SENIOR Counsel Davinder Singh on Wednesday (Feb 7) attempted to nail down several “lies” and inconsistencies in statements and court testimonies by Serene Seng, a former long-serving employee of collapsed oil trader Hin Leong. 

Singh and his team from Davinder Singh Chambers is representing Hin Leong founder Lim Oon Kuin – better known as OK Lim – in both a criminal case at the State Courts and the ongoing civil trial in the High Court. 

In his cross-examination of Seng in the civil trial on Wednesday, Singh asked her about a statement she had given to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) in April 2020 regarding a discounting application relating to a transaction with Unipec Singapore.

The Unipec transaction is one of two transactions that are central to the three charges that prosecutors have levelled against Lim. 

In the civil suit before the court now, two PwC liquidators and Hin Leong’s top creditor HSBC have filed separate cases against Lim, his two children and Seng for a total sum of US$3.5 billion. The cases are being jointly presided over by High Court Judge Philip Jeyaretnam.  

Issued with a warning

The court heard on Wednesday that Seng was issued with a warning by the CAD during the April 2020 interview. She was also notified about a proviso that she need not say anything that might expose her to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture. 

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

In response to queries from Singh, Seng said that she “couldn’t quite understand” what the officer meant. 

Given that the Unipec discounting application was made shortly before the CAD interview in April 2020, Singh asked Seng if the events surrounding the application would have been fresh in her mind. 

“There are many transactions that happened in a day, and many documents to sign. I could have remembered some but not all (of them),” Seng replied, adding that she remembered this particular transaction only because Lim had allegedly told her that he wanted to discount the receivables first and he would close the sale “quickly” thereafter. 

After a heated back-and-forth about whether Seng still stands by the evidence she had given during her April interview with the CAD, Seng said that she was unsure which specific invoices or transactions were being referred to during the interview. 

To this, Singh asked: “Are you serious, Ms Seng?” 

Seng argued that there were too many transactions in a day for her to remember each and every one.

Coming clean

In April last year, Seng admitted in court that she had lied to the CAD on some instances in a bid to protect her children. 

In response to a question from Singh on when she decided she would tell the truth, Seng said that it was at the end of May 2021. 

Singh then asked her why her defence for the civil trial did not change after that but remained as it was. 

“Because I saw no need to change that yet,” said Seng, adding that she wanted to “come clean for the criminal trial first”. 

“You filed the affidavit (for the civil suit) deliberately, to say something which would not show your hand to the Lims, is that right?” Singh asked. 

After Singh pressed her for reasons on why there was a notable difference in her stances for the criminal and civil suits, Seng said that she did not want the Lim family to contact her or pressure her to change her statements. 

Singh noted that there were multiple instances where Seng had told untruths – both in statements to the CAD as well as in court while she was under oath. 

Singh asked: “On the one hand, according to you, you lied under oath and you lied in the face of the obligation to tell the truth. Now you want the court to believe that your evidence on oath is the truth?

“Yes, because I’m telling the truth now,” Seng replied. 

Singh said: “I suggest this to you – and I’m sorry I have to – you are so calculating that you would say what you need to say and when you need to say it, and none of us have any clue when you are telling the truth and when you are not.” 

Seng disagreed. 

Passing instructions along

The court heard that Seng was, on many occasions over the course of her time at Hin Leong, merely conveying instructions from Lim to other staff members including former contracts executive Freddy Tan and senior contract administrator Chee Li Li.

Seng also said Lim had an “open door policy” and that Hin Leong staff were able to verify the instructions with him directly if necessary.

Singh took issue with this, arguing that given the seniority Seng had in the company, she did not have to tell anyone that the instructions she was giving them came from Lim. 

“You knew that you were in a position where if you said something, others would do it. You did not need the cover of saying this was from Mr Lim,” Singh said. Seng disagreed.

Singh asked if any staff member under Seng had ever challenged her when they were given an instruction. Seng said this had not happened before.

The civil trial continues on Thursday.