PROSECUTORS on Monday (Nov 20) crossed swords with fallen oil tycoon Lim Oon Kuin – better known as OK Lim – and suggested the founder of oil trader Hin Leong was “lying” about and “downplaying” his involvement in the company. 

Resuming his cross-examination of Lim, Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher Ong asked Lim about his involvement in Hin Leong’s day-to-day operations up to the time he stepped down as the company’s managing director in April 2020. 

DPP Ong asked Lim if the company’s department heads would bring matters to him even after he had relinquished certain duties to the department heads. 

Lim said the department heads would consult him only when “exceptional” cases arose, such as a collision between ships, or a collision at ports. “If the issue was a simple matter and I thought they could settle it on their own, I would tell them this,” he said.

Asked if the department heads would go only to him and consult him in such “extreme circumstances”, Lim said that he was just citing some examples.

He said there were “many other things” that department heads would approach him for, but added that he wanted to go and do “more valuable things” and “other things that are more impactful”. 

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

Asked whether Lim would give approval to Hin Leong traders for trades they were conducting, Lim said the traders would inform him only “as a matter of formality”.

“If the deal is profitable and they are earning money for the company, of course they can do (the deals). They just informed me as a matter of formality that they have completed the deal.”

In June, Hin Leong’s general manager for trading Wong See Meng had testified in court that he would get approval or in-principle approval from Lim or members of the Lim family for any deal that he wished to carry out. 

Wong had testified that for deals involving gas oil and aviation fuel, he would get approval from Lim. 

When asked by DPP Ong on Monday whether Wong had asked Lim for directions on whether sale deals should proceed, Lim disagreed. 

Lim said: “He is holding such a senior position. If he needed to ask me before he could proceed, then what is the point of employing him?” 

DPP Ong then suggested that Lim was lying when he said he did not approve the trades that Hin Leong conducted. Lim disagreed. 

In response to queries from DPP Ong on discounting facilities that Hin Leong had with several banks including HSBC, Lim said he did not know what the term “discounting” meant. 

The term “discounting” refers to accounts receivable financing, where a seller “sells” unpaid invoices to a financial institution. The seller typically receives a slightly discounted upfront payment in circumstances where the credit terms for the transaction would mean that the seller would otherwise only receive payment from the buyer at a later date.

DPP Ong asked Lim whether he was aware that Hin Leong had a facility with HSBC where Hin Leong could present invoices for oil sales that it had made, and the bank would pay the company before payment from the buyer was due. 

Lim said such things were “accounts matters”, and that he was never involved in accounts matters.

“I put it to you that your claim not to have known what discounting was, all the way up to Apr 12, 2020, is completely incredible,” DPP Ong said. Lim disagreed.

After a lengthy back and forth to determine when Lim had found out about these discounting applications, who had told him about the mistakes in these applications and whether he understood the details of the problem, DPP Ong suggested that Lim knew about discounting “long before” 2020.

“I put it to you that you are lying about when and how you found out about the two discounting applications that had been made to HSBC,” DPP Ong said. Lim disagreed.

DPP Ong also attempted to pin down Lim’s role and actions when Hin Leong needed to boost its cashflow figures to meet margin calls from banks. DPP Ong asked Lim if he was aware that doing more trades would have been one way for the company to strengthen its cashflows.

Lim said the Hin Leong Group owns a number of companies, and these companies would “transfer here and there” among themselves if there was a need for funds.

In response to queries from DPP Ong on how Hin Leong would typically strengthen its cashflows if needed, Lim said there were a number of solutions. One of these solutions would be for traders to conduct more trades.

DPP Ong asked Lim whose responsibility it would have been to tell the traders to carry out more trades in order to raise cash. Lim said it was a mix of the contracts department, the accounts department and the traders.

Lim also said there were instances where his former personal assistant Serene Seng, whose last position at Hin Leong was manager of corporate affairs, would ask him to conduct more trades.

DPP Ong then asked Lim which part of Seng’s job scope required her to tell Lim, the “boss of Hin Leong”, to do more trades.

In response, Lim said Seng knew he had relationships with Chinese state-owned oil companies and “big companies”.

DPP Ong then suggested that Lim was “making up” evidence that Seng approached him to do more trades when Hin Leong’s cashflows were low.

“I put it to you that you are trying to pretend that you had no involvement in dealing with Hin Leong’s low cash situations when they occurred,” said DPP Ong. Lim disagreed.

Lim is facing about 130 forgery and cheating charges, three of which have proceeded to trial. Two of the three charges relate to cheating, while the other relates to forgery.

Prosecutors said in court that their cross-examination of Lim is expected to conclude by Wednesday, with Judge Toh Han Li presiding over the case.