A recap of trial so far; court case to resume on April 22

Singapore

THE trial of John Soh Chee Wen and Quah Su-Ling for their role in the 2013 penny stock crash started last month and has covered just four days and is set to resume on Monday.

But the prosecution and defence's arguments in that short period have given a better understanding of their positions. Here's a recap before the hearing enters its fifth session next week.

A key point in the defence's case so far is whether or not remisier Ng Kit Kiat knew that it was John Soh Chee Wen he was talking to over the phone for some of the accounts involved in the alleged rigging of the stocks of Blumont Group, Asiasons Capital (now Attilan Group) and LionGold Corporation in 2013.

Mr Ng, a remisier at OCBC Securities and first witness for the prosecution, had testified that he only realised the "Peter Chew" who had instructed him over the phone to place trades for Blumont, Asiasons and LionGold (collectively known as BAL) stocks without written authorisation from the account-holders was in fact Soh when the two met after the BAL stock prices collapsed in early October 2013.

The defence sings a different tune, however. In their cross-examination of Mr Ng, both counsel for the two accused suggested that Mr Ng had known Soh was "Peter Chew" much earlier.

Quah's lawyer Philip Fong went further to accuse Mr Ng of engaging in front-running by taking advantage of the knowledge that Soh was "Peter Chew" and seemed to be "promoting" a particular stock.

In front-running, a broker enters into a trade ahead of a big non-public transaction which he is privy to that he hopes will influence the price of the asset, thus resulting in a profit for the broker.

Mr Fong told the judge that when trading representatives like Mr Ng act on market intelligence such an impending trade by an influential figure, it could push the stock price up.

"Not because of the fault of the accused persons, but this is what's happening," the lawyer stressed.

Soh and former Ipco International chief executive Quah are being charged for allegedly conspiring to create a false market for the BAL stocks.

They are also accused of conspiring to deceive brokerages into believing that the trades at the heart of the trial were executed by the account-holders, but were instead controlled by them.

On this, Mr Fong got Mr Ng to agree that Quah had the verbal authorisation from the account-holders to relay trading instructions, but the remisier with over 40 years of industry experience insisted that he had sent the forms to the account-holders - Quah's then-subordinate at Ipco Goh Hin Calm, her mother, and LionGold's then-independent director Ng Su Ling - to formally authorise Quah.

Mr Ng testified that he did not get the authorisation forms back, and confessed that he allowed Quah and Soh to place the unauthorised trades after she threatened to bring her business elsewhere should he insist on the forms.

Still, he agreed with Mr Fong that these account-holders would have been informed about the trades by the statements from the broking house and Central Depository, and they would have raised objections if the trades were not authorised.

Mr Fong said Quah denied pressuring the remisier and she also did not give trading orders for the accounts of Ms Ng and a Kuan Ah Ming.

However, Mr Ng was adamant that Quah had instructed him for the trades through these accounts, and disagreed that he had mistaken Quah for Ms Ng, who has the same given name.

"No, as the voice is concerned, I think there is a difference between the two, " explained Mr Ng, who takes trading orders by phone calls.

Mr Ng's evidence was that the illegal trades were preceded by calls from Quah or Soh to him.

However, when he testified that the investigating officer (IO) had shown him the various trades and corresponding calls, Soh's lawyer Mr N Sreenivasan accused the IO of coaching Mr Ng on the statement in which the accused persons were fingered as the culprits behind the illegal trades.

Mr Ng disagreed, but acknowledged that he could not recall the trades and phone calls. Since the records "synchronised", he said he accepted the IO's conclusion that the trades could have been made as a result of the calls from Quah or Soh.

Mr Ng admitted in his evidence that he had initially lied to the police to protect himself but later decided to come clean when the IO showed him the trades and matching call records.

It was revealed by Senior Counsel Sreenivasan - whose bankrupt client's legal fees are said to be borne by well-wishers - that like Mr Ng, 20 witnesses have "changed their story".

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Peter Koy also suspects that some of the prosecution witnesses may turn hostile and become uncooperative, which was his reason for not having provided some statements to the defence.