close
close
  • December 14, 2024
Trial begins in a S.5 billion nickel investment fraud case against the ex-CEO of Envy Global

Trial begins in a S$1.5 billion nickel investment fraud case against the ex-CEO of Envy Global

More than 50 days of trial dates are scheduled for the prosecutor to argue his case.

Ng was charged in March 2021 and has been in pre-trial detention since February 2023after failing to raise a S$6 million bond. Bail was later revoked.

Other men have already done that ended up in prison for attempting to help Ng flee Singapore while out on bail.

On Tuesday, Ng appeared in court wearing a high bun and prison clothes.

It took about an hour for a member of court staff to read all of Ng’s charges to him. After this, Ng confirmed with judicial commissioner Christopher Tan that he was entitled to a trial.

Ng’s lead lawyer Hassan Esa Almenoar then requested the prosecutor to provide a reason for withdrawing the 66 charges.

If the prosecutor could not provide a reason, Mr. Almenoar argued that she should either proceed with all charges or dismiss Ng, which would amount to an acquittal.

When the judge asked Mr Almenoar about his basis for this application, the lawyer said he had no past cases to cite but thought it was the “right approach”.

He later added that the remaining charges would “hang over the suspect’s head” if they were dropped and not dealt with before trial.

Deputy District Attorney Gordon Oh strongly opposed the application, saying it was filed at the “eleventh hour” and a “complete waste of time.”

He cited earlier times in the proceedings when Ng’s defense raised the issue of the dropped charges but made no application despite the court setting aside resources for a hearing.

Raising the issue again on the first day of the trial was “clearly a time-wasting exercise,” Oh said.

Judicial Commissioner Tan dismissed Ng’s request on the withdrawn charges, noting that the withdrawal of charges has long been enshrined in Singapore’s criminal jurisprudence.

The judge cited a Court of Appeal ruling stating that a request to withdraw charges is almost always uncontroversial and unlikely to prejudice a suspect.

He also said the defense had not provided a meaningful explanation of how dropping the charges would be oppressive to Ng or disadvantage him.

The parties have also addressed the court about 58 conditional statements that the prosecution wants to introduce into evidence.

When Mr Almenoar said he had to consult Ng about whether he agreed with the statements made, the judge said this should have been done earlier.

After the court adjourned for an hour, Mr Almenoar informed the judge that his client had objected to the admission of two of the four conditioned statements of the first four witnesses.

The lawyer asked for more time to consult his client about the other statements. Judicial Commissioner Tan then set a timeline for the defense to adhere to.

Later, Mr Almenoar claimed that part of the reason the defense was “on the move” was that it was not easy to meet Ng and get instructions from him because their appointments to see him on remand were too short or would be interrupted.

In response, Mr Oh said Ng had gone through six lawyers, including his current defense team, since he was remanded.

Mr Oh said the prosecutor had facilitated any request for more time from the defense, and had been in contact with the prison service to ensure the defense could make arrangements to meet Ng.

He said he could see no problems in the defense’s attempts to meet with Ng as the prosecution had tried to facilitate the defense’s requests.

Ng’s trial will resume on Wednesday morning and the prosecutor will make his opening statement.