The two DBS letters below were used to wipe between A$30m - A$40m (92.2% - 96.6%) off a "one week old" valuation of a company which an influential Singapore client of DBS was attempting to acquire.
The most senior legal person in DBS was asked to authenticate the two DBS letters prior to the transaction completing. DBS took almost eight-weeks to respond and during this time the acquisition was completed. Even when DBS did respond, they refused to authenticate the two letters citing banking secrecy obligations. Does that mean that any influential Tom, Dick or Harry can produce bank statements, letters etc and as a recipient you will be unable to prove their authenticity and have to rely on good faith? Isn't that a major loophole to perpetuate fraud in Singapore as we saw happen in the case of Wirecard?
A forensic document examiner, a former DBS financial crime employee and clients of DBS have stated that the DBS letters below lack credibility, I am also suspicious. I have a background in banking, have banked with DBS and I worked for the company to whom the letter was sent. I saw earlier correspondence sent by DBS and never witnessed anything of this standard and the timing raises serious questions. Did DBS cover up a conspiracy to defraud?
There are three signatures purportedly penned by Audrey Koh of DBS. DBS claim they are all authentic signatures.
These two signatures were purportedly taken from the same 30th July DBS letter
But stationery number still visible - not cut off in faxing
An example below of a draft letter composed by Ms. Koh and sent to Strategic Marine Singapore shows that even of draft letters references are used. So why did neither of the above letters of such importance include return addresses or references, when DBS now claim that these letters have not been tampered with and they match their file copies?