Sum ever returned to YHPL.

189 The prosecution also highlighted the extraordinary number of times Mr Loy’s account of the agreement shifted, in his police statements, his Case for the Defence, his evidence-in-chief, and cross-examination.

The defence submission did not engage issues concerning the First Accused’s credibility

190 The prosecution had concentrated a considerable part of their submissions on Mr Loy’s credibility referencing his constantly evolving positions on an array of material issue, spanning the purpose of the Balance Sum, the amounts Ronald allegedly owed him, the circumstances of their meeting, the objective of the alleged agreement, and his use of the money for expenses. The learned DPP’s submission also highlighted his litany of allegations against the police, the prosecutors, his own former lawyers, and even the court registries, arguing that these reflect a witness prone to fabrication and desperate deflection (which will be covered more extensively in the later part of these grounds).

191 The defence, by contrast, did not seriously engage with Mr Loy’s credibility problems, focusing instead on the legal standard of reasonable doubt and the weaknesses in the prosecution's medical evidence.

192 As a result of the defence submissions being more reliant on reasonable doubt arguments and the lay witness evidence on Ronald's mental state, they did not adequately address the prosecution's core point, which was that even if Ronald was mentally competent, there is no credible evidence that he ever agreed to allow what Mr Loy actually did with the money.

FINAL ANALYSIS

Would Ronald have approved the First Accused’s use of the Balance Sum, if it was never used for YHPL's benefit

193 Within this hypothetical thought experiment that Ronald did not lack mental capacity, one might ask would it have been conceivable for him to let Mr Loy handle the funds in the manner he did?

194 It is telling that the defence could not rebut the prosecution's contention that nothing from the Balance Sum was ever returned to YHPL or shown to have been used for its benefit. Where all sides are clear that the Balance Sum was to be invested for the eventual purpose of redeveloping Ronald's Rangoon Road property, Mr Loy's actions was wholly at odds with any genuine intention to redevelop the Rangoon Road property.

195 While Mr Loy held the Balance Sum from 18 November 2016 to the time of his arrest in August 2017, there was no indication of any of the monies going towards the redeveloping the Rangoon Road property, nor any funds ever being returned to YHPL. Mr Loy did not draft any corporate resolution authorising any his dealings with the Balance Sum. There was no agreed investment strategy, nor discernible targets. Conspicuously too, none of the investments were made in YHPL's name. The First Accused’s uncontactability and layering of accounts cast a pall of suspicion

196 When concerned parties, including Li-Fen and representatives from Ethoz, sought answers for Mr Loy's actions, he became uncontactable and was seen to be evasive in avoiding explanations. Mr Loy's conduct towards Brandan Cai of Ethoz is exemplary in this regard: when Mr Cai questioned Mr Loy about his dealings with Ronald, Mr Loy brushed him aside and ignored his enquiries. Similarly, when Li-Fen sought to contact Mr Loy on Ronald's behalf, she noted Mr Loy to be dismissive and unresponsive. Further, Mr Loy's observed pattern of layering transactions through multiple bank accounts, engaging in deceptive behaviour with various parties, and becoming evasive when questioned are circumstantially adverse to his case. My answer to the above thought experiment is a categorical “No”, Ronald would not approve, and Ronald’s actual position is extremely clearly set out by the letters and statements that were exhibited prior to the Interim Analysis.

Analysing the First Accused as witness

197 I have already dealt with the evidence of the two defence witnesses of fact, DW2 Jonathan Ow and DW3 Dextan Fun, earlier in these grounds. I now direct my analysis to the First Accused, Mr Loy, himself.

198 The High Court in Farida Begam d/o Mohd Artham v Public Prosecutor [2001] 3 SLR(R) 592, [2001] SGHC 333 identified three domains for the assessment of a witness's credibility: demeanour, internal consistency, and external consistency. I will address each in turn, though I should say at the outset that in my view the most transparent and forensically reliable approach to demeanour is not to rely on impressionistic observations of manner or bearing, but to identify discernible patterns of forthrightness or evasion in the way a witness gave evidence and responded to questions. I will accordingly treat demeanour in that broader sense and address it after dealing with the consistency analysis.

External Consistency

199 Mr Loy's evidence was extensively contradicted by other witnesses and by the objective documentary record. The most significant areas of external inconsistency were as follows.

200 On the Lucky Plaza property, Mr Loy claimed the purchase was an investment for YHPL's benefit. Yet Ronald did not participate in any viewings, all title and contractual documentation was in Mr Loy's name alone, and the property generated a consistent monthly loss. None of these features were consistent with a jointly agreed investment made on YHPL's behalf.

201 On the Rolex watch, Mr Loy claimed the funds transferred to Mdm Gian's account were intended for share investments. The bank records told a different story: the money moved from his account to Mdm Gian's account, she confirmed she purchased the watch on his instructions and passed it directly to him, and his cousin DW3 Dextan Fun confirmed at cross-examination that he had not paid for the watch and that Mr Loy was the actual customer. Mr Loy's name appeared on the tax invoice

and his signature appeared in the receipt field, yet he denied having received the watch at all.

202 On the Mercedes sports car, Mr Loy claimed he had paid the deposit merely as a favour to his cousin. The car dealer testified that Mr Loy had expressed clear personal interest in the vehicle, negotiated the price, gone on a test drive, and told him he would be the car's driver. Mr Loy contradicted himself about the test drive, first denying it entirely and then claiming he had driven the car on a different date. He did not challenge the dealer's testimony on either point, saying he "couldn't be bothered."

203 On the Car Street and Property Street software projects, Mr Loy claimed these were funded from the Balance Sum for YHPL's benefit. Yet he never mentioned Ronald to Bhupesh Kalra of Innomedia Technologies, and he introduced his own mother; who had no role in YHPL, as one of his investors. Neither claim was consistent with a genuine intention to develop these projects for the company's benefit.

204 On the OCBC housing loan declaration, Mr Loy declared to OCBC that the sources of funds for his downpayment were directorship fees, sales of investments, savings, and business income. The downpayment came entirely from the Balance Sum. When confronted with this at trial, Mr Loy maintained that the truth of his declaration was contingent on his relationship with Ronald, a position I found wholly untenable.

205 Finally, on Mr Loy's claim to have extended a $300,000 loan to Ronald secured against properties at 102 Rangoon Road and 130 Lorong J Telok Kurau, I found it wholly implausible that Ronald would have pledged properties with a combined market value of nearly $10 million as security for a loan of just $300,000. This claim was as implausible as it was unsubstantiated.

Internal Consistency

206 Mr Loy's evidence was equally lacking in internal consistency, with his account shifting fundamentally across his police statements, his Case for the Defence, his evidence-in-chief, and cross-examination.

207 On the use of the Balance Sum, his Case for the Defence asserted that he and Ronald had agreed on how the funds should be spent. At trial, he shifted to claiming the money was his own, stating that it was "earned through my personal means"81 and "It is my money. I did not commit criminal breach of trust."82 Under cross-examination, he shifted again, claiming he had the option of either investing the money pursuant to the agreement or treating it as his own, and that he had authority to choose between the two. These three positions are irreconcilable with each other.

208 On the alleged oral agreement, Mr Loy’s Case for the Defence stated that he and Ronald had agreed to secure a loan from Ethoz only. At trial, he claimed there had also been an agreement to borrow $2.55 million from one Netty Jung and then added that Ronald had also wanted a loan from ValueMax. When pressed on the latter, he claimed a "missing" document would have confirmed it. This was not the only occasion on which Mr Loy invoked absent documents when cornered by an inconsistency he could not otherwise explain.

209 On the timing of the alleged agreement, Mr Loy had sworn in an affidavit that it was entered into "on or around October 2016."83 This was impossible, as the quantum of the Balance Sum could not have been known in October 2016 as the figure of $2,450,000 required to discharge the Coutts mortgage had not yet been agreed upon at that point. When this was put to him under cross-examination, Mr Loy first conceded the point, then asserted ignorance, and in re-examination claimed there had been "a mistake" in the affidavit, which he attributed to being "very tied up with full-time national service"84 and having given his lawyers the wrong date over the phone. I would observe that a person who had genuinely entered into an agreement involving over $1.2 million would be expected to remember with reasonable accuracy when that agreement was made.

210 On the question of written versus oral agreements, Mr Loy testified that he had a written document recording a $300,000 loan to Ronald and that he habitually

81 Please see Notes of Evidence, 14 June 2024, Page 26, Lines 2-4.

82 Notes of Evidence, 14 June 2024, Page 26, Line 11.

83 At Notes of Evidence, 18 September 2024, Page 14, Lines 29-30.

84 Please see Notes of Evidence, 25 September 2024, Page 36, Lines 30-32.

committed events and agreements to writing. Yet for the alleged agreement concerning the Balance Sum, effectively a sum more than four times larger, he had claimed there was no written record, saying Ronald had wanted it to be oral and that discussions had taken place over WhatsApp. Those WhatsApp messages were, predictably, "missing" and were never produced.

211 On the monies Ronald allegedly owed him, Mr Loy told the police that approximately $80,000 to $100,000 of the Balance Sum represented expenses and monies Ronald owed him. This did not appear in his Case for the Defence. At trial during evidence-in-chief, he claimed Ronald owed him "at least 300-over thousand dollars"85 and a further $500,00086. After his counsel discharged himself, he expanded this to a list of sums totalling $882,00087, then added claims for a further $423,215, a retainer and transport allowance of $162,500, and interest on a $20,000 loan. Months later, still in evidence-in-chief, he added yet more figures. When confronted, Mr Loy produced a document containing illegible scribbles and once again alluded to a "missing" document. By the end of cross-examination, he was essentially claiming entitlement to the entire Balance Sum as an offset against $1.5 million he said Ronald owed him.

212 Finally, on the claim that his Case for the Defence had been drafted without his input, Mr Loy raised this allegation some five years after the document was filed. He did not call his former lawyers to support it. I drew an adverse inference from this failure and found that the Case for the Defence, with its omissions, must have been drafted in accordance with his instructions.

Demeanour and Overall Credibility

213 Drawing these threads together, I found Mr Loy's overall credibility to be severely and irreparably undermined. Several features of his conduct at trial were particularly damaging in this regard.

85 At Notes of Evidence, 17 September 2024, Page 54, Lines 28-29.

86 Notes of Evidence, 17 September 2024, Page 55, Lines 2-4.

87 Please see Notes of Evidence, 17 September 2024, Page 55, Lines 5-9.

214 The most persistent was his pattern of invoking "missing" documents whenever he was confronted with an inconsistency he could not otherwise explain. This recurred across multiple aspects of his case and had the appearance of a deliberate strategy rather than a series of unfortunate coincidences.

215 Equally damaging was the escalating and entirely unsupported nature of his claims about the monies Ronald allegedly owed him. These claims expanded dramatically over the course of the trial, without any documentary foundation, and culminated in the extraordinary position that he was entitled to treat the entire Balance Sum as his own by way of offset, with Ronald said to now owe him $1.5 million88. No credible evidence was ever produced in support of any of these figures.

216 His explanation for the wrong date in his affidavit; that he was busy with national service and gave his lawyers the wrong date over the phone, was similarly unconvincing for the reasons I have already given.

217 Perhaps most telling was his repeated use of the phrase "could not be bothered" as an explanation for the inaccuracies in his police statements. When confronted with errors in those statements, Mr Loy said he had been angry and fed up with the police and "could not be bothered to give accurate answers."89 This response, and variations of it, recurred throughout the trial. It is an alarming position for a person facing serious criminal charges to adopt, and it is one that is entirely inconsistent with the conduct of someone who genuinely had a legitimate explanation for his use of the Balance Sum. The only person who would be indifferent to the accuracy of his own police statements is one who knew that the truthful answer could not help his case.

218 Taken together, Mr Loy's evidence was rife with grave internal inconsistencies, unsupported by any credible documentary evidence, and frequently and directly contradicted by other witnesses. I found his account of the Balance Sum to be wholly unreliable

88 At Notes of Evidence, 20 August 2024. Page 61, Lines 14-29.

89 Please see Notes of Evidence, 24 September 2024. Page 42, Lines 7-12.

The First Accused's Tendency to make unfounded claims and personal attacks eroded his credibility

219 I was satisfied that Mr Loy had a pattern of making unproven allegations against various parties that were troublingly scattershot and scurrilous in nature. In their submissions90, the learned prosecutors noted Mr Loy accused Ronald of being a cheat91 and of even being somehow able to “control” the prosecution, the police force, and even engage gangsters92 against him, where for the last claim, he never made any police report93 against his alleged underworld harassers.

220 The First Accused also accused Li-Fen of being a liar. He made serious allegations against police investigation officers, claiming they had deleted and suppressed evidence and forged documents. He accused his former lawyers of malpractice and of drafting his CFD without his instructions. He accused the prosecution of malicious prosecution, and the DPPs and police of forging evidence.

221 Among Mr Loy’s most outlandish claims, he alleged that that DPP Eric Hu, the lead prosecutor conducting the trial had, in 2008, written a blog encouraging the communist movement to topple the Singapore government, and seemingly alluded to the DPP’s personal animus against him arising from his coming from a different school94.

First Accused: (DPP Hu) He studied at Hwa Chong Institution. He doesn’t like people coming from my school (ACS). Yes. Let him confirm where he studied.

...

In 2008, Your Honour, (DPP Hu) wrote a blog encouraging the communist movement, the Marxist conspiracies to topple the Singapore government, to study hard and get into government service and then conspire together to topple the Singapore government. The people at ACS were not happy about this and I wrote a blog against it, against having that MRT station at Hwa Chong being

90 Please see Exhibit B at [137].

91 At Notes of Evidence 20 August 2024, Page 63, Lines 3-4, Notes of Evidence 20 August 2024, Page 23, Lines 8-9 and Notes of Evidence 20 August 2024, Page 56, Lines 25-27.

92 Please see Notes of Evidence 20 August 2024, Page 63, Line 30 and Notes of Evidence 22 August 2024, Page 56, Line 30.

93 Please see Notes of Evidence 17 September 2024, Page 16, Lines 25-30

94 At Notes of Evidence 19 June 2024, Page 61, Lines 5-19.

named as Hwa Chong station. And then the 18 Singapore government agreed, and they changed it to another name.

[Emphasis added].

222 This claim was eclipsed by Mr Loy’s allegation that DPP Hu had tried to send drugs to him in prison, where he exclaimed while the latter was cross-examining him95:

First Accused: No, you---you had people sending drugs to me.

223 Not a single shred of evidence was produced in support of any of these allegations. Many were never put to the relevant witnesses when they were on the stand, which was a significant procedural failure on the part of Mr Loy’s defence.

224 The failure to put an allegation to a witness is not a mere technical omission as it deprives that witness of the opportunity to respond, and it deprives the allegation of whatever forensic value it might otherwise have had.

225 I am satisfied that this pattern of unsubstantiated allegations, sustained across 64 days of trial, reflected not a genuine account of events but a recurring resort to deflection whenever Mr Loy found himself without a credible answer to the evidence against him. It is itself a telling indicator of a witness who knew his substantive case to be without merit.

226 I noted too that Mr Loy was prone to making rather grandiose claims about himself, including that he had been nominated for the Forbes 30 Under 30 award, the Singapore Young Entrepreneur Award, the Singapore Spirit of Enterprise Award, and the World Tourism Award, all in 2017. These claims were equally unsubstantiated, and do not aid in establishing credibility.

227 Mr Loy also made a claim to be Singapore's youngest self-made millionaire, relying on an unsubstantiated Wikipedia extract When the court pointed out96 that the Wikipedia extract he relied upon to establish his status as Singapore's youngest self-made millionaire could not be traced to any reliable provenance, Mr Loy was unable to

95 Please see Notes of Evidence 20 August, Page 43, Line 4.

96 At Notes of Evidence, 14 June 2024, Page 81, Lines 1-24.

offer any further substantiation. For completeness, this the article97 tended by the First Accused stated:

In 2001, (Adam) Koo became Singapore’s youngest self-made 2 millionaire at the age of 26. As of 2015 the newest, youngest 3 self-made millionaire in Singapore is Ezekiel Loy, who became a self-made millionaire at the age of 21.

228 I should add that Mr Loy’s primary school report card, which he tendered as evidence of his entrepreneurial character, was not a document that this court could give any weight to in the context of the serious charges he faced. Mr Loy did nothing to help his credibility by insisting that these be exhibited for his defence.

229 When confronted with his many material inconsistencies during cross-examination, Mr Loy repeatedly told the court that he "couldn't be bothered with how accurate [his] answers were to the police"98 and that he "couldn't be bothered with how [he] answered the police."99.

230 I agreed with the prosecution’s stance that this was an “alarming position”100 to be taken by a person facing serious criminal charges, who reposed an expectation to be regarded as a reliable and trustworthy witness.

231 It would only be expected that any person who genuinely had a legitimate agreement with Ronald and a credible explanation for his use of the Balance Sum would have every reason to ensure that his answers to the police were accurate and consistent. Indeed, one would posit that the only person who would be indifferent to the accuracy of his own police statements is one who knew that the truthful response could not help his case.

The CDSA Charges Against the First Accused

232 I turn now to the CDSA charges against Mr Loy. The CBT offence forms the predicate criminal conduct for the CDSA charges. It is the prosecution's case that the Balance Sum represents Mr Loy's benefits from criminal conduct, and that his

97 Exhibit D149, please also see Notes of Evidence, 14 June 2024, Page 80, Lines 2-5.

98 Please see Notes of Evidence, 18 September 2024, Page 26, Lines 27-28.

99 At Notes of Evidence, 17 September 2024, Page 68, Lines 16-17.
See also Notes of Evidence, 17 September 2024, Page 69, Lines 28-29.

100 Please see Exhibit B, at [103].

subsequent transferring and using of moneys derived from the Balance Sum therefore fulfils the elements of section 47(1) of the CDSA.

233 Having found that Mr Loy committed the CBT offence, it follows that the Balance Sum represents his benefits from criminal conduct. The prosecution has carefully traced each of the 34 CDSA charges to the Balance Sum through a detailed Aide Memoire, and I am satisfied that the tracing exercise has been properly carried out. I shall briefly address the key aspects of the tracing.

234 The transfers of $850,000 to Mdm Gian's accounts are wholly traceable to the Balance Sum, as the only deposits into Mr Loy's personal Citibank account prior to those transfers were from the Balance Sum itself. Mr Loy conceded this during cross-examination. The transfers of $113,987.89 to his personal OCBC account are similarly wholly traceable to the Balance Sum.

235 The payments of $116,500 towards the Lucky Plaza property are wholly traceable to the Balance Sum, as they were made directly from Mr Loy's personal Citibank account, which received no deposits other than from the Balance Sum. Mr Loy conceded this during cross-examination. The $400,000 fixed deposit used to satisfy the OCBC Housing Loan requirement is wholly traceable to the Balance Sum through the route of transfers and cash withdrawals and redeposits described above. The cashier's order of $368,823.97 paid from Mdm Gian's second POSB account towards the purchase price of the Lucky Plaza property is substantially traceable to the Balance Sum, as Mr Loy himself conceded during cross-examination.

236 The 11 EPS payments totalling $125,519.40 for share purchases are at least substantially, and in many cases wholly, traceable to the Balance Sum. In each instance, the prosecution has demonstrated through careful tracing that the funds in Mr Loy's OCBC account at the time of each EPS payment were substantially or wholly derived from the Balance Sum. Mr Loy's denials of traceability in respect of several of these payments were internally inconsistent: in re-examination, he claimed that several of these payments were made pursuant to his alleged investment agreement with Ronald, which would itself mean that the funds were traceable to the Balance Sum. I accept the prosecution's tracing analysis in respect of each of these payments.

237 The payments of $24,500 to Innomedia Technologies are at least partially and substantially traceable to the Balance Sum. The first payment of $2,000 can be traced through a chain of EPS credits and share purchases back to a deposit of $254,000 into Mr Loy's OCBC account that is wholly traceable to the Balance Sum. The remaining payments are traceable to cash deposits of $20,000 and $5,000 made on 3 April 2017, which are at least partially traceable to the Balance Sum.

238 The five housing loan repayments totalling $18,259.95 are at least partially traceable to the Balance Sum, having been debited from Mr Loy's OCBC account into which the Balance Sum had flowed.

239 The $30,000 applied towards Mr Loy's court bail is wholly traceable to the Balance Sum, having been transferred from his personal Citibank account into Mdm Gian's second POSB account before being applied to the cashier's order payable to the State Courts.

240 I am therefore satisfied that the prosecution has proven each of the 34 CDSA charges against Mr Loy beyond a reasonable doubt.

THE SECOND ACCUSED'S INVOLVEMENT AND CULPABILITY

241 I turn now to consider Mdm Gian's role in these events. The factual substratum of her involvement was not in dispute between the parties. What divided them was the proper characterisation of her state of mind and the inferences to be drawn from her conduct.

242 The defence portrayed Mdm Gian as a mother who acted out of filial loyalty towards a son serving full-time National Service, accepting his instructions without question and without any awareness that the funds passing through her accounts were the proceeds of criminal conduct. On the defence's case, the watch and car transactions were attributable to Mr Fun rather than to Mr Loy, and Mdm Gian was an unwitting conduit rather than a knowing participant.

243 The prosecution's case was that the surrounding circumstances placed Mdm Gian in a position where she could not reasonably have been unaware that something

was amiss. She had been informed by the police that Mr Loy was under investigation for cheating.

244 Further, the sums deposited into her accounts bore no relationship to anything Mr Loy could legitimately have earned as a National Serviceman drawing a monthly allowance of some $600 to $700.

245 Perhaps the prosecution’s most cogent point was that Mdm Gian was present when Mr Loy misrepresented her to Bhupesh as one of his investors, and she said nothing to correct him.

246 The prosecution further submitted that Mdm Gian’s evidence at trial was marked by evasiveness and contradiction, and that her own words in the witness box, to the effect that she would protect her son even at cost to herself, illuminated the true nature of her participation

247 The elements of the charge against Mdm Gian under section 44(1) of the CDSA are threefold. First, that she entered into an arrangement in relation to her bank accounts. Second, that she had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Loy was engaged in criminal conduct at the material time. Third, that she had reasonable grounds to believe that the arrangement would facilitate the retention or control of Mr Loy's benefits from that criminal conduct.

248 The phrase 'reasonable grounds to believe' has been considered by the High Court in Ang Jeanette v Public Prosecutor [2011] 4 SLR 130, where it was observed that the standard occupies a middle ground, which demands more than mere speculation but does not require the certainty of actual knowledge.

249 The inquiry is neither purely subjective nor purely objective. The court places itself in the position of the particular accused, taking into account what she knew and her personal circumstances, but then asks whether a reasonable person in that position would have drawn the relevant belief from those facts. It is the application of an objective standard of reasonableness to a subjective factual matrix.

250 The starting point is what was not in dispute. It was common ground that funds traceable to the Balance Sum passed through Mdm Gian's bank accounts, that she was aware these funds came from Mr Loy, and that she handled them in accordance with his directions. It was equally common ground that she did so through her two POSB accounts, and that the transactions she carried out using those accounts constituted an arrangement within the meaning of section 44(1) of the CDSA.

251 The question that remained for determination was therefore a narrower one: whether Mdm Gian, at the time she entered into and gave effect to this arrangement, had reasonable grounds to believe that the funds represented the proceeds of Mr Loy's criminal conduct and that what she was doing would facilitate his retention of control over those proceeds. The physical acts were not contested. What fell to be decided was the state of mind with which those acts were performed, assessed against the objective standard described above.

Mdm Gian's awareness of the police investigation into Mr Loy

252 One of the more significant pieces of evidence bearing on Mdm Gian's state of mind was her knowledge that Mr Loy was the subject of a police investigation for cheating. Inspector Kenny Lim of the Singapore Police Force gave evidence that he had telephoned Mdm Gian and informed her that he was investigating a cheating case involving her son. He explained that he was unable to discuss the details of the matter over the phone and requested that she attend at the police station to provide a statement.

253 Mdm Gian's response to this call was itself revealing. She told Inspector Lim that she was unavailable that week and asked him to call again the following week. She did not challenge or dispute what he had told her about the investigation. Inspector Lim observed that she spoke to him in a raised voice and that, unlike most parents of persons under investigation who are contacted by the police, she did not appear distressed. He subsequently attempted to reach her again but was unsuccessful, and no statement was ever recorded from her.

254 Mdm Gian did not deny that this conversation took place. She accepted that Inspector Lim had called her, though she said she had not wanted to accept what he told her. More tellingly, she recounted that Mr Loy had assured her that he had not cheated

anyone, which was an account which itself confirmed that she was aware, at the material time, that he, in fact, stood accused of cheating. I regarded this awareness as a matter of considerable significance in assessing whether the circumstances were such as to give her reasonable grounds to believe that the funds passing through her accounts were the proceeds of criminal conduct.

The disproportion between the sums received and any legitimate source

255 A second and related consideration was the sheer scale of the funds that passed through Mdm Gian's accounts. Notably, Mdm Gian’s banking history prior to her involvement in these transactions showed no deposits of remotely comparable size. When pressed in cross-examination to identify any prior deposit approaching the amounts she had received, she could point only to a single deposit of $31,000, which was itself a sum she regarded as large, as against deposits of $50,000 and $450,000 that she received in connection with Mr Loy's instructions.

256 Mdm Gian acknowledged that she considered $3,000 to be a substantial sum of money, and that the amounts she received were, in her own words, 'much bigger'101 than that. When the police asked her whether it was common for her to receive a deposit of $450,000, she conceded that it was not, and she was unable to offer any explanation for where the money had come from.

257 The Second Accused’s inability to explain the source of these funds was not merely a gap in her knowledge. She admitted that Mr Loy had not told her where the

money came from, and that she had not asked. This was a significant omission.

258 Mdm Gian knew that Mr Loy was serving full-time National Service at the material time, drawing a monthly allowance of around $600 to $700. There was no conceivable legitimate source from which Mr Loy could have derived sums of this magnitude. A person in her position, who was well aware that her son was under police investigation for cheating, receiving deposits wholly disproportionate to anything he could legitimately have earned, and having chosen not to enquire into their provenance,

101 Please see Notes of Evidence 2022, Page 3, Lines 15-20.

could not reasonably have avoided the conclusion that something was seriously amiss with the funds she was being asked to handle.

Mdm Gian's Silence When Mr Loy Misrepresented Her Role to Bhupesh

259 A further consideration was Mdm Gian's conduct when Mr Loy introduced her to Bhupesh as one of his investors. She was present when this representation was made. She knew it to be false. She said nothing to correct it.

260 This was not a trivial omission. The misrepresentation went directly to the nature of the arrangement, as it offered a false explanation for why funds were passing through her accounts. A person who genuinely believed she was doing nothing more than helping her son with routine financial matters would have had no reason to remain silent when her role was being mischaracterised to a third party. Mdm Gian’s silence in those circumstances is more readily explicable on the basis that she understood the true nature of what she was involved in and appreciated that it could not withstand scrutiny.

261 Drawing these threads together, I was satisfied that the mental element of the charge was established. Mdm Gian knew at the material time that Mr Loy was under police investigation for cheating. She received into her accounts sums that bore no relationship to any income Mr Loy could legitimately have earned. She asked no questions about where the money came from. And she stood by in silence while Mr Loy offered a false account of her role to a third party. Considered individually, each of these circumstances might perhaps be explained away. Considered together, they left me in no doubt that Mdm Gian had reasonable grounds to believe that the funds she was handling represented the proceeds of Mr Loy's criminal conduct and that the arrangement she had entered into with him served to facilitate his retention of control over those proceeds.

Mdm Gian's Evidence and Its Reliability

262 With respect, I did not find Mdm Gian to be a reliable witness. Her evidence on several material points was internally inconsistent, and her manner of giving evidence made it difficult to place confidence in her account.

263 The clearest illustration of this concerned her evidence about the police investigation into Mr Loy. She began by denying that she had known anything about the cheating allegations. She then conceded that she had in fact known Mr Loy was under investigation and that she had been concerned enough to ask him about it.

264 Mdm Gian sought to reconcile these positions by suggesting that there were two sides102 to the matter and that Mr Loy's version was that he had not cheated anyone, which was a concession which itself contradicted her earlier denial of knowledge. When this contradiction was pointed out to her, she shifted her position once more, maintaining that she had only come to know about the cheating investigation at some later point. The progression of her evidence on this single issue: from denial to qualified admission, to partial retraction was not at all consistent with a witness doing her honest best to recall events accurately.

265 It was also significant that when Mr Loy told Mdm Gian to disregard Inspector Lim's call, she did so without question and made no further attempt to follow up. A person who genuinely believed there was nothing to be concerned about might reasonably have sought clarification. Mdm Gian's readiness to let the matter drop entirely, on her son's instruction, was more consistent with a deliberate choice not to enquire further than with genuine ignorance of what the investigation was about

266 The Second Accused’s conduct in the witness box was also a matter I took into account. Mdm Gian was at times openly combative in response to questions that called for straightforward answers, and on one occasion questioned the prosecution's arithmetic when asked a simple question about when Mr Loy commenced National Service.

267 When Mdm Gian’s police statement was put to her in cross-examination, Mdm Gian declined to engage directly with questions that were each no more than a sentence long, requiring repeated attempts before she would respond.

268 When pressed further on the contents of her statement, Mdm Gian attributed her inability to recall to a stroke she said she had suffered at some point in the past. She

102 Notes of Evidence 11 November 2022, Page 5, Lines 14-23.

could not, however, identify when this had occurred, there was no medical documentation of any such event, and she acknowledged that she had not sought any formal diagnosis. I was unable to accept this explanation. The claimed medical episode was entirely without corroboration and appeared, in the context of the proceedings, to serve as a means of avoiding answers to questions she found inconvenient.

269 Having considered Mdm Gian's evidence as a whole, I was not able to regard her as a reliable witness on the material issues. The inconsistencies in her account were not minor or peripheral. Indeed, they went to the heart of what she knew and when she knew it. Mdm Gian’s evidence shifted in ways that could not be attributed to the ordinary frailties of memory, and her manner of giving evidence reinforced rather than dispelled the concerns arising from those inconsistencies.

270 Mdm Gian’s own words in the witness box were, in the end, the most candid thing she said. When she told the court that she would protect her son even at cost to herself, she was in all likelihood speaking truthfully. That candour, however, cut against rather than in favour of her case. It offered the most coherent explanation for the pattern of her evidence, not a witness struggling to recall events accurately, but a mother doing what she had said she would do. The court does not doubt the sincerity of that impulse. It cannot, however, treat it as a basis for accepting evidence that is contradicted by the objective facts, nor can it excuse participation in conduct that the law regards as criminal.

271 On the evidence before me, I was satisfied that the prosecution had established each element of the charge against Mdm Gian beyond a reasonable doubt. The arrangement she entered into with Mr Loy, the circumstances in which she did so, and what those circumstances would have conveyed to any reasonable person in her position, together left no room for a reasonable doubt as to her guilt

The CDSA Charges Against Mr Loy

272 Both parties agreed that if the CBT charge is made out, the CDSA charges follow as a matter of course

VERDICT

273 Having considered all the evidence with care, I was satisfied that the prosecution had proven its case against both accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt.

274 In Mr Loy's case, the conclusion was, in my judgment, inescapable. The undisputed facts, encompassing the transfer of the entire Balance Sum out of YHPL within a single day of its receipt, its passage through a company he alone controlled, and its systematic application to his own personal ends without a single cent returning to YHPL, admitted of no innocent explanation. Mr Loy’s attempts to provide one only deepened his difficulty. Mr Loy’s account of an oral investment agreement shifted so fundamentally and so often, across his police statements, his Case for the Defence, his evidence-in-chief, and cross-examination, that no coherent version of it survived scrutiny.

275 When confronted with the contradictions in his evidence, Mr Loy resorted to allegations against virtually every party connected with the proceedings; allegations that were as serious as they were unsupported, and which served only to confirm that his substantive case had no answer to the evidence against him.

276 In Mdm Gian's case, I was satisfied for the reasons set out above that the circumstances in which she handled the funds were such as to give any reasonable person in her position grounds to believe that the money represented the proceeds of criminal conduct and that what she was doing would facilitate Mr Loy's retention of control over those proceeds. Her evidence did not cause me to doubt that conclusion. If anything, the manner in which she gave evidence, and what she ultimately said about her own motivations, reinforced it.

277 I accordingly convicted both accused persons on their respective charges..

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS
Findings at Trial Relevant to Sentence

278 I turn now to the aspects of the evidence and the conduct of the proceedings that bear on the appropriate sentences to be imposed.

279 In relation to Mr Loy, the findings at trial disclosed a pattern of offending that was both deliberate and sustained. The transfer of the entire Balance Sum out of YHPL within a single day of its receipt was not an impulsive act. Y&L had been incorporated months earlier, with Mr Loy as its sole director and shareholder, and the Citibank account through which the funds were routed had lain dormant until the Balance Sum became available. The speed and structure of the transfer reflected a degree of preparation that was inconsistent with any innocent explanation.

280 The misrepresentations Mr Loy made to bank employees about Y&L's business activities compounded this picture. He told Citibank's relationship manager that Y&L was engaged in the distribution of Korean cosmetics and palm oil equipment, which were claims that were entirely without foundation and served no purpose other than to provide a pretext for the movement of funds. Not a single transaction consistent with those declared business activities ever passed through Y&L's account.

281 The uses to which Mr Loy put the Balance Sum were entirely personal. He purchased a property at Lucky Plaza in his sole name, acquired shares for his personal trading account, paid for two software development projects that were for his own benefit, purchased a Rolex Yacht-Master watch, and contributed to the acquisition of a Mercedes sports car. No part of the Balance Sum was ever returned to YHPL or applied for its benefit.

282 A substantial portion of the funds was ultimately recovered; approximately S$1,036,758.95 in total, comprising S$30,000 held as court bail, S$400,000 in an OCBC time deposit account, and an estimated S$580,291.17 from the proceeds of the Lucky Plaza property sale.

283 I note, however, that this recovery was entirely the result of the efforts of the investigating authorities. No credit for it can be attributed to Mr Loy, who at no point took any voluntary step to return or preserve the funds.

284 Mr Loy's conduct when questioned about his dealings with the Balance Sum was also a matter I took into account. When Ronald's daughter and representatives from Ethoz sought explanations, he became progressively uncontactable and evasive. At trial, his account of the Balance Sum shifted repeatedly and fundamentally — between

a claim that its use had been agreed with Ronald, and a claim that it represented his own personal funds held in cash at home. Neither version was supported by any credible evidence, and the two were irreconcilable with each other. His credibility was further eroded by the pattern of unsubstantiated allegations he directed at virtually every party connected with the proceedings, including Ronald, Li-Fen, Bhupesh Kalra, the investigating officers, his former lawyers, and the prosecutors.

285 Turning to Mdm Gian, the findings relevant to her sentence have been set out in the earlier part of these grounds. In summary, I was satisfied that the circumstances in which she handled the funds, such as her knowledge of the police investigation into Mr Loy for cheating, the wholly disproportionate sums that passed through her accounts relative to any income Mr Loy could legitimately have earned, and her silence when Mr Loy misrepresented her role to Bhupesh, together gave her reasonable grounds to believe that the funds represented the proceeds of criminal conduct.

286 Mdm Gian’s evidence at trial did not cause me to revise that assessment. The inconsistencies in her account, and her ultimate candour about her own motivations, reinforced rather than undermined the conclusion I had reached

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

287 The dominant sentencing considerations in cases of this nature are general deterrence and retribution. Where an offender has abused a position of corporate trust to misappropriate funds from a vulnerable victim, and has done so through a course of deliberate and sophisticated conduct, the sentence must reflect both the community's condemnation of such behaviour and the need to deter others who might be minded to exploit similar positions of trust for personal gain.

288 Rehabilitation, while not irrelevant given Mr Loy's age at the time of the offending, could not be accorded significant weight in the circumstances of this case. The offending was not impulsive or opportunistic in any simple sense. It involved the incorporation of a company, the acquisition of a controlling stake in the victim's company, the securing of a substantial loan using the victim's property as collateral, and the systematic dispersal of the proceeds across multiple accounts and transactions.

289 This was not the conduct of a young person who had made a single poor decision. The weight that might otherwise attach to youth and the prospect of rehabilitation was substantially diminished by the calculated nature of what Mr Loy did and by his conduct throughout the proceedings.

Sentence for the Criminal Breach of Trust Charge

290 Section 406 of the Penal Code provides for imprisonment of up to seven years, a fine, or both. The sum misappropriated was S$1,268,500.

291 Two precedents involving comparable quanta were placed before the court. In Public Prosecutor v Tio Chee Hui [2018] SGDC 112, the offender misappropriated Singapore dollars received upfront from two Batam-based moneychangers in exchange for foreign currency he never delivered. The sums involved were S$639,473 and S$1,294,200 respectively.

292 The court took into account the deliberate nature of the offending, the trust reposed in the offender, the financial impact on the victims, the offender's non-cooperation with investigations, and his failure to attend court. The offender pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for the first charge and four years and six months' imprisonment for the second, with his appeal against sentence dismissed by the High Court.

293 In Public Prosecutor v Varusai Mohamed Bin Syed Hanifa [2022] SGDC 238, the offender was convicted after trial on seven section 406 Penal Code charges for misappropriating moneys entrusted to him by his doctor for forex trading. The court noted the considerable trust reposed in the offender and the scale of the misappropriation.

294 Sentences of three years' imprisonment for the charge involving S$599,266, three years and six months' imprisonment for the charge involving S$751,558, and 24 months' imprisonment for the charge involving £150,000 were imposed, with the offender's appeal subsequently lapsing.

295 I found both cases to be of assistance as reference points, though neither mapped precisely onto the present facts. The present case involved a more vulnerable victim than either precedent given that Ronald was elderly, cognitively impaired, and living alone at the material time, and the degree of planning and premeditation was considerably greater. At the same time, Mr Loy was 22 years of age at the time of the offending, a factor that carried some, if limited, mitigating weight.

296 Taking these matters into account, I was of the view that a starting point of five years' imprisonment, rather than the six years urged by the prosecution, was the more appropriate anchor for the section 406 charge. I was, however, satisfied that an upward adjustment of six months was warranted on account of factors that distinguished this case from the precedents, and to which I now turn.

297 I turn now to the factors that warranted an upward adjustment from the starting point I had identified.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

298 The first and most significant was the vulnerability of the victim. Ronald was elderly, unemployed, and living alone at the material time. He had been diagnosed with post-ICU delirium in September 2016 and, as Dr Mervyn Koh's evidence established, had significant cognitive deficits that would have impaired his ability to make complex financial decisions or to appreciate the full implications of what he was agreeing to.

299 What made this factor particularly weighty was the timing of Mr Loy's actions. Y&L was incorporated during Ronald's hospitalisation. The Ethoz loan was secured shortly after his diagnosis. The inference that Mr Loy was aware of Ronald's condition and chose to act when he did precisely because of it was one I found difficult to resist.

300 The second aggravating factor was the degree of planning and premeditation involved. The offending was not opportunistic. It unfolded across a period of months and involved a sequence of deliberate steps: the incorporation of Y&L with Mr Loy as its sole director and shareholder; the acquisition of a controlling stake in YHPL; the securing of a S$4 million loan using Ronald's property as collateral; and the immediate transfer of the Balance Sum through Y&L on the very day after it was received. Each

step served a purpose in the overall scheme, and the scheme as a whole bore the hallmarks of careful advance planning rather than a spontaneous decision to misappropriate funds that happened to come within reach.

301 The third factor was the abuse of the position of trust that Mr Loy occupied. As a director of YHPL, he owed fiduciary duties to the company and, through it, to Ronald as its beneficial owner.

302 The misappropriation was not merely a breach of those duties in a technical sense but nothing less than a calculated exploitation of the very position that gave him access to the funds in the first place. The courts have long recognised that offences of this kind, committed by persons in positions of corporate trust, call for sentences that reflect the seriousness with which such abuse is regarded.

303 The fourth factor was the elaborate nature of the cover-up. Mr Loy did not simply take the money and disappear. He layered the transactions through multiple accounts, misrepresented Y&L's business activities to financial institutions, became progressively uncontactable when questioned by Ronald's family and by Ethoz, and provided explanations that shifted and contradicted each other throughout the proceedings. This sustained effort to conceal and deflect was itself evidence of a consciousness of wrongdoing that went beyond the original act of misappropriation.

304 The fifth factor was that the entire Balance Sum was applied for Mr Loy's personal benefit. The Lucky Plaza property, the shares, the Rolex watch, the Mercedes sports car, with every identified use of the funds was indubitably for his own account. No monies was returned to YHPL or applied to any purpose that could conceivably have been for its benefit. The degree of personal enrichment was total.

305 The sixth factor, which I regarded as relevant specifically to the CDSA charges, was Mr Loy's decision to enlist his mother's assistance in routing the funds through her accounts. The willingness to draw a family member into criminal conduct, and to exploit the trust and loyalty that a family relationship ordinarily commands, was an aggravating feature of those charges. I applied a moderate uplift from the tariffs in Chong Kum Heng v Public Prosecutor [2020] 4 SLR 1056 on this account, though a lesser one than the prosecution had sought.

306 Finally, I took into account Mr Loy's conduct throughout the proceedings as evidence of a complete absence of remorse. His defence at trial was not merely unsuccessful, it was characterised by a pattern of shifting and irreconcilable accounts, by claims that were advanced without any supporting evidence and abandoned when challenged, and by a series of allegations directed at virtually every party connected with the case. These included allegations against Ronald, Li-Fen, Bhupesh Kalra, the investigating officers, his former lawyers, and the prosecutors.

307 Mr Loy’s claim, made some five years after the event, that his Case for the Defence had been filed without his knowledge or instructions, was a further illustration of this pattern, being an attempt to explain away inconvenient omissions by casting blame on others rather than engaging with the substance of the case against him. An offender who conducts himself in this way at trial cannot be said to have demonstrated any genuine appreciation of the gravity of what he has done

Mitigating Factors for the CBT charge

308 I turn now to the factors that counsel advanced in mitigation, and the weight I was prepared to accord them.

309 The most substantial mitigating factor was Mr Loy's age. He was 22 years old at the time of the offending and had no prior criminal record. The defence submitted that his actions could, at least to some degree, be attributed to the folly of youth. I accepted that youth is a recognised mitigating factor and that younger offenders generally retain a greater capacity for rehabilitation. I also accepted that Mr Loy's status as a full-time National Serviceman at the material time was a circumstance that the court should take into account.

310 These considerations were, however, substantially diminished by the nature of the offending itself. The scheme Mr Loy executed was not the product of an impulsive or immature decision. It involved the incorporation of a company, the acquisition of a controlling stake in YHPL, the securing of a multi-million-dollar loan using another person's property as collateral, and the systematic dispersal of the proceeds across multiple accounts and transactions over an extended period.

311 Incidentally, the defence's own submission acknowledged that an upward calibration from the starting point in Tio was necessary to account for the vulnerability of the victim and the non-financial harm caused to Ronald. A person capable of conceiving and executing a scheme of this complexity and duration cannot credibly claim that his youth and inexperience should carry significant mitigating weight.

312 The sophistication of the offending was, in my judgment, more consistent with a calculated and deliberate course of conduct than with the kind of poor judgment that youth as a mitigating factor is intended to address.

313 Mr Loy's status as a first-time offender was a further factor I considered. The absence of prior convictions is ordinarily a neutral to mildly mitigating circumstance. In the present case, however, the sheer scale and duration of the offending, with no fewer than 35 charges spanning a period from November 2016 to June 2017, meant that this was not a case of a single lapse of judgment by an otherwise law-abiding individual. It was a sustained course of criminal conduct involving multiple distinct acts of misappropriation and money laundering. The weight that might otherwise attach to a clean record was accordingly limited.

314 Mr Loy claimed trial and demonstrated no remorse throughout the proceedings. He was therefore not entitled to any sentencing discount that would ordinarily be available upon a plea of guilt.

The appropriate sentence for the CBT Charge

315 Drawing these threads together, I was satisfied that the appropriate sentence for the CBT charge was 66 months' imprisonment. The starting point I had identified was five years' imprisonment, derived from a comparative analysis of Tio and Varusai and calibrated to reflect the quantum involved.

316 From that starting point, the aggravating factors I have set out above, comprising the vulnerability of the victim, the degree of planning and premeditation, the abuse of a position of corporate trust, the elaborate cover-up, the total personal application of the misappropriated funds, and the enlisting of a family member's assistance, warranted a meaningful upward adjustment.

317 Against these, I weighed Mr Loy's youth and his status as a first-time offender, which I accorded limited but not negligible weight.

318 The defence had urged a sentence of between 54 and 60 months' imprisonment, submitting that Mr Loy's culpability fell between Tio (54 months' imprisonment) and Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew (72 months' imprisonment for each charge under section 409), and that a sentence within that range appropriately balanced the overall criminality with his youth at the material time.

319 I found this range to be too low. The present case was more serious than Tio in several material respects, where the victim was significantly more vulnerable, the degree of planning was considerably greater, and the cover-up was more elaborate. While the present case did not reach the level of egregious conduct in Tan Cheng Yew, which involved a solicitor who had actively procured the entrustment of funds he had no intention of returning and who subsequently fled the jurisdiction for six years, the aggravating features of the present case placed it well above the lower end of the range the defence proposed.

320 After much deliberation, I formed the view that a sentence of 66 months' imprisonment reflected the gravity of the offending, gave appropriate weight to the mitigating factors, and was not, in my judgment, crushing when considered in the context of the overall sentence to be imposed.

Sentences for the CDSA charges

321 I turn now to the sentences for Mr Loy's 34 CDSA charges. The starting point for each charge was derived from the sentencing bands in Chong Kum Heng v Public Prosecutor [2020] 4 SLR 1056, calibrated according to the quantum involved in each transaction.

322 The defence had proposed applying a modest uplift of one month to the Ho Man Yuk bands, submitting that the present facts were significantly less egregious than Juandi given the lower total quantum, the absence of transnational elements, the absence of syndicate involvement, and the shorter duration of offending. The

prosecution, by contrast, sought sentences at a higher level, with further enhancement on account of Mr Loy's lack of remorse and conduct at trial.

323 I accepted that the present case was of lower severity than Juandi, which involved a decade-long conspiracy within a sophisticated criminal network, a total quantum of criminal benefits far exceeding the present case, and offending that caused harm to a strategic sector of Singapore's economy. Those features are not present here. At the same time, I was satisfied that several features of the present case warranted sentences above the base tariff.

324 The most significant of these was that Mr Loy was himself the perpetrator of the predicate CBT offence. He was not a secondary participant who had handled funds without full knowledge of their provenance.

325 Mr Loy was the effective architect of the entire scheme, the direct beneficiary of the misappropriation, and the person who then systematically laundered the proceeds through a series of deliberate transactions. This placed his culpability for the CDSA offences at a materially higher level than that of a person who had merely facilitated another's criminal conduct.

326 Beyond this, the layering of transactions through multiple accounts; through Y&L, through his personal accounts, and through his mother's accounts, was not incidental to the offending but was a deliberate strategy to distance the funds from their origins and to frustrate any attempt to trace them.

327 The routing of funds through Mdm Gian's accounts, including the elaborate sequence of cash withdrawals and redeposits in connection with the Lucky Plaza property purchase, served no legitimate purpose and was designed solely to obscure the money trail.

328 The total personal application of the laundered funds was also a relevant consideration. Every transaction the subject of a CDSA charge was directed towards Mr Loy's own benefit whether they involved property, shares, luxury goods, or personal expenses. There was no suggestion that any part of the funds was applied for any purpose other than his own enrichment.

329 Finally, I took into account Mr Loy's conduct at trial as a further basis for an upward adjustment. His complete absence of remorse, his shifting and irreconcilable accounts, and his sustained pattern of unsubstantiated allegations against virtually every party connected with the proceedings were matters that I regarded as warranting a moderate enhancement above the base tariff, consistent with the approach affirmed in Seng Yong Yi Lucas v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 158.

330 Weighing these considerations against the mitigating factors I had already identified; principally Mr Loy's youth and his status as a first-time offender, I arrived at the individual sentences set out in the table below. The sentences reflect the quantum involved in each charge as the primary determinant, adjusted upward to account for the aggravating features I have described, and are consistent with the approach taken in the precedents placed before the court.

Sentence for Mdm Gian's CDSA Charge

331 I turn now to the appropriate sentence for Mdm Gian's charge under section 44(1)(a) of the CDSA, which concerned her facilitation of Mr Loy's control over S$850,000 in criminal proceeds through her personal DBS accounts.

332 The applicable sentencing framework is that set out in Huang Ying-Chun v Public Prosecutor [2019] 3 SLR 606, which requires the court to assess the level of harm and culpability before identifying the appropriate sentencing range from the matrix, selecting a starting point within that range, and making adjustments for offender-specific factors.

333 On the question of harm, the prosecution and defence were not far apart in their assessments, though they differed on the precise characterisation. The prosecution placed the case at the lower end of "Severe" harm, while the defence submitted that it fell within "Moderate" harm with low to medium culpability. I preferred the prosecution's characterisation.

334 The sum of S$850,000 is a substantial amount, and the court in Huang had treated a comparable sum of S$957,000 as a factor tending towards a finding of severe harm. The absence of syndicate involvement, transnational elements, and harm to

public confidence meant that the case did not reach the higher end of the severe range, but the quantum alone was sufficient to place it there.

335 On culpability, I was satisfied that Mdm Gian's culpability was low. She did not devise the scheme, did not commit the predicate offence, and derived no personal benefit from the funds that passed through her accounts. Her role was essentially one of passive facilitation. Effectively, she made her accounts available to her son and acted on his instructions in receiving, depositing, and transferring funds. There was no evidence of sophistication or planning on her part, and she was not in Singapore for the purpose of committing the offence. These features distinguished her position from that of the offender in Huang, whose culpability was assessed at medium on account of his planning and premeditation, the sophistication of the criminal enterprise, and his having travelled to Singapore solely to offend.

336 The comparison with Public Prosecutor v Lim Yi Jie [2019] SGDC 128 was also instructive. In that case, the offender received 40 months' imprisonment for a charge involving S$86,400, with harm assessed at the higher end of moderate and culpability at the higher end of medium.

337 The present case involved nearly ten times that amount, which placed it firmly in the severe harm category even in the absence of the other aggravating features present in Lim Yi Jie. Mdm Gian's significantly lower culpability, however, meant that the overall sentencing range was not correspondingly higher.

338 Placing the case at the lower end of the severe harm and low culpability cell of the Huang matrix, the indicative range was 30 to 60 months' imprisonment.

339 I then considered the offender-specific factors. On the aggravating side, Mdm Gian's facilitation was not a single isolated act. It extended over a period of approximately seven months and involved multiple transactions across her accounts. Throughout this period, she had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Loy was engaged in criminal conduct, and she was aware of the police investigations into him for cheating, she knew that the sums being deposited into her accounts were wholly disproportionate to what he could legitimately have earned on a National Service allowance, and she was present when Mr Loy misrepresented her role to Bhupesh. Her

conduct at trial was also a matter I took into account. She was evasive and contradictory in her evidence, and her initial denial of knowledge of the investigations into her son; a denial she later retreated from, did not assist her.

340 On the mitigating side, I gave weight to the following. Mdm Gian did not commit the predicate offence and derived no personal benefit from the funds. She acted on her son's instructions, a circumstance that, while not exculpatory, was relevant to the assessment of her moral culpability.

341 Mdm Gian’s role was less sophisticated than Mr Loy's in every respect. She was a first-time offender with no prior criminal record. At the material time, she was working as a part-time tutor and was the primary caregiver for her husband, who had suffered a stroke. These personal circumstances did not diminish the seriousness of what she had done, but they were matters I took into account in calibrating the sentence.

342 Mdm Gian did not plead guilty and was therefore not entitled to any discount on that account.

343 Weighing all of these considerations, I was satisfied that a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment was appropriate. This placed the sentence at the lower end of the prosecution's proposed range of 30 to 40 months, and reflected the combination of severe harm, low culpability, and the mitigating personal circumstances I have described. The sentence was, in my judgment, proportionate to Mdm Gian's overall criminality and consistent with the precedents placed before the court.

Conclusion on Mdm Gian's Sentence

344 The imposed sentence of 30 months' imprisonment reflected the seriousness of Mdm Gian's facilitation of Mr Loy's control over S$850,000 in criminal proceeds, and her sustained course of conduct over approximately seven months in circumstances where she had reasonable grounds to believe that her son was engaged in criminal conduct. At the same time, it gave appropriate weight to the factors that distinguished her position from that of a person who had participated in or profited from a money laundering enterprise. Again, she derived no personal benefit, she did not conceive or direct the scheme, and she acted throughout on her son's instructions.

Conclusion on Mr Loy's Sentences and the Global Sentence

345 Before turning to the global sentence, I think it is important to record the fundamental difference in culpability between the two accused persons, because it bears directly on the overall sentencing exercise.

346 Mr Loy was the architect of everything that followed. He identified the victim, incorporated Y&L, acquired a controlling stake in YHPL, secured the Ethoz loan using Ronald's property as collateral, misappropriated the Balance Sum on 18 November 2016, and then systematically laundered the proceeds through a series of deliberate transactions over the following seven months.

347 Mr Loy committed the predicate offence against a vulnerable elderly victim with significant cognitive impairment. He used the entirety of the misappropriated funds for his own benefit. He enlisted his mother's assistance to route funds through her accounts. He was evasive and uncontactable when questioned by those who sought to understand what had happened to the money. And he conducted himself throughout the trial in a manner that demonstrated a complete absence of remorse and a willingness to make unsubstantiated allegations against virtually every party connected with the proceedings.

348 Mdm Gian's position was materially different in every one of these respects. She did not conceive the scheme, did not commit the predicate offence, derived no personal benefit, and played a role that was limited in both scope and sophistication. She was charged with a single offence. The difference in the sentences imposed on the two accused persons reflects these differences in culpability.

The Global Sentence

349 Having arrived at the individual sentences for each charge, I turn to the question of which sentences should run consecutively and whether the resulting aggregate Global Sentence is proportionate to Mr Loy's overall criminality.

350 I was satisfied that the CBT charge and the CDSA charges were not part of a single transaction. The CBT was a completed offence at the moment Mr Loy misappropriated the Balance Sum on 18 November 2016.

351 The CDSA offences were distinct acts committed subsequently, as Mr Loy transferred and applied the criminal proceeds across a series of separate transactions over the period from November 2016 to June 2017. Each CDSA offence involved a deliberate decision to deal with the proceeds in a particular way, and the series of transactions as a whole reflected a sustained and purposeful effort to distance the funds from their origins and to convert them into personal assets. The CBT and the CDSA offences therefore violated distinct legally protected interests and arose from separate acts, notwithstanding that they were connected by the underlying scheme.

352 I identified three CDSA charges to run consecutively with the CBT charge. The first was DAC-922482-2018, involving the transfer of $450,000, which was the single largest money laundering transaction, attracting a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. The second was DAC-922483-2018, involving the transfer of $150,000, attracting a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. The third was DAC-922491-2018, involving the transfer of $25,000, attracting a sentence of 4 months' imprisonment.

353 Together, these three charges captured the scale and sustained nature of Mr Loy's money laundering conduct across the period of offending, and their selection for consecutive sentences appropriately reflected the distinct nature of the laundering offences, the sophistication of the scheme, and the need for adequate deterrence. The remaining sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

354 I then stood back and considered whether the aggregate sentence was proportionate to Mr Loy's overall criminality and was not crushing in the sense described in Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] 5 SLR 799. The aggregate sentence of 100 months' imprisonment, or 8 years and 4 months, is a substantial term. I was satisfied, however, that it was warranted by the totality of Mr Loy's conduct. He was the architect of a sustained scheme that exploited a vulnerable elderly victim with significant cognitive impairment, misappropriated S$1,268,500, laundered the proceeds through 34 separate transactions, applied every cent to his own benefit, enlisted his mother's assistance, and conducted himself throughout the trial in a manner that demonstrated a complete absence of remorse.

355 The aggregate sentence reflected the gravity of that conduct. Mr Loy's youth and his status as a first-time offender had already been taken into account in arriving at the individual sentences, and I did not consider that they warranted any further reduction at the global stage. The sentence was not, in my judgment, crushing when considered in the context of the overall criminality involved and Mr Loy's personal circumstances."

Sentences imposed:

356 The following sentences were imposed:

No	Charge	Amount involved	Sentence
1	DAC-929315-2017 (s 406 Penal Code	$1,268,500	66 months
2	DAC-922473-2018	$29,900	5 months
3	DAC-922474-2018	$2,300	1 month
4	DAC-922475-2018	$44,850	7 months
5	DAC-922476-2018	$39,450	7 months
6	DAC-922502-2018	$3,651.99	1 month
7	DAC-922503-2018	$3,651.99	1 month
8	DAC-922504-2018	$3,651.99	1 month
9	DAC-922505-2018	$3,651.99	1 month
10	DAC-922506-2018	$3,651.99	1 month
11	DAC-922477-2018	$50,000	8 months
12	DAC-922478-2018	$50,000	8 months
13	DAC-922479-2018	$50,000	8 months
14	DAC-922480-2018	$50,000	8 months
15	DAC-922481-2018	$50,000	8 months
16	DAC-922482-2018	$450,000	18 months
17	DAC-922483-2018	$150,000	12 months
18	DAC-922484-2018	$2,000	1 month
19	DAC-922485-2018	$11,000	3 months
20	DAC-922486-2018	$5,000	2 months
21	DAC-922487-2018	$15,000	3 months
22	DAC-922488-2018	$30,000	5 months
23	DAC-922489-2018	$987.89	1 month
24	DAC-922490-2018	$50,000	8 months
25	DAC-922491-2018	$25,000	4 months
26	DAC-922492-2018	$1,800	1 month
27	DAC-922493-2018	$13,500	3 months

28	DAC-922494-2018	$6,500	2 months
29	DAC-922495-2018	$10,535.40	3 months
30	DAC-922496-2018	$3,000	1 month
31	DAC-922497-2018	$30,000	6 months
32	DAC-922498-2018	$25,000	4 months
33	DAC-922499-2018	$184	2 weeks
34	DAC-922500-2018	$5,000	2 months
35	DAC-922501-2018	$5,000	2 months

Global sentence 100 months

357 As indicated above, I ordered the sentences for DAC-922482-2018 (18 months' imprisonment), DAC-922483-2018 (12 months' imprisonment), and DAC-922491-2018 (4 months' imprisonment) to run consecutively with the CBT charge, with all remaining sentences running concurrently. This resulted in a global sentence of 100 months' imprisonment, equivalent to 8 years and 4 months.

Backdating to take into consideration all remand dates

358 The sentence was backdated to account for Mr Loy's periods in remand and custody, excluding all periods when he was on bail. The records showed that Mr Loy was on bail from 17 February 2017 to 16 August 2017, and again from 31 August 2017 to 13 December 2021, when he absconded and remained at large until 22 April 2022. He has been in remand continuously since that date, and his sentence was backdated accordingly.

Concluding sentencing remarks

359 I was satisfied that the aggregate sentence was not crushing. It was proportionate to the totality of Mr Loy's conduct, being his systematic misappropriation of S$1,268,500 from a vulnerable elderly victim with significant cognitive impairment, his commission of 34 money laundering offences over an extended period, his application of the entirety of the criminal proceeds to his own benefit, his enlisting of his mother's assistance to route funds through her accounts, his evasive conduct when questioned, and his complete absence of remorse as demonstrated by his contradictory testimony and his sustained pattern of unsubstantiated allegations against the victim, the victim's relatives, commercial personnel involved in the transactions, police officers, and the deputy public prosecutors assigned to the case.

360 The sentence was nonetheless lower than that sought by the prosecution. In arriving at a figure below the prosecution's recommendation, I gave weight to Mr Loy's age at the time of the offending and to the fact that the criminal proceeds had not been permanently dissipated.

361 The efficient tracing efforts of the police resulted in the seizure of more than S$1,268,500, meaning that the actual monetary loss to the estate has not been made permanent. I should be clear that this was entirely the result of the authorities' investigative work and owed nothing to any cooperation or assistance from Mr Loy. Nevertheless, the absence of permanent financial loss to the victim's estate was a factor I took into account in calibrating the sentence downward from the prosecution's position.

362 The sentence also serves the purpose of general deterrence. It sends a clear signal that those who abuse positions of corporate trust to exploit vulnerable victims, and who then engage in sophisticated money laundering to conceal their gains, can expect substantial custodial terms. This is particularly important in cases involving the exploitation of elderly persons with cognitive impairment, where the victim's vulnerability is itself a feature of the offending.

363 The sentence is consistent with the relevant precedents. In Tan Cheng Yew, the offender received a global sentence of 144 months' imprisonment, but that case involved more serious charges under section 409 of the Penal Code, a higher total quantum, and the aggravating circumstance of the offender having absconded for a far longer period than Mr Loy. In Varusai, the offender received a global sentence of 102 months' imprisonment for multiple CBT charges.

364 The present sentence of 100 months sits consistently within the range established by these authorities, reflecting the serious but somewhat less egregious nature of Mr Loy's offending relative to those cases.

365 Finally, while the sentence is a substantial one, Mr Loy is still a young man. He will have meaningful opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration upon his release, and I would encourage him to reflect on the harm his conduct has caused and to apply himself constructively to that end.

Civil proceedings were not considered in these grounds

366 I should add, for completeness, that civil proceedings arising from the same underlying facts were commenced and concluded against Mr Loy in the High Court. I wish to make clear that those proceedings have played no part in my analysis. The conviction in this case rests solely on the evidence adduced at trial, assessed to the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. My findings on Mr Loy's credibility are the product of my own evaluation of his evidence over the course of 64 hearing days, and are independent of any findings made in the civil forum.

Disposition of accused persons

367 The First Accused, Mr Loy remains in remand, while Mdm Gian has been granted bail pending the disposition of these appeals103.

103 MA-9198-2025-01, being an appeal against conviction and sentence by Mdm Gian, MA-9197-2025-02, an appeal against conviction and sentence by Mr Loy and; MA-9197-2025-03, being an appeal against Mr Loy’s sentence by the Public Prosecutor.

Marvin Bay
District Judge

DPP Eric Hu, DPP Ryan Lim & DPP Xavier Tan (AGC) for the Public Prosecutor; Eng Zhen Yang, Aristotle Eng (Andre Jumabhoy LLC) (until 23 February 2026) and Dhillon Surinder Singh (Dhillon & Panoo LLC) (from 19 February 2026 and for appeal) for the Accused, Loy Wei Ezekiel & Gian Juat Ngim