When Lim directed his workers to falsify documents for false transactions, Judge Toh had determined that Lim had “dishonest purpose.”
At the time of the crimes committed in March 2020, Lim was the managing director and 75 % of Hin Leong Trading, an crude trading firm incorporated in Singapore.
However, the judge determined that Lim remained a “hands on” “big manager” of Hin Leong even after he resigned in April 2020, and that his consent was required for investments.
LEGEND IN OIL INDUSTRY ORCHESTRATED FRAUD: DPP
Deputy Public Prosecution Christopher Ong, Kelvin Chong and Foo Shi Hao sought 20 times ‘ prison for the elderly.
Mr Ong said the amounts in Lim’s lying charges are among the highest in Singapore for business financing scams, and that Lim’s offences “tarnished Singapore’s hard-earned popularity” as Asia’s leading crude trading gateway.
Lim’s two lying claims are “examples of the worst possible types of cheating” and permit the maximum sentence of 10 times per command, Mr Ong argued.
For the fraud charge, the prosecutors sought nine decades, a time less than the maximum. The utmost a district judge can impose in a single trial is requested that the two cheating words be run continuously for a total of 20 times.
According to Mr. Ong, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and his team’s prevention request, “given the weight of the offences,” no weight should be given to Lim’s era or his health condition.
The trial claimed that if the judge wanted to give Lim’s advanced age a week’s discount at the most, it should have been at least one.
The prosecutors cited the amount of money being cheated, the losses being made, how the crimes may have affected Singapore’s financial services and economic system, as well as potential “undermined public trust in Singapore’s fuel trading industry” as justification for their 20-year claims.  ,
Mr Ong said Lim was the architect, directing his people to undertake the infractions, with a full excellent damage of about US$ 85 million.
In the past of Singapore’s business financing scams offences, his situation is second only to the loss caused by Lulu Lim, the former chief financial officer of , commodity firm Agritrade International, who was” only an employee” in her company, said Mr Ong.
He argued that Lulu Lim committed the offences out of self interest, and it is clear that Hin Leong was Lim Oon Kuin’s “life’s work”.
The latter had provided proof of how he had transformed the business from a small group of individuals he had described as family members.
” He was the managing director of Hin Leong, the sole and original managing director, all the way until April 2020, for 47 years”, said Mr Ong.
In contrast to how he tried to” throw the employees under the bus and blame them completely” at trial, Mr. Ong said in his mitigation argument that any suggestion Lim committed the crimes out of concern for his employees ‘ continued livelihood must be taken into account.
Mr. Ong claimed that Lim was prepared to lay the blame entirely on the shoulders of a devoted employee who he claimed treated like a daughter.
Mr. Ong claimed that the defense had requested a seven-year period that was “manifestly inadequate.”
In terms of Lim’s medical offenses and his claim that Lim would suffer disproportionately from a lengthy sentence, Mr. Ong said the idea that a sentence does not in effect amount to a life sentence is not “iron-cast” is not true.
The only thing that needs to be taken into account when deciding whether a sentence against the accused… will amount to a life sentence is that the accused was still vital enough, still in charge of Hin Leong enough to engineer and direct that these frauds take place or be committed, according to Mr Ong.
” It would be unjust, I submit, if having been able to engineer these crimes at this advanced age, the accused then escapes the appropriate punishment for his crimes by using that age as an excuse,” the accused said.
Mr. Ong said the Singapore Prison Service can treat the medical conditions that the defense has highlighted, such as Lim’s wheelchair use and fall risk.
Mr. Singh said in his reply arguments that the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to support some of its claims, such as that Lim attempted to throw his employees under the bus or that his crimes had the potential to undermine trust in Singapore’s oil trading industry.
The prosecution had compared Lim’s case with that of , former Asia Pacific Breweries finance manager Chia Teck Leng , - , who was sentenced to 42 years ‘ jail for swindling four foreign banks out of S$ 117 million. However,  , Mr Singh said Chia’s case was from 2004. Adjusted for inflation, the amounts involved in Chia’s case are higher than Lim’s, he argued.
Mr Singh also argued that there are “very serious gaps” in a letter from the prison service, which the prosecution used in saying that , Lim ‘s , needs can be met in jail. The letter does not address all of Lim’s medical conditions, Mr Singh said.  ,
These include anxiety, depression, insomnia, a large prostate, asthma, coronary artery disease and cerebral vascular disease with cognitive impairment.
The issue of whether Lim would suffer disproportionately was” not even addressed” by the prison service, said the veteran lawyer.
Without addressing these concerns, “how can this court know that there is no such concern”? asked Mr Singh.