An influential DBS client had negotiated to purchase an Australian-owned group of companies for A$1.265 million in cash, with an undisclosed 'scheme' quietly operating in the background. Soon after, an independent valuation by BDO placed the Australian group’s worth at between A$34 million and A$42 million. Then, almost immediately, a letter from DBS arrived, threatening to foreclose on the Australian group’s Singapore asset, despite DBS being fully aware of its client’s intentions to acquire the group. That letter was subsequently used to justify a revised valuation of just A$1.17 to A$3.26 million, conveniently paving the way for the client to proceed with the planned A$1.265 million acquisition.
​
I frustrated that transaction, after receiving a sworn testimony alleging that forged signatures, implicating the client and his personal assistant, had been affixed to documents related to the acquisition.
​
It took DBS Legal almost eight weeks to refuse authentication of two DBS letters that had been used to wipe over 90% off the valuation. During this delay, the client raised funds through his SGX-listed group and completed the stripping of assets from the Australian-owned group for A$23.3 million, all while failing to disclose his potentially highly lucrative personal interest in the transaction when raising over A$20 million from SGX investors.
A forensic document examiner stated that the DBS letter lack credibility.
Later, a senior figure within DBS Legal would dictate that a whistleblower removes all mention of those DBS letters from their submission to DBS SpeakUp, and that DBS itself is not informed of this direction.
​
​
These two signatures were purportedly taken from the same 30th July DBS letter. Whether they are genuine or not, is no longer the issue.
The DBS Letters
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. These details were not cut off during faxing as the paper number is still visible.
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! The allegations were made in a sworn Statutory Declaration and Statement of Claim.
I don't think I need to point out the alleged forged signatures below!
​
"9. Geraldton, EBL and/or LKK only knew of transfer of the Shares from
Geraldton when LKK received an email from a Julie O’Connor on 24 April
2014.
10. Geraldton, EBL and/or LKK did not sign any documents arising out of and/or
in connection with the Moonshine Transfer and did not authorise any other
person / entity to sign such documents on any of their behalves.
11. Moonshine and LRS knew and/or ought to have known that the Moonshine
Transfer was procured by fraud in that it was done without proper consent or
authority from Geraldton but still proceeded to complete the Moonshine
Transfer and the LRS Transfer.
​
"Geraldton, EBL and/or LKK did not sign the Shareholders’
Agreement and the Geraldton Documents and did not authorise
any other person / entity to sign such documents on any of their
behalves. Barbara Ong therefore could not have, and did not,
witness LKK signing on those documents."
~Extracts from Statement of Claim
​
LAWYERS ACTING FOR DBS PUBLICLY CLAIMED THAT I HAD ACTED WITH MALICE - SO HOW WOULD THEY DESCRIBE THE ACTIONS OF DBS AND ITS CLIENT/
​
