THE respective counsel of fallen oil tycoon Lim Oon Kuin and his daughter Lim Huey Ching on Thursday (Feb 8) said that former long-serving Hin Leong employee Serene Seng told untruths and exaggerated certain portions of evidence in her testimony during the civil trial.

Lim Oon Kuin – better known as OK Lim – is represented by lawyers from Davinder Singh Chambers, and his daughter, by a team from Advocatus Law.

Seng was among the witnesses called to the stand in the civil trial, in which PwC liquidators and top creditor HSBC are suing Lim, his two children and Seng for a total of US$3.5 billion. The liquidators have filed a separate case from HSBC, but the hearings are being conducted jointly in the High Court, with Justice Philip Jeyaretnam presiding over the cases. 

Senior Counsel Davinder Singh on Thursday took Seng through a series of excerpts from former Hin Leong employees. Among other things, these former employees said in their respective testimonies that they did “not have any work dealings” with OK Lim, and met him only “probably occasionally”. In contrast, Seng had said during her testimony that OK Lim had always been involved in the operations of the group and made all its operational decisions. 

When asked by Singh to offer her comments on these statements from other employees, she said that she was unable to comment. Singh then suggested that she had “exaggerated (her) evidence” about OK Lim supervising everyone in an attempt to implicate him. Seng disagreed. 

Singh then asked Seng how she knew OK Lim controlled all matters in Hin Leong and was aware of everything that was going on in the company, especially since she was just the head of the contracts department. Apart from signing documents, she was not involved in matters relating to financials, futures and swaps after a brief period in the 90s. Singh again suggested that Seng was attempting to exaggerate evidence, which she disagreed. 

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

Lawyer Christopher Anand Daniel of Advocatus Law, acting for Lim Huey Ching, in his cross-examination focused on the differences between Seng’s affidavits filed during the criminal proceedings and her statement to PwC recorded on Sep 30, 2020. Daniel noted that Seng had given “quite graphic evidence” during the criminal proceedings of how Lim Huey Ching had flagged a problem with the payment for a contract to sell oil to China Aviation Oil (Singapore) – with a slew of intricate details. In comparison, her statement to PwC regarding this conversation was missing the details. 

Describing it as “a fairly dramatic conversation”, Daniel told the court that Seng said during the criminal proceedings that she had met Lim Huey Ching at a glass door on the fourth storey of the Hin Leong office. Seng was in a rush, but Lim Huey Ching had called her and told her a number of things, including the need to make a call to HSBC. Seng said that they then went to a meeting room on the third floor to make the call, where Lim Huey Ching was telling her what to say while she was on the call. All of these details, among others, were missing from the statement Seng gave to PwC.

Daniel pointed out that the statement to PwC was recorded at a time that was much closer to the day the call had taken place, while the affidavits for the criminal trial were recorded much later. “I’m putting to you…that (the details) are not in the affidavit because none of them happened,” said Daniel. “The reason why you’ve embellished and made out details in the criminal proceedings is because you wanted, by giving dramatic details, to make your version believable.” Seng disagreed. 

The civil trial resumes on Feb 13, when lawyers representing the liquidators – led by Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull and his team from Drew & Napier – will resume calling their witnesses to the stand.