Question: Board approval is needed or not needed?
I was confused by what DPP has said on 5
February 2015. If I have listened and processed my thoughts correctly,
DPP said Mr Chew knew that he has the discretion to do any investment
and he exercised the discretion to avoid board approval and now being
charged he pretends that he thought all along the bonds needed board
approval and the crossover mission component is an afterthought.
DPP: I put it to you that you are lying when you say that you believed the board had approved the Xtron bond investments.
Chew: I disagree.
DPP: I put it to you that, in fact, you
know that the bond investments didn’t need approval because you could
simply exercise your discretion as investment manager to enter into the
bonds.
Chew: Your Honour, I take it that it is now the case of the prosecution that no board approval is needed?
DPP: Just answer the question.
SC Sreenivasan stood up.
Sreeni: Your Honour, with respect, I
think it’s a very fair question because this time it is put that “you
knew that the bond investments didn’t need approval”. I think, with
respect, they have to clarify the question to the poor witness.
Chew: I can’t answer the question unless
I know the stand of the prosecutor, your Honour, because he’s asserting
that the truth is that I could exercise my discretion and that I knew
that I could exercise my discretion. Without clarification, I can’t
answer this question, because I don’t even agree.
DPP: Mr Chew, if that is how you answer the question, then just go ahead and answer the question.
Judge: In this case, Mr Ong, I have to
agree with Mr Chew’s point, which I think Mr Sreeni is going to buttress
as well. Your question is framed as, “in fact, you knew the bond
investments didn’t need approval.” And you are putting it to him that,
in fact, he knew this. Now whether it’s true that the bond investments
don’t need approval, you can argue that that’s a separate point, but I
think, to be fair to him, it may be better to clarify this.
DPP: Your Honour, I will answer….
assuming that the first Xtron bonds were indeed genuine investments,
then because AMAC had been given an investment mandate to invest in
bonds, the board was not required to approve the first Xtron BSA.
Defence Council Mr Seah who is representing Sharon, stood up too.
Mr Seah: Your Honour, this is where I’m
asking for clarification. This is important for my client’s case. Is the
prosecution saying that so long as investments are genuine, board
approval is not needed and AMAC can exercise its discretion?
Senior Council Sreeni stood up and he requested for clarification.
Sreeni: “Assuming” is a hypothetical, he
doesn’t want assumption. He wants to know what is the prosecution’s
case before his client Tan Ye Peng gives evidence.
DPP: Your Honour, I think it’s been very
clear throughout the trial, during the prosecution’s case as well as
the defence case, that our case is that these were sham investments. In
other words, that they are not investments at all.
So on that premise, for the purposes of
our case, to approve that these were sham investments, not intended to
create genuine legal obligations, it is really irrelevant whether board
approval is required, because there is no question of board approval of
something that is not an investment in the first place. As I have said
earlier, the reason why this issue of board approval has been explored
at length with this witness is because he is basing his defence on a
supposed reliance on the board approving the investment, when, on the
basis that these really are investments, such approval isn’t actually
required. I would have thought that this would have been clear. I’ve
stated to your Honour, and I think your Honour probably knew this from
our submissions at the close of the prosecution’s case, that this is our
position, and this is our case.
……
After lunch Sreeni stoop up again and he
told the court that the prosecution position was not written in the
submission document.
Almost 2.5 hours of cross-examination related to the topic on board approval.
DPP:….Mr Chew, I put it to you that this
claim that you believed that board approval should be obtained for the
Xtron bonds because of its mission component is a lie.
Chew: I disagree.
DPP: I put it to you that it is
something you are raising during this trial to try and distance yourself
from the decision that was made to enter into the sham Xtron bonds.
Chew: Your Honour, is the prosecution laying the case that I was part of that decision-making?
DPP: Yes, Mr Chew. That’s why you are giving evidence now.
Chew: I disagree.
Click here to read “Recap what was cross-examined on 3 February 2015 – PM session“
No comments:
Post a Comment