What we learned from Hin Leong founder OK Lim’s time on the stand
LIM Oon Kuin, better known as OK Lim, has taken the stand for 11 days to testify in his own criminal trial.
The founder of fallen oil trader Hin Leong was charged with 130 counts of forgery and/or cheating. Three of these charges have proceeded to trial. He is separately facing a civil suit.
Speaking in Mandarin, Lim gave his evidence in court through an interpreter. He is represented by lawyers from Davinder Singh Chambers, while prosecutors are led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher Ong.
The Business Times looks back at the oil tycoon’s time on the stand.
He started out as a fisherman, alongside his father
The court heard that Lim’s highest level of education was Secondary 2, and that he completed just three months of Secondary 3. As one of seven children, what his father made as a fisherman was insufficient for school fees.
Initially, Lim worked odd jobs – as an apprentice at a car mechanic and making deliveries. He later joined his father as a fisherman for about four years.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
With his father and siblings, he took about two trips a month on a fishing boat to Cambodia and Sarawak. After a storm at sea nearly caused the boat to sink, Lim’s father told his children to look for other jobs.
Lim later joined the oil suppliers that supplied oil for the family’s shipping boat, which got him on the road to founding Hin Leong.
Hin Leong began as a small supplier of oil to factories and ‘kampungs’
The Lim family eventually set up a small company to supply oil to other boat users. This expanded to supply villages, delivery companies and factories that used power generators.
SEE ALSO
As the family worked “day and night”, the company’s client base grew on the back of referrals.
The name Hin Leong means “prosperous” and “to have a bright future”, said Lim. He became the managing director of Hin Leong in 1973, at the age of 31, when the company was incorporated.
His children – Evan Lim and Lim Huey Ching – became directors of the company in 1992.
Lim described the family business as operating on a “left pocket, right pocket” model, saying: “If one company needs anything, the other will help. If one company needs funds, another company will send the funds over.”
In 2020, Lim stepped down from all his roles at all companies under the Hin Leong umbrella. He and his two children were also shareholders of the company.
He was not a big user of computers or mobile phones
Lim testified that he was not proficient in the use of electronic devices. He said he only knew how to turn a computer on and off, but did not know how to type.
He never learnt how to print or photocopy a document, because these were always done for him.
Lim used his mobile phone only to make calls to numbers saved on his phone, or to take calls. He did not know how to send messages.
If he wanted to speak to a Hin Leong employee, he could call the person if the person’s number was stored in his phone. Otherwise, he would ask his employees to make the call. In certain cases, he would ask his staff or his assistant to look for an employee he wanted to speak to.
He was a fairly hands-off managing director
Lim said that from 2010, he was not as involved in company operations as before – due in part to his deteriorating health. The court heard that he would do more “strategic work” and new business development.
He handled older customers who had been dealing with Hin Leong for a long time, customers who spoke Mandarin, or customers looking specifically for him.
New customers or those who spoke in other languages would be handled by his subordinates. Day-to-day activities and other commercial affairs were overseen by various departments and teams.
Lim also testified that he had limited knowledge of financing terms or instruments. Asked if he knew what a margin call was, he said he had become “familiar” with the term after he had “heard it so much in court”; but he did not know what a margin call meant back in 2020, and was not familiar with trust receipts or discounting of invoices.
Hin Leong’s traders would inform him about the trades they had done only as a matter of formality. For profitable deals, there was no need for traders to get approval.
Although he had at one time been more involved in Hin Leong’s financing activities, such as taking up trade facilities with banks, this had not been the case for over a decade.
He said he did not have time to keep track of how Hin Leong was doing on a day-to-day or month-to-month basis.
He denies fabricating contracts and claims a ‘communications gap’ with HSBC
Prosecutors have alleged that Hin Leong in March 2020 submitted two fabricated contracts to HSBC to receive financing of US$111.7 million.
Lim claimed the submissions came out of a “communication mistake” between departments. The accounts department had taken the invoices to the bank to get them financed, even though the sale was not a “done deal”.
After Lim’s two children and former long-serving Hin Leong employee Serene Seng came to see him in April 2020 to tell him about the mistake, they had a call with HSBC to discuss the error.
US$100 million to Hin Leong was ‘not a big amount’
Prosecutors suggested that Lim should have known Hin Leong was getting invoice financing, given that the advances were in the tens of millions of dollars.
Lim, however, argued that at US$100 per barrel, just two million barrels of oil would amount to US$200 million. He said it was common for Hin Leong to transact in such large denominations and volumes.
One shipment from a very large crude carrier could carry oil worth US$100 million to US$200 million, Lim said, adding: “Two invoices that involve US$100 million is not a big amount.”
His health has been deteriorating since Hin Leong’s collapse
During his interviews with the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) in 2020 and 2021, Lim said he was always in a poor physical condition.
He attributed this to a combination of his advanced age, various health conditions and various “pressures”.
He was confused, and would find it difficult to concentrate. This worsened if the interview lasted for longer than 30 minutes. He also felt fearful and anxious.
Lim also wrote notes on some of his statements after the interviews with CAD, where he, among other things, reiterated his poor health condition.
There were instances where Lim amended some of his answers to the investigation officer (IO), and other instances where he refused to sign against the statements.
Lim said he felt like “a useless person” and had thoughts of ending his life. The court heard that Lim also had depression and anxiety, and that he was taking antidepressants.
He does not want to take the blame for his employees’ illegal acts
Lim said he told CAD some things to avoid hurting his employees.
For instance, he said he “could not recall” who certain employees were, whether certain actions had been carried out in the company, or whether certain contracts had been submitted to the treasury department ahead of being sent to the counterparty.
He said the IO had urged him to not say anything that would hurt his employees’ futures, as they were young and still had a bright future ahead of them.
Had he known that his employees would later pin the blame on him, his answers to the authorities at the time would have been different.
Lim said he would take responsibility for whatever happened in Hin Leong because he is “the big boss”, but he will not take responsibility for their illegal actions.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
