CPIB OFFICERS ‘ Do A Element
District Judge Soh Tze Bian listed three important points he took into account when he delivered a 50-page ruling on Friday and came to a decision on the two men’s conviction.
One of these troubles involved the do of , CPIB soldiers who had recorded the two men’s claims. In the end, the judge determined that these assertions were untrue, false, and uncomfortable to rely on.
One of the CPIB officers was investigating officer ( IO ) Chris Lim, who had taken Mr Pay’s second statement.
Mr. Lim had admitted during the test that he had “preconceived the idea that he had offended some sort of person” when he approached Mr. Pay for an appointment.
Judge Soh , found that Mr Lim had a “blatant disregard for the truth” when recording Mr Pay’s following speech, and the IO’s strategy had been “mischievous and quickly careful” as he had recorded parts of Mr Pay’s statements that could be construed as incriminating, while omitting evidence that may acquit him.  ,
In the face of Dai Chris Lim’s conduct, according to Pay’s lawyers, the procedural safeguards were meaningless based on his own proof, which regrettably showed him to be happy to extend the reality, and the prosecution has offered no justifications for his conduct.
Similar to Mr. Pek, the actions of IO Jeffrey, whose title was not disclosed, had been a factor in the declaration recording procedure.  ,
Judge Soh found that Mr Pek’s first speech recorded by Mr Jeffrey had contained repeated self-incriminating notes, which were” hardly a faithful picture” of what Mr Pek had said, but indicated an effort to emphasise his guilt.
The Dai had furthermore used a” cut-and-paste approach” to assemble the statement, suggesting that Mr Pek’s reactions might not have been properly reflected.  ,
Pek’s first assertion appears to be more a solution of IO Jeffrey’s writing than a true reflection of what Pek truly said. This is because Dai Jeffrey took a number of liberties when writing the assertion, according to Judge Soh.  ,
By the IO’s own entrance, he had drafted Mr Pek’s first speech with the intent of framing him, focusing almost entirely on recording data that showed his guilt, noted the prosecutor.
Mr. Jeffrey acknowledged during cross-examination that he had drafted significant portions of Mr. Pek’s second statement  in a way that gave the impression that Mr. Pek was the one who came up with the idea of taking workers money, the prosecutor noted.  ,
The prosecutor argued that this admission suggests that Dai Jeffrey purposefully inserted portions of the speech to present Pek as the promoter of the scheme more than properly documenting what Pek really said during the interview.  ,
HENRY FOO’S TESTIMONY
Another crucial point that the judge took into account was how Foo, the bribe recipient, had testified that Mr. Pay and Mr. Pek never requested any quid pro quo.  ,
Foo was called as a witness for the prosecution, and the judge decided that the prosecution was bound by the testimony of its own witness.  ,
Foo’s testimony was in line with Mr. Pay and Mr. Pek’s assertion that the loans were made “innocently and not corruptly” in the eyes of Mr. Pek and Mr. Pek.  ,
According to the judge, he had consistently maintained that he had no corrupt intentions when he applied for and received the loans and that neither he nor Mr. Pay nor Mr. Pek had any corrupt intentions.
Mr. Pek and Mr. Pay both testified in a similar vein and claimed that the loans given to Foo were personal loans meant to support him as friends and out of goodwill rather than to support his company.
The judge gave the impression that Foo had not been impeached or questioned his credibility, which gave the judge an even greater weight to his evidence.  ,
Judge Soh rejected the prosecution’s argument that Foo’s admission of feeling” corrupted” and his guilty plea should be interpreted as an acceptance of his own corrupt intention, and a belief that Mr Pay or Mr Pek were corrupt.  ,
Foo’s guilty plea was not an admission of corruption, but rather a wise choice to” cut short the pain,” according to Judge Soh, referring to Foo’s testimonies as evidence of how he had admitted guilt to avoid further suffering rather than acknowledgement of corrupt behavior.
Foo was sentenced to five-and-a-half years ‘ jail in Sep 2021, after being found guilty of taking S$ 1.24 million in bribes.  ,
The judge also rejected the prosecution’s attempt to rely on WhatsApp messages that were exchanged between Mr. Pay and Foo to demonstrate that the latter was beholden or indebted to Mr. Pay, concluding that the prosecution’s arguments were not supported.  ,
In conclusion, Judge Soh ordered a discharge for both men, demonstrating that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt its case against them.  ,
In addition to Foo, at least four other men have been sentenced in connection with the case. These are Daewoo Engineering &, Construction project director Kim Young-gyu and project manager Ro Sung-young, ex-director of Tritech Engineering and Testing ( Singapore ) Cai Jungang and ex-director of MEPT Engineering , Zhang Xihu.