The High Court must be satisfied that a lower court ruling resulted in serious injustice in order for it to practice its revolutionary capabilities.
This level has not been crossed, according to Justice Hoong.
While the defense claimed Vang could very well be given just fines, he asserted that it was obvious that vang faces major charges, and the maximum sentence conveys the gravity with which Parliament views each offense.
In this case, the punishment for money fraud is a prison sentence of up to ten years, an S$ 500, 000 good, or both.
Justice Hoong noted that because Vang’s four funds fraud claims are non-bailable offenses, he does not have the right to bail.
Rather, it is Vang’s responsibility to demonstrate that he should be granted bond, as stated in a prior situation.
But, Vang chose a stance that it was not for him to raise counter-evidence to prove his innocence, according to Justice Hoong, rather than responding to or refuting the investigating officer’s claims that he was an air threat.
This, in my opinion, is completely unsuitable ,” he said.
Given that Vang had important assets abroad, particularly in Cambodia, and a Cambodian pass that Singapore authorities were unable to find, he reiterated the risk of him fleeing.
He also disregarded Vang’s assertion that he has” strong origins” in Singapore.
Justice Hoong said,” In conclusion, I think it is useful here to tell the person that while he still has the option to request another bond review or ( High Court criminal update ), the latter must make sure that there are sufficient grounds to support his applications to the High Court for loan to be granted.
” Unless there is a product change in circumstances or fresh information come to light, the court will be really reluctant to grant bail in subsequent programs after an application for loan has been rejected.”
Justice Hoong’s remarks on the subject of bail were noted by Mr. Wong, who added that he would try to advance the case” since quickly as we can.” In the lower judge, he had previously stated that his client intended to challenge the fees.
Separately, on Wednesday, Vang’s co-accused Su Haijin attended a pre-trial conference where the court stated that the prosecution could” consider releasing” any bank account or assets that are” not tainted.”
This came after Lee & amp’s attorneys for Su wrote to the Commercial Affairs Department about it.
At Su’s subsequent pre-trial event, the prosecution will present its case to the court.