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. We offered to pay for the letters to be independently analyzed alongside the DBS originals, and authenticate the signatures, DBS refused. 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
Hitting a Brick Wall - Banking Secrecy, Legal Privilege and a Conspiracy to Defraud
Singapore's Investors Are Being Left Up Sh!t Creek Without a Paddle!
​​
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
Below is an example (highlighted) of a draft letter/template allegedly composed by Ms. Koh and sent to Strategic Marine Singapore. It displays the signature panel typically used, the font, and the inclusion of references, even in draft letters. DBS now claims that the letters above, which lack references or a return address, have not been tampered with and that they match their file copies. Are these signatures/letters authentic?
A genuine DBS Letter. The one that incredibly 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