SINGAPORE: A Senior Counsel criticized the prosecution for framing the fees and the data it has while defending a person who is one of ten people accused in Singapore’s biggest money-laundering investigation. The case involves assets worth S$ 2.8 billion( US$ 2 billion ) that have been seized or frozen.
Su Jianfeng, 35, who is listed as a Ni-Vanuatu subject on the cost sheets, was the subject of the comment made by Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan while he was requesting loan.
Su is accused of four counts of having illegal proceeds from improper rural gambling offenses. These include S$ 550, 903 in dollars and S$ 17 million kept in three safe deposit boxes.
On August 15, he was taken into custody in a Good Class Bungalow on Third Avenue close to Bukit Timah. According to previous court hearings, his partner is also a witness in the studies.
On Wednesday, October 18, Mr. Sreenivasan responded to a defense the prosecutors had argued earlier that day in response to another co-accused person’s ask for bail review.
Su’s lengthy oath was used by the prosecution to claim that defense attorneys could continue their case while the accused was on remand.
Bristling, Mr. Sreenivasan declared that what the defense had managed to piece together was still” sadly inadequate.”
This, he continued, was partially due to the Commercial Affairs Department taking up all of the meeting casinos:” They have more time with my clientele than I do.”
He emphasized the” technological challenges of all kinds” a lawyer would face in Changi Prison when attempting to represent an accused people.
” I’ll leave it at being really stupid to say that you have access to counsel and can therefore run your defense.” It most definitely doesn’t reveal where we are, Mr. Sreenivasan said.
Mr. Sreenivasan questioned:” What’s his indicates to deprave?” regarding the risk of fleeing, which the prosecution cited as a justification for why Su should not be granted parole. His means of escaping were all taken.
He explained that wealthy mainland Chinese prefer to travel with documents from other countries.
WHY WAS HE PERMITTED TO ENTRANCE?
” He entered Singapore using legal immigration procedures. And the trial remains motionless. If he really is this kind of malicious person, then why was it okay for him to enter? questioned the seasoned attorney.
He claimed that Su had established a company and was operating in Singapore. The defense was offering 24 hours video surveillance at Su’s expense in exchange for bail being granted.
” Why is that undesirable? Why is that insufficient? We haven’t heard, he claimed. Is our own agency so ineffective that they are going to let someone leave Singapore so quickly?” Is my own border so terrible?
He claimed that everyone in Singapore referred to the proverb that the assumption of ignorance serves as the cornerstone of justice as” a phrase.”
According to him, loan is one of the” strongest and sincerest protection to the presumption of innocence” in court.
Mr. Sreenivasan told District Judge Terence Tay,” It’s a gift that if the prosecution doesn’t want to give our system, your honor if honor.”
The defense attorney persisted in challenging the trial, requesting that they explain how the alleged crimes were committed, how they generated income, and where the income that was seized came from.
He claimed that there was no proof that his customer was trying to or getting ready to leave. His parents, children, and community, on the other hand, are in Singapore.
Mr. Sreenivasan claimed that the wanted observe the prosecution used to claim Su had been wanted in China since 2015 was” plucked out of the web.”
Two of the wanted individuals listed in the recognize have been dealt with by Chinese authorities and given fines and three-year suspended sentences.
According to Mr. Sreenivasan, the fact that they were given suspended statements means it is not a serious offense, and there is no known related offense in Singapore.
He claimed that if you don’t recognize the verb offense because the Chinese offense itself cannot be identified, you cannot identify a corresponding offense.
He claimed that due to the opposition he was encountering while on bail, his customer had” no choice” but to consider that his ankle-tagged condition been monitored 24 hours a day.
I don’t see a test date coming up very quickly, so we graciously submit that he be allowed. & nbsp,
” I see a difficulty: With 10 accused, I’m not sure if the prosecution will go through shared or independent studies. If I take a closer look at the fees, I am absolutely certain that they will be changed before we move forward due to the blatant errors in the accusations. According to Mr. Sreenivasan,” you didn’t go to trial on expenses like this.”
” Mr. Su, they didn’t wear you down.” I’ve been told he has health issues and back issues. I can personally see that he has lost a lot of weight; I’m not required to get medical. And Mr. Su has to endure if that is the rate we must pay for justice.
In response, deputy public prosecutor Edwin Soh stated that the trial was not required to present all the information at this beginning stage because this was a bail hearing.
He assured the defense that more information would undoubtedly be revealed at a later stage and that they would have the opportunity to listen.
District Judge Terence Tay denied bond after hearing the claims. He claimed that Su had not provided a sufficient justification for how he obtained the funds, that the investigation was still continuing, and that some of his accomplices were still at large.