DI-900037 of 2023 - [2026] SGMC 97
Key facts
| Court | Magistrate Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Crystal Tan |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
| Counsel | Attorney-General's Chambers, Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC, Tham Lijing LLC, David Koh, Derek Tan, Lim Rui-Qi Rochelle, Nadine Neo, Sarah Thaker, Tham Li Jing |
Source: [2026] SGMC 97, Magistrate Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (9)
Parties (3)
Case Significance
Li Hua v Farooq Mann and another [2026] SGMC 97 was decided by District Judge Crystal Tan in the Magistrate's Court on 21 August 2026, in Disposal Inquiry DI-900037 of 2023. The Commercial Affairs Department had seized 33 items on 3 April 2014 while investigating possible offences under the Securities and Futures Act and the Penal Code. Three claimants sought the items: Mr Li Hua, adjudged a bankrupt on 28 June 2022, his private trustee in bankruptcy Mr Farooq Mann, and Mr Wong Joo Wan, liquidator of Sunmax Global Capital Fund Pte Ltd. The issue under Section 370(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was who was entitled to possession. Items in Annex A and Annex B1 were ordered delivered to Mr Wong, and items in Annex B2 to Mr Mann.
[2026] SGMC 97 explained
DI-900037 of 2023 - [2026] SGMC 97 ([2026] SGMC 97) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Magistrate Court on 21 August 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 97 about?
DI-900037 of 2023 - [2026] SGMC 97 ([2026] SGMC 97) is a Magistrate Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Disposal of property — Section 370(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)”, 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 97 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, Restructuring and Dissolution Act, and Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The Magistrate's Court conducted a disposal inquiry under Section 370(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code over 33 items seized by the Commercial Affairs Department on 3 April 2014 from Mr Li Hua, Sunmax Global Capital Pte Ltd and Sunmax Global Capital Fund Pte Ltd. Mr Li Hua, his private trustee in bankruptcy Mr Farooq Mann and the fund's liquidator Mr Wong Joo Wan each claimed possession. The court ordered the items seized from the companies' registered address delivered to Mr Wong, and the 13 items seized from Mr Li Hua delivered to Mr Mann.
Who was entitled to the seized items in [2026] SGMC 97?
The Magistrate's Court ordered the items in Annex A and Annex B1 delivered to Mr Wong Joo Wan as liquidator of Sunmax Fund, and the items in Annex B2, seized from Mr Li Hua, delivered to his private trustee in bankruptcy, Mr Farooq Mann.
What was Li Hua v Farooq Mann about ([2026] SGMC 97)?
It was a disposal inquiry under Section 370(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code over 33 items seized by the Commercial Affairs Department on 3 April 2014. Three claimants disputed who was entitled to possession, and the court allocated the items between two of them.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (3)
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 97)