The conspirators of a market manipulation scheme that caused a 2013 penny stock crash to cost S$ 8 billion ( US$ 5.9 billion ) on appeal before the Apex court on Monday ( Mar 3 ) on appeal.  ,
Both John Soh Chee Wen, a business from Malaysia, and Quah Su-Ling, the original CEO of Singapore Exchange (SGX)-listed IPCO International, both received significant words after serving their words in May 2022.
Both were found guilty of what was alleged to be the most severe case of business manipulation in Singapore following a trial that lasted nearly 200 days and involved near to 100 prosecution witnesses.  ,
Between August 2012 and October 2013, Quah and Soh deliberately increased the share costs of LionGold, Blumont, and Asiasons, three penny stocks.
The pair allegedly organized and managed equipment candidate accounts that traded between themselves and with ignorant market participants, giving the impression of demand and supply for these stocks.
They lied about their involvement in these balances and deceived economic institutions into giving them hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to advance the system.
Their ideas vanished on October 4, 2013, when the share prices of the three companies crashed, erasing S$ 8 billion in market capitalization from SGX.
Fake investing, price adjustment, deception, and cheating were some of the duo’s crimes. Soh was found guilty of additional counts of testimony tampering. He was given a 36-year prison sentence for 180 fees and a 20-year prison sentence for 169 counts.  ,
Both Justice Tay Yong Kwang, Justice Andrew Phang, and Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon showed up on Monday, and their charm is scheduled to be heard over a number of hearings.  ,
Quah was represented by attorney Sivananthan Nithyanantham, while Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan represented Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan.  ,
The attorneys addressed courts to highlight the legal issues in the elegance, focusing on the allegations against which the two defendants were found guilty.  ,
Mr. Sivananthan pleaded with the Court of Appeal to overturn Quah’s conviction, saying that” the beliefs imposed are tainted with grave problems, which lead to a major miscarriage of justice.” He , citing some items in support of the claim that the trial judge erred in convicting Quah because of false claims.  ,
These included the claim that the amended costs against which Quah was found guilty were infringe on the criminal procedure code, which mandated that each different offence may be brought before a court of justice. However, Mr. Sivananthan claimed that the amended claims against the accused were based on two different crimes at the same time under Section 109 and Section 120B of the Penal Code.
A criminal crime can be prosecuted under Section 109 of the Penal Code if an action is committed in consequence, while Section 120B deals with a criminal conspiracy that has already occurred.  ,
Mr. Sivananthan argued that the determine incorrectly permitted Quah to become subject to punishment under Section 109 of the Penal Code as opposed to Section 120B. He claimed that” confusion and prejudice” were caused by the failure to take each reported offence’s data into its own hands.  ,
The defense attorney was not demonstrate that the trial had used a provision that the prosecution had been relying on to support their argument, according to the judges.  ,
The defense team claimed that the trial judge omitted the substance of crime and that finding an overarching plan or agreement between the accused parties would not allow the prosecution to distinguish each individual offence.  ,
The attorneys also objected to what they claimed were flimsy allegations that lacked specifics regarding the terms of the partnerships being made between the accused parties to commit the crimes. According to Mr. Sivananthan, the prosecution failed to explain to the accused that each action was connected to a” certain, impartial, and separate deal” between the accused parties.  ,
Mr. Sreenivasan claimed that the charges did not include information about the cost, such as the dealer, the account, and which brokerage house was used. Otherwise, the trial consolidated 179 accounts held by 57 agents in more than 20 trading firms.  ,
The prosecution don’t provide specifics of charges, according to Mr. Sreenivasan, “because the case is complicated, hard, or takes a long time.”  ,
Additionally, Mr. Sivananthan argued that the judge made erroneous conclusions about Quah’s refusal to speak in the prosecution.  ,
Due to financial constraints, Quah had been declared bankrupt in May 2015 and lacked a solicitor at the lawyer’s hearing. According to court proceedings, she chose to remain motionless because she was uncertain about what would happen if she testified and had to be cross-examined without a lawyer.  ,
The trial judge had the right to bring conclusions based on the facts presented to her, so the courts rejected this claim as unsupported.  ,
Since there was no proof linking Quah to see tampering, Mr. Sivananthan claimed that the trial judge had erred by relying on Soh’s views on his witness tampering costs to incorrectly conclude Quah’s grief for her costs. In retrospect, the lawyer claimed that the witness tampering allegations should have been brought on a different case than a shared trial.  ,
In a response, the prosecution claimed that Quah had no primary concerns to the combined test and that her first one is now “extremely delayed” and “extremely artificial.”
It was” to later in the day” to file an appeal, according to Chief Justice Menon, adding that it was still up to events to say that the data was interpreted in a false manner if they had not objected to a joint test earlier. The courts came to the conclusion that this place had no significance.
Both parties will remain the hear at a later time by preparing more information for the court in advance.  ,
Quah is on parole while Soh is kept in trial.  ,