SINGAPORE: Two lawyers were convicted on Monday (Feb 19) of attempting to obstruct justice by alerting a syndicate dealing in contraband cigarettes to get rid of evidence.
Ong Peng Boon, 67, and Wee Hong Shern, 36, both contested a charge each but were found guilty at the close of the trial.
The case centred around a WhatsApp message that Wee sent to Ong, his direct supervisor, in May 2019.
Wee was representing an alleged syndicate member in court at the time.
Dubbed the “buffalo” message, it read: “I talked to Ah Boon to update. Basically: Buffalo is busted. Factory is safe for now but he warns it’s only a matter of time before they find out where it is as they have the SD (cards) of Ah Boon’s vehicle. They can trace buffalo and find factory eventually.
“So he said to clear everything from Factory ASAP. Evidence has come out that ST has been paid by China man. His Zello phone was seized and he didn’t have time (to) delete convos. Bail opened at 55K.”
Ong, a veteran criminal lawyer, then forwarded the message to another alleged syndicate member named Tan Hock Ann, telling him to “delete after read”.
Witness testimonies revealed that “buffalo” referred to a Malaysian lorry carrying contraband cigarettes.
Factory referred to the place where the contraband items were unloaded and handled.
BACKGROUND
Wee was the lawyer acting for Selva Kumar Subramaniam, who was arrested on May 3, 2019, along with Toh Chih Wen, also known as Ah Boon, and Lim Chee Siang, whose nickname was Success Together or ST.
According to the prosecution, the three men spoke to Mr Tan to coordinate the movements of the contraband goods.
Mr Tan had engaged Ong & Co law firm to act for Selva and communicated with Ong via WhatsApp.
The morning of Selva’s mention in court on May 10, 2019, Ong messaged Wee in a group chat, saying: “Don’t forget the buffalo in the field and the store in the yard.”
Wee responded: “Ok”.
At 11.13am that day, Ong asked: “Any news on buffalo and farm store, bail.”
Wee responded that he was waiting for his case to be mentioned in court.
About half an hour later, Ong sent a follow-up message to Wee, saying: “How buffalo. Clients chasing me like Ah Long”, referring to loan sharks.
Four minutes later, Wee responded with the “buffalo” message.
To decode the message, the prosecution called nine witnesses, including Selva and Mr Tan.
DEFENCE’S CASES
Ong chose not to testify. His defence counsel, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, argued that there was “simply no evidence” to indicate that Ong knew there were investigations into the factory.
His main line of defence was that the “buffalo” message was privileged communication. His second defence was that the charge was not made out as there was reasonable doubt as to who was the source of the buffalo message.
Wee’s defence counsel, Mr Ramesh Tiwary, argued that he had merely been detailed by Ong to act for Selva.
Mr Tiwary said Wee had asked Ong what “buffalo” and “store” meant, but Ong said “to find out and not to ask so many questions”.
After Selva’s case was mentioned in court, Wee spoke to Selva in the dock and relayed the information he got from Selva to Ong via WhatsApp.
Mr Tiwary said there was no evidence proving that Wee intended Ong to send that message to a syndicate dealing in contraband cigarettes.
He said Wee did not know who had briefed Ong and had never met them. Wee had sent the message only because Ong was his employer who asked him for the information, claimed Mr Tiwary.
He said Wee “never for one moment” entertained the thought that an experienced criminal lawyer and former Central Narcotics Bureau officer like Ong would be passing information to a syndicate.
District Judge Marvin Bay rejected the cases put forward by both men’s defence lawyers and found them guilty of their respective charges on Monday.
He said it would be “somewhat surprising” that Wee would not have read the message to pertain to illegal activity with an “explicit conveyance of instructions to dispose of evidence”.
He agreed with the prosecution that the buffalo message “speaks for itself” and there could be “no innocent explanation” for Wee sending the message to Ong, and Ong sending it to Mr Tan.
Parties will return to court for mitigation and sentencing in April.
For attempting to obstruct the course of justice, the men could be jailed for up to seven years, fined, or both.