LIN Baoying, one of the accused in the S$2.8 billion money laundering case, had paid US$290,000 to agents to obtain her Cambodian and Dominica passports, the prosecution said in court on Wednesday (Oct 18).

She had managed to obtain the Dominica passport despite not having visited the country before. As she was able to obtain these passports despite not being in the country, there was a possibility that she could do so again.

The prosecution also highlighted that she had “substantial wealth overseas” – up to at least US$17 million. The accused disputed the amount in her affidavit, which stated she had around US$14 million in assets overseas instead.

This came to light during Lin’s bail review, where the prosecution applied for no bail to be offered to Lin. Alongside her, three other accused – Zhang Ruijin, Su Jianfeng and Wang Dehai – were also in court for bail reviews.

District Judge Terence Tay did not grant bail to any of the four accused, noting that investigations are still ongoing and that there was a risk of collusion, as many of them had ties to each other and associates who are under investigation.

In court, Ascendant Legal’s Chew Kei-Jin, Lin’s new counsel who took over from Loo & Partners, noted his client had not been charged with money laundering-related charges.

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

Lin faces two forgery charges related to attempts to cheat OCBC and CIMB Bank, as well as one charge of perverting the course of justice by allegedly giving false information to a Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) officer.

Chew told the court that Lin had already been investigated as early as June 2022 for the two forgery charges. Since then, she has been allowed to leave Singapore twice for holidays with Zhang, her domestic partner.

He thus argued that his client was not a flight risk, as despite being investigated for these same charges, she had not fled the country.

“This is not something a person who is seeking to abscond would do,” he said.

To substantiate his point, he added that Lin also has a 15-year-old daughter and catering business here, indicating that she had plans to settle down in Singapore.

In response, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Nicholas Tan argued that Lin only had “slender roots in Singapore” and that the accused’s claim to be rooted in Singapore because of her daughter is overstated, as she and her daughter live in different residences.

Her daughter, who stays at her Beach Road residence, is cared for by a domestic helper.

In addition, Lin had not been candid about her relationship with the other accused aside from her lover Zhang, saying she had only “limited ties” with them, said DPP Tan.

However, the investigating officer found that Lin and Zhang had previously travelled with two other accused, Su Baolin and Su Haijin, as well as their wives.

This was a “different complexion from what was portrayed by the accused”, he added.

As for Zhang, who is purported to be Lin’s lover, he was also investigated in June 2022 by the CAD. He was allowed to leave the country twice for holidays with Lin, which showed that Zhang had no intention to flee Singapore, said his counsel, Loo Choon Chiaw of Loo & Partners.

Zhang is also intending to remain in Singapore to “mount a defence” against the charges he is facing, as the assets the CAD had seized or frozen were substantial at around S$110 million.

In response, DPP Tan said that while he was allowed to travel in 2022, there was a “material change in circumstances” surrounding these charges which meant he should not be granted bail now.

He also added that Zhang may still have the means to abscond, as his latest Chinese passport was currently not in the police’s possession, and the accused was unable to confidently pinpoint where the travel document currently was. Meanwhile, Su Jianfeng’s counsels, N Sreenivasan of K&L Gates Straits Law and CNPLaw’s Ravindran Ramasamy, argued that while their client appeared to be wanted in China in 2015, that case had already been decided. Su Jianfeng was not mentioned then.

Sreenivasan took issue with the lack of detail in the charges against his client, stating that it was unclear which foreign jurisdiction Su Jianfeng had carried out his allegedly unlawful remote gambling.

For example, Sreenivasan argued that it would have been lawful for a company to carry out remote gambling activities in the Philippines, as long as it had a licence to do so.

However, when questioned by District Judge Tay, the defence counsel was unable to confirm if the remote gambling company Su Jianfeng had been acting under had a licence.

In response, DPP Edwin Soh stated that as Su Jianfeng had been wanted in China on remote gambling offences, it could be inferred that the remote gambling had occurred in that jurisdiction, where it was illegal regardless of any licences.

He also noted that Su Jianfeng had supposedly carried out the sale of properties in Dubai, earning referral commissions from them and indicating these as a source of his wealth.

However, DPP Soh said the documents included in the accused’s affidavit did not contain many details of these purported transactions, which were said to have occurred between 2018 and 2022.

He added that Su Jianfeng was already in Singapore in 2019. Hence, he noted that it was uncertain how Su Jianfeng could have carried out these sales, which were in the hundreds.

Sreenivasan replied that “rich Chinese” often bought multiple apartments at once. The real estate company Su Jianfeng worked with was one of the biggest in Dubai, he added, so it was “not surprising” that he could have handled a large number of transactions.

The fourth accused, Wang Dehai, was highlighted by the prosecution as a flight risk, as he had two close associates who are on the run – his brother-in-law Su Yongcan and his cousin Wang Huoqiang.

Both are among the 34 individuals the police are investigating in relation to this case. They, along with Wang Dehai, are also wanted in China for allegedly offering remote gambling services there.

Should Wang Dehai be allowed on bail, there was therefore a risk of collusion and contamination of evidence, said the prosecution, adding that Su Yongcan had given Wang Dehai “large sums of money” previously.

Wang Dehai’s lawyer, Megan Chia of Tan Rajah & Cheah, argued that most of her client’s family were in Singapore, and they were planning to settle here.

The condominium unit at The Marq that Wang Dehai had purchased for S$23 million, which is also involved in the case, was purchased for his family to live in, she said.

The four accused will return to court in the next two to four weeks.

A fifth accused, Chen Qingyuan, has hired a new lawyer, Gary Low of Drew & Napier, after his previous counsel, Mark Tan of Focus Law Asia, discharged himself. His bail review is scheduled for Nov 17.