Middleman in S$760,000 bribery scheme involving Wildlife Reserves Singapore director gets jail

Middleman in S$760,000 bribery scheme involving Wildlife Reserves Singapore director gets jail

SINGAPORE: For ten years, a construction company employee served as an intermediary, giving director of Wildlife Reserves Singapore ( WRS ) bribes totaling more than S$ 760, 000 ( US$ 554, 443 ).

To Say Kiong, 57, had carried on a dishonest business venture that his late parents Toh Siang Bee had started before 2005. At Shin Yong Construction, which his & nbsp father founded, he was also a foreman.

According to the plan, the late Mr. Toh would bribe Barry Chong Peng Wee, also known by his brother, who was the Singapore Zoo’s producer of infrastructure management at the time. & nbsp,

WRS, which was renamed Mandai Wildlife Group in & nbsp, 2021, is the parent company of the Singapore Zoo.

The agreement was to guarantee that Shin Yong Construction would receive WRS work. & nbsp,

Up until 2013, Barry Chong, 54, had the authority to approve the hiring of vendors for WRS positions. A purchasing team was established to handle this responsibility as of 2013. The group was still heavily dependent on Barry Chong’s suggestions, though.

To admitted guilt to 10 charges of conspiring with others to commit graft on Thursday, October 5, and was sentenced to 26 months in prison. His imprisonment was also taken into consideration for 104 additional costs of a related nature. The offenses of Too ranged from 2005 to 2015. & nbsp,

The court was informed that after Mr. Toh passed away in 2005, his brother, Too Say Yong, 68, assumed control and arranged for Shin yong Construction to be given WRS-related jobs in exchange for a commission of approximately 10 % higher than the bid price offered to the company. & nbsp,

In order to guarantee that Shin Yong Construction would be hired, Barry Chong would give Say yong via To a certain bid price. On a piece of paper, Barry Chong may list the charges owed to him and give it to Too. To make the money, he may also give the report to his brother. & nbsp,

The cash would then be put in an envelope, which Too had regularly deliver to Barry Chong. & nbsp,

The pricing on the passages submitted by Shin Yong Construction and another companies were extremely close to one another, according to Carol Chin Fong Yi, a services manager at the park, somewhere in 2010 or 2011. & nbsp,

She told To about her concerns about price fixing, and she instructed Chin to” stay silent and close one eye.” & nbsp,

He presented Chin with a stack of South$ 50 bills, but she turned them down. Later, Too ran into Chin once more and presented her with another load of S$ 50 bills. When Chin inquired as to the purpose of the money, Too responded that Barry Chong, her employer, was even accepting payments.

The accused was then questioned by” Chin ,” who confirmed that the contractors had set the quotation prices among themselves. According to court documents, after learning that( Barry Chong ) accepted money from the accused, ( Chin ) did the same. & nbsp,

Later, Too and his brother decided to compensate Chin for her solitude with a regular payment.

Barry Chong and Too agreed to look for additional companies to take part in the crooked agreement between 2013 and 2014. & nbsp,

To went up to the sole owners of Thiam Lee Tradings Construction and Katana Engineering, Chong Chee Wai. Both businesses performed repair and construction work. Lim and Chong consented to gifts for the benefit of Barry Dhong.

Some were finally forced to participate. Seven people, including Barry Chong, were listed as co-accused in jury records, according to nbsp. Just Chin has been dealt with, and the other circumstances are still pending. In March of last year, Chin was imprisoned for nine times. & nbsp,

Only in October 2016, when the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau started its studies, did the crooked design come to an end.

Shin Yong Construction received S$ 9, 089, 651.90 in employment during the scheme’s duration, while the other four firms were roped in and received salaries ranging from S$ 14, 300 to S$ 2, 271, 000. Due to the inflated invoices submitted under the corrupt system, WRS was estimated to have lost about South$ 1, 400, 000 in losses.

For facilitating their crooked agreement with Barry Chong, Too himself received between South 10,000 and Entropy$ 20 000 from Lim and about South 00,000. The money was used for playing and everyday expenditures.

He gave S$ 760, 270 in full rewards. & nbsp,

Kelvin Chong, the deputy people attorney, requested a sentence of 24 to 30 months in prison. & nbsp,

He claimed that other contractors were denied the chance to get hired by WRS as a result of the system. & nbsp,

The accused, according to Mr. Chong, had made between$ 20,000 and$ 30,000 in financial gains and had served as a” substantial intermediary” between WRS and Shin Yong Construction. & nbsp,

Tan Cheng Kiong, Too’s attorney, claimed that his client, who had significant anxiety disorder, had been negatively impacted by the protracted time it took for the case to be resolved. & nbsp,

According to Mr. Tan, his situation has gotten considerably worse over the course of this case, necessitating daily medication. & nbsp,

Mr. Tan said his customer had cooperated with the investigations and had been open in moderation. & nbsp,

While the sum was major, Mr. Tan argued that since it was not his wealth, his customer had no control over the classical. & nbsp,

In actuality, Too had left the company due to disagreements, and the operations had carried on without him, demonstrating that his lawyer’s contribution to the agreement had not been crucial, according to Mr. Tan. & nbsp,

District Judge Lim Tse Haw, but, disagreed and emphasized Too’s importance. & nbsp,

The judge stated,” We are not talking about one or two occasions; there are a total of 114 occasions in which your client was involved in this arrangement, and the prosecution has pointed out that the amount involved is enormous— more than S$ 700,000.” & nbsp,

Mr. Tan retorted that his customer had no control over the sum, to which the judge responded,” He has a decision not to enter.”

Mr. Tan requested a shorter prison sentence than the prosecution’s suggested amount. & nbsp,