PP v. Bill Darmadi
Key facts
| Court | Magistrate Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Shen Wanqin |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Drew & Napier LLC, Hon Yi, Tay Eu-Yen, Wendell Wong, Yap An-Yi |
Source: [2026] SGMC 96, Magistrate Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v Bill Darmadi [2026] SGMC 96 was decided by District Judge Shen Wanqin in the Magistrate's Court on 23 September 2026. On 17 May 2023, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau seized nearly S$140 million from four bank accounts held by Bill Darmadi, in an investigation into whether he assisted in retaining the criminal proceeds of his father, Surya Darmadi. The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau filed its first seizure report on 24 March 2025 and a second on 24 March 2026. The issues were the right to be heard, the reporting timeline, and continued seizure under s 370(3)(a) and s 370(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010. The court ordered that all the funds remain under seizure for a further 12 months.
[2026] SGMC 96 explained
PP v. Bill Darmadi ([2026] SGMC 96) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Magistrate Court on 23 September 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGMC 96 about?
PP v. Bill Darmadi ([2026] SGMC 96) is a Magistrate Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Disposal of property”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGMC 96 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGMC 96 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2025] SGHC 253. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Magistrate's Court considered an application to extend, by a further 12 months, the seizure of nearly S$140 million from four bank accounts of Bill Darmadi, seized by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau on 17 May 2023. The court found significant procedural lapses, including a failure to notify Bill of the 2025 extension application, but held they did not warrant return of the funds. It held that continued seizure was justified under s 370(3)(b), save for USD 8,659,749.02, and under s 370(3)(a) for all funds, and ordered all funds to remain under seizure for 12 months.
What was Public Prosecutor v Bill Darmadi about ([2026] SGMC 96)?
It concerned whether nearly S$140 million seized from Bill Darmadi's four Singapore bank accounts should remain under seizure under s 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010. The Magistrate's Court ordered the funds to stay under seizure for a further 12 months.
Did procedural lapses lead to the return of funds in [2026] SGMC 96?
No. The court found that failing to notify Bill of the 2025 extension application infringed his right to be heard, and that the seizure was not reported by 17 May 2024, but held these lapses did not warrant return of the funds.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (14)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGMC 96)