Green Global Trading Limited v Attorney-General

Green Global Trading Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company, holds a UBS AG Singapore Branch account. Its settlor and original sole beneficial owner was Mr Gad Shitrit, also known as Gerard Chetrit. On 23 May 2018 the Correctional Court of Paris convicted Chetrit of various offences and ordered confiscation of, among other things, the monies in the UBS account. His appeals failed in the Paris Court of Appeal on 6 March 2020 and in the Court of Cassation on 7 September 2022. In Singapore the account had been seized by the Commercial Affairs Department and was subject to a restraint order granted in 2019 at the request of the French authorities.

In August 2025 the Attorney-General's Chambers registered the Paris confiscation order as a foreign confiscation order in HC/OA 842/2025 under s 30 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2000. Green Global, which was not a party to the French proceedings and was never served or summoned there, applied in HC/OA 1049/2025 to cancel the registration, arguing that it had not received notice in time to defend the proceedings and that enforcement would be contrary to the interests of justice.

1. Whether s 30(2)(b) of the Act requires valid service, and whether notice must be of the first instance hearing or of the confiscation proceedings as a whole including appeals
2. Whether Green Global received notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to defend them, and whether constructive notice through its beneficial owner could suffice
3. Whether enforcing the confiscation order in Singapore would be contrary to the interests of justice under s 30(2)(c)

Applying the three-step approach in Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850, the judge held that s 30(2)(b) requires notice, a wider concept than valid service, and that the notice must be of proceedings that let the affected person contest whether the order is in force. Read with the requirement that the order not be subject to further appeal, this means notice of the confiscation proceedings as a whole, including an appeal, not just of the first hearing date. This reading furthers the Act's purpose of international cooperation and accords with decisions from England, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand on similar wording.

On the facts, Green Global was served with the restraint papers in May 2020, received reports in March 2021 describing the French appeals, and in June 2021 filed an affidavit from Chetrit annexing the Paris appeal judgment, while the Court of Cassation appeal was still pending. It therefore had actual notice in time. Nothing in the section requires proof that it could have joined that appeal, and the French authorities confirmed that it may still apply there for restitution. The Act also allows orders affecting non-parties. Although unnecessary to decide, the judge would also have found constructive notice, since Chetrit was its sole beneficial owner at the material time and the company was not in truth a separate entity.

On the interests of justice, a factual slip in the Paris appeal judgment about which account the proceeds passed through did not affect the confirmed order, and Singapore courts should be slow to review the merits of a foreign order. The Attorney-General need not re-prove tracing, French acquiescence to bail payments predated any court finding, and alleged prejudice to Chetrit's children was unsupported and a matter for the French courts.

The High Court dismissed the application, leaving the registration of the French confiscation order in place. The parties were directed to file brief written submissions on costs if they could not agree them.