top of page
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. More detail of the transaction can be found here
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.
For more on the story, visit
DBS - HE WHO RIDES A TIGER | Banking On The Truth
These two signatures were purportedly taken from the same 30th July DBS letter
The same letter refers to itself as the Fourth Supplemental letter of Variation and the Sixth Supplemental letter of Variation. It also includes no reference number and no return address unlike earlier correspondence sent to the same client.
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 the job title normally used and that even on 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?
A genuine DBS Letter. The one that took almost eight-weeks to produce! OCBC sent a similar response within 48-hours.
First copy of the DBS 30 July letter received with two signatures affixed, purportedly the same document received months later with one signature missing.
There had already been allegations of four Strategic Marine documents being delivered to the office of the DBS influential client and returned with forged signatures affixed. So one didn't need to stretch the imagination to believe that the DBS letters had been tampered with too!
I don't think I need to point out the alleged forged signatures!
bottom of page