DI-900037 of 2023

On 3 April 2014 the Commercial Affairs Department seized 33 items in an investigation into possible false trading, market rigging and cheating offences linked to trading irregularities in the shares of Blumont Group Limited, Asiasons Capital Limited and LionGold Corp Limited. Some were taken from 80 Raffles Place, the registered address shared by Sunmax Global Capital Pte Ltd and Sunmax Global Capital Fund Pte Ltd, a fund under the Global Investor Programme managed by the first company; the rest came from Mr Li Hua, a former director, or his home. The first company has been in liquidation since 2018, and Mr Li Hua was adjudged a bankrupt on 28 June 2022.

In Disposal Inquiry DI-900037 of 2023, three people claimed the items: Mr Li Hua, who said they were his personal records and that he was the last possessor; Mr Farooq Mann, his private trustee in bankruptcy, relying on s 369(1) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018; and Mr Wong Joo Wan, liquidator of the fund, relying on a High Court order (ORC 3519) requiring Mr Li Hua to produce documents relating to the fund. The State took no position. After inspections and evidence from two investigation officers and Mr Li Hua, the court made disposal orders. Mr Li Hua filed a criminal revision (HC/CR 6/2026), and these are the grounds.

1. Whether the items taken from the shared office were seized from the companies or from Mr Li Hua
2. Who was entitled to possession of the items seized from Mr Li Hua personally
3. Whether the items should be withheld from Mr Li Hua because of a risk of interference

A disposal inquiry is a quick, rough and ready way to distribute seized property and does not decide title, which parties may pursue in civil proceedings. Following Lim Tien Hou William v Ling Kok Hua [2024] 3 SLR 457, where claimants were in lawful possession, the property generally goes back to the lawful possessor at the point of seizure.

On the office items, Mr Li Hua's signature on the receipts and the wording of the production orders were not decisive. Both officers said he signed as director, the orders covered company items, and the investigation targeted the companies. The contents appeared to relate to the companies' business. The items were therefore seized from the companies, and since the first company's liquidator did not object, they went to the fund's liquidator. In any event, ORC 3519 would have required Mr Li Hua to hand over fund documents, which he accepted on the stand.

It was agreed the remaining items came from Mr Li Hua. He gave no clear evidence that they fell outside his estate or affairs, and his suggestion that a laptop belonged to his former wife was rejected, so they went to the trustee.

The decision rested on legal entitlement, but the court noted that an officer observed Mr Li Hua trying to tamper with a seized document during inspection, so there was some risk if the items were returned to him.

The Magistrate's Court ordered that the items in Annex A and Annex B1, seized from the shared office, be delivered to Mr Wong as liquidator of the fund, and that the items in Annex B2, seized from Mr Li Hua, be delivered to his private trustee in bankruptcy.