21-11-2023 (SINGAPORE) In the current legal saga surrounding the founder of Hin Leong, Lim Oon Kuin, startling revelations emerged during the ongoing criminal trial, suggesting a deliberate orchestration of deceptive transactions. The prosecution contends that two fictitious transactions, central to the charges of cheating and forgery against Lim, were prompted by the company’s urgent need for increased cash flow in March 2020, as it grappled with mounting margin calls.
The former oil magnate stands accused of deceiving HSBC by having Hin Leong’s employees assert that the company had executed two oil sale contracts with China Aviation Oil (Singapore), or CAO, and Unipec Singapore. The prosecution asserts that these contracts were nothing more than “complete fabrications, concocted on the accused’s directions.”
Allegedly, Lim instructed Hin Leong’s employees to submit fraudulent “discounting applications” to HSBC, grounded in counterfeit invoices and forged documents related to these purported transactions. Consequently, HSBC was purportedly “dishonestly induced” into disbursing a substantial sum of US$111.6 million (S$149.5 million) to Hin Leong.
Lim confronts a total of 130 criminal charges, involving a staggering US$2.7 billion in alleged fraudulent loans disbursed. Three of these charges have progressed to trial, showcasing the magnitude of the legal battle unfolding.
In a recent cross-examination by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong, Lim, also known as O.K. Lim, claimed ignorance about the concept of discounting applications until April 2020. Furthermore, he asserted that he had no knowledge of Hin Leong’s discounting or trading facilities with HSBC, stating, “These are accounts matters. I have never been involved in accounts matters.”
However, the prosecution challenged Lim’s claims, questioning the credibility of his professed lack of awareness. Mr. Ong asserted that it was incredulous for Lim, as the head of a significant company, to be unaware of Hin Leong’s ability to secure advanced payments from banks. Lim’s response, suggesting that the oil amounts involved were not substantial, did little to dispel doubts.
Discrepancies also arose regarding Lim’s involvement in decisions related to discounting invoices. He contradicted testimonies from Hin Leong employees, including Serene Seng and Katherine Ong, asserting that he was not the decision-maker in choosing which invoices to discount.
Moreover, Lim disputed claims that the discounted transactions were prompted by margin calls faced by Hin Leong. This contradiction led to further scrutiny, as Mr. Ong pointed out statements made by Lim to investigating officers in 2020, wherein he acknowledged the need for faster cash flow in March 2020 to address margin calls.
Accusations of fabricating evidence surfaced during the cross-examination, with Mr. Ong accusing Lim of creating a narrative about Madam Seng urging him to engage in more trades to alleviate cash flow issues. Lim vehemently disagreed with these allegations.
The prosecution further challenged Lim’s assertions that he was not consistently briefed on trade facilities between Hin Leong and banks. Lim’s claim that he was not involved in such decisions was met with skepticism, especially when confronted with Madam Seng’s testimony that he played a pivotal role in choosing trade facilities.
As the trial unfolds, these revelations cast a shadow over Lim’s narrative, raising questions about the veracity of his claims and shedding light on the intricacies of Hin Leong’s financial dealings. The court proceedings are set to continue
