John Soh, Quah Su Ling await verdict in penny stock crash trial

AS the marathon trial over the penny stock crash of 2013 draws near the finish line, one of the key questions as the court deliberates on its verdict is: Was John Soh Chee Wen the perpetrator of the market manipulation that led to the S$8 billion implosion, or was the Malaysian merely a promoter of the shares?

In closing submissions last Friday for the longest criminal trial of nearly 200 days of hearing over a span of 2.5 years, the prosecution charged that the 62 year-old Soh was the mastermind of the most serious case of market manipulation that has come before the Singapore courts.

Soh was said to have conspired with his romantic partner Quah Su Ling to artificially inflate the share prices of Blumont Group, Asiasons Capital (subsequently renamed Attilan Group and delisted) and LionGold Corp (now Shen Yao) for over a year through a web of 189 trading accounts.

Those accounts at 20 local brokerages and foreign financial institutions belonging to 60 individuals and companies were said to have been misused to engage in wash trades - or trading between the same parties - through brokers or remisiers who were part of Soh's group.

Soh and 57 year-old Quah are respectively facing 188 charges and 177 charges of market manipulation, deception and cheating, with Soh facing additional charges of witness tampering.

Soh denied being the manipulator the prosecution has portrayed him to be. Instead, he claims to be engaged only in the promotion of the shares, not market manipulation.

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

The college dropout - who became a millionaire at 22 years old but went bankrupt in his 40s - was determined to make a comeback through the success of one of the counters LionGold, according to his defence team from K&L Gates Straits Law.

Quah also disputes the charges and was unrepresented at the submissions, after running out of funds for legal fees. Instead, she had her son Keith Tan in court last Friday as her McKenzie friend - someone who would provide administrative support but not represent or conduct legal proceedings on her behalf.

The prosecution in closing submissions laid out how Soh and Quah had allegedly given trading representatives instructions shortly before the trades, with many of these brokers being part of the lineup of over 96 witnesses called to the stand.

However, Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan argued that it was not Soh's alleged market manipulation, but the bourse operator Singapore Exchange's (SGX) "unusual" intervention into the trading of the 3 counters that could have caused the spectacular crash on Oct 4, 2013.

"If I were to take a leaf out of the prosecution's page, phone call followed by trade; well, I would say, SGX intervention followed by crash," retorted Sreenivasan in his oral submissions on Friday.

He also questioned several key witnesses' credibility, pointing out that they had given different versions to the investigators and in court.

Sreenivasan stated: "I come back to the 20 witnesses whom the prosecution says have got no reason to implicate the accused. The simple point is almost all of them, at the initial investigative statements, denied any involvement. They then switched their story, admitting involvement and then pointing the finger at John Soh."

He called out several witnesses including trading representatives Ken Tai and Henry Tjoa, as well as Soh's associate Dick Gwee, as the ones who had admitted to manipulating the market but had not been charged. "Not one of them (trade representatives) said that Dick Gwee made S$50 million."

Sreenivasan also objected to the prosecution's characterisation of Soh being an altruistic person giving general instructions. He argued: "(Soh) might be charismatic, he might be egotistical, he might be friendly. We never said he was being altruistic and doing charity in this instance."

Quah argued that there was a plea bargain for Gwee, which "can only take place if there's culpability". She also accused the prosecution of "interpreting trading data as though they are reading tea leaves".

However, deputy public prosecutor (DPP) Teo Guan Siew noted that the witnesses had explained they had lied to the white-collar crimes buster Commercial Affairs Department because they were "tampered with" by Soh. He also said this was not a case of one person's word against another's. "It is a case of 20 persons' words, supported by objective evidence against the unsubstantiated word of another, the first accused."

The prosecution rubbished Soh's claims of merely being "a centre of influence and opinion leader," as it noted that the trading representatives would not have sought instructions from Soh if the accused had not controlled the accounts, or sent him messages of trades having been done.

"It is equally incredible to say that he needed to call these brokers, so many of them, to get market intel if he himself was the centre of influence," DPP Teo said.

The prosecution said that the court had already ruled on the plea negotiations privilege, when it addressed Quah's allegation about Gwee's plea bargaining. It noted that the matter involved broader public interest considerations in representations made.

The prosecution also asked the judge to draw adverse inference against Quah for electing not to give evidence. Quah had claimed that she cannot defend herself against "defective charges".

Soh has been in remand since November 2016 after his request for bail was denied due to his flight risk, while Quah has been out on bail for S$4 million.