lss_dt_reports: 44

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg · About: choco-up/sg-law-archive-data

This data as json

_id	_item_id	title	content	pdf-link	pdf-content	timestamp	url	unique_id	_commit
44	52785e6f32eeeb8a1695fcb249a67d257052bb4c	In the Matter of Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor	In the Matter of Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor The present disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent arose from the Complaint made by Ms Ong Lizhen Daisy on behalf of Allied Technologies Limited (Complainant), in relation to the Respondent’s failure to release funds to the Complainant. These funds were held on trust in an escrow account for the Complainant. The following charges (seven main charges and seven alternative charges) were preferred at the onset of the proceedings: First Charge and First Alternative Charge The Respondent failed to follow all lawful, proper, and reasonable instructions of his client, to release to his client the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Respondent’s firm (Firm) in the Firm’s client account, in breach of Rule 5(2)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR), and the Respondent is thereby guilty of: grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act). misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. Second Charge and Second Alternative Charge The Respondent failed to act honestly in his dealings with his client, by making repeated representations that the Firm would be releasing the sum of $33,153,416,56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account, when he was aware that the said release would not take place, in breach of Rule 5(2)(a) of the PCR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of: fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. Third Charge and Third Alternative Charge The Respondent failed to act honestly in his dealings with his client, by issuing a DBS cheque to his client for the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account, when he was aware that the cheque was unlikely to be cleared, in breach of Rule 5(2)(a) of the PCR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of: fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. Fourth Charge and Fourth Alternative Charge The Respondent failed to keep his client informed of all information that may affect the interests of his client in the matter of the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account, in breach of Rule 5(2)(b) of the PCR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of: grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. Fifth Charge and Fifth Alternative Charge The Respondent authorised payment(s) out of the Firm’s client account held for his client, without the authorisation of his client, in breach of Rule 7(1)(a) read together with Rule 8(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules (SAR). To the extent that the Respondent believed that the payment was made pursuant to client’s instructions, he has also contravened Rule 5(5) of the PCR in failing to ensure that the person purportedly giving instructions had the authority to give instructions on behalf of the client. The Respondent is thereby guilty of: fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. Sixth Charge and Sixth Alternative Charge The Respondent failed to ensure the sum of $33,153,416.56 held in the Firm’s client account for his client was held in a way that protects the interests of the client and/or he failed to be accountable to the client for the said sum, in breach of Rules 16(1) and/or 16(2) of the PCR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of: grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. Seventh Charge and Seventh Alternative Charge The Respondent failed to record his dealings with the monies in the Firm’s client account held for his client, by failing to record the transactions in any cash books, ledgers, and journals in respect of the client account, in breach of Rules 11(1) and/or 11(2) of the SAR, and the Respondent is thereby guilty of: grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Act. misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Act. The Respondent pleaded guilty to all seven alternative charges. Findings and Determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) Pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Act, the DT found that on the facts, and based on the Respondent’s plea of guilt to all seven alternative charges, that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the Act. The DT ordered costs of $6,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to be paid by the Respondent to the Society. Court of Three Judges The Court of Three Judges ordered that the Respondent be struck off the Roll. The Court of Three Judges also ordered the Respondent to pay the Society’s costs (inclusive of disbursements), fixed at the aggregate sum of S$15,000. To access the full report, click here.	https://lawgazette.com.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Dec_24_Jeffrey_Ong_full_report_DT.pdf	28th These disciplinary proceedings arise from a complaint made by Allied Technologies Limited (“the Complainant” or “ATL”) against Mr Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (“the Respondent”). The Complainant is a company Singapore Exchange. incorporated in Singapore and is listed on the The Respondent was at all material times a practicing advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore (having been admitted to the roll in 2003) and the managing partner of the firm of JLC Advisors LLP (“the Firm”). The Complaint involves the Respondent’s role and actions relating to the failure of the Firm to pay the amount of $33,153,416.56 placed by the Complainant with the Firm pursuant to an Escrow Agreement. Criminal charges were brought against the Respondent based on facts related to the Complaint and these are pending. Consequent thereto, the Respondent has been incarcerated in Changi Prison and has attended the proceedings of the Tribunal via video conferencing facilities. The Charges The Law Society brought seven charges (framed together with alternative charges) as follows:Respondent failed to act on the instructions of client ist CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that between March 2019 and May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm") you failed to follow all lawful, proper and reasonable instructions of your client, Allied Technologies Limited ("ATL"), to release to ATL the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066- 0), the instructions which were provided by way of the following: (1) a Release Notice dated 19 March 2019 issued to you and the Firm on 23 March 2019; (2) emails to you on 5 April 2019, 24 April 2019, 30 April 2019, and 9 May 2019 from ATL's representatives; (3) a formal letter of demand from ATL's solicitors, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP to the Firm dated 17 May 2019, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 5(2)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Ist ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that between March 2019 and May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm") you failed to follow all lawful, proper and reasonable instructions of your client, Allied Technologies Limited ("ATL"), to release to ATL the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), the instructions which were provided by way of the following: (1) (2) a Release Notice dated March 2019; 19 March 2019 issued to you and the Firm on 23 emails to you on 5 April 2019, 24 April 2019, 30 April 2019, and 9 May 2019 from ATL's representatives; (3) a formal letter of demand from ATL's solicitors, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP to the Firm dated 17 May 2019, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 5(2)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent failed to act honestly (representations) 2™ CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that between March 2019 to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm") you failed to act honestly in your dealings with your client, Allied Technologies Limited (“ATL”), by making repeated representations that the Firm would be releasing the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) to wit, by emails to ATL dated 25 March 2019, 25 Apri! 2019, 10 May 2019 and 13 May 2019, when you were aware that the said release would not take place, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 2% ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that between March 2019 to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the "Firm") you failed to act honestly in your dealings with your client, Allied Technologies Limited ("ATL"), by making the repeated representations that the Firm would be releasing the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) to wit, by emails to ATL dated 25 March 2019, 25 April 2019, 10 May 2019 and 13 May 2019, when you were aware that the said release would not take place, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent failed to act honestly (issue of irregular Cheque) 3™ CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that on or around 16 April 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm"), you failed to act honestly in your dealings with your client, Allied Technologies Limited ("ATL"), by issuing a DBS Cheque No. 304250 dated 15 April 2019 (the "Cheque") to ATL, for the sum of $$33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), when you were aware that the Cheque was unlikely to be cleared, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 3°¢ ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that on or around 16 April 2019, whilst you were at ali material times, the managing partner at JLUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm"), you failed to act honestly in your dealings with your client, Allied Technologies Limited ("ATL"), by issuing a DBS Cheque No. 304250 dated 15 April 2019 (the "Cheque") to ATL, for the sum of $$33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), when you were aware that the Cheque was unlikely to be cleared, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent failed to keep client reasonably informed of matters 4 CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that for a period up to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the "Firm") you failed to keep your client, Allied Technologies Limited, informed of all information that may affect the interests of your client in the matter of the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on Escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), and in so doing, you contravened Rules 5(2)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161 2009 Rev Ed). 4‘ ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that for a period up to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the "Firm") you failed to keep your client, Allied Technologies Limited, informed of all information that may affect the interests of your client in the matter of the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on Escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), and in so doing, you contravened Rules 5(2)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent made unauthorized payments out of the Firm’s client account 5 CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that for a period up to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm"), you authorised payment(s) out of the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048902066-0) held for client, Allied Technologies Limited, without the authorisation of the client, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 7(1)(a) (read together with Rule 8(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Account) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed). To the extent that you believed that the payments were made pursuant to client's instructions, you have also contravened Rule 5(5) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, in failing to ensure the person purportedly giving instructions had the authority to give instructions on behalf of the client, and you are thereby guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 5'* ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that for a period up to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm"), you authorised payment(s) out of the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048902066-0) held for client, Allied Technologies Limited, without the authorisation of the client, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 7(1)(a) (read together with Rule 8(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Account) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed). To the extent that you believed that the payments were made pursuant to client's instructions, you have also contravened Rule 5(5) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, in failing to ensure the person purportedly giving instructions had the authority fo give instructions on behalf of the client, and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent failed to remain accountable for Escrow Funds 6" CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that for a period up to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm") you failed to ensure the sum of $33,153,416.56 held in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) ("Balance Escrow Funds") for client, Allied Technologies Limited was held in a way that protects the interests of the client and/or you failed to be accountable to the client for the Balance Escrow Funds, and in so doing, you contravened Rules 16(1) and/or 16(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 6 ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that for a period up to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the "Firm"), you failed to ensure the sum of $33,153,416.56 held in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) ("Balance Escrow Funds") for client, Allied Technologies Limited was held in a way that protects the interests of the client and/or you failed to be accountable to the client for the Balance Escrow Funds, and in so doing, you contravened Rules 16(1) and/or 16(2) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent failed to record dealings in cash books, ledgers, and journals 7° CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that for a period up to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm"), you failed to record your dealings with the monies in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) held for client, Allied Technologies Limited, to wit, by failing to record the transactions in any cash books, ledgers and journals in respect of the client account, and in so doing, you contravened Rules 11(1) and/or 11(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed), and you are thereby guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 7 ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that for a period up to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JUC Advisors LLP (the "Firm"), you failed to record your dealings with the monies in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) held for client, Allied Technologies Limited, to wit, by failing to record the transactions in any cash books, ledgers and journals in respect of the client account, and in so doing, you contravened Rules 11(1) and/or 11(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed), and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). The Charges are set out in the Law Society’s Statement of Case (Amendment No. 1), a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked “A”. The Respondent Pleaded Guilty/The Agreed Facts At the hearing of the Disciplinary Tribunal on 3 December 2021, the Respondent pleaded guilty to all seven alternative charges. The parties signed an Agreed Statement of Facts (Amendment which is annexed hereto and marked “B”. No. 1), a copy of 10. The salient facts extracted from this document are as follows: 11. On 21 September 2017, the Complainant entered into a placement agreement with OCBC Securities Private Limited where the latter would procure subscribers for up to 675,164,460 new ordinary shares in the capital of the Complainant at an issue price of $$0.05 per share. 12. On 23 October 2017, the Complainant entered into an Escrow Agreement with the Firm where the Firm agreed to act as the escrow agent to hold a sum of up to $$33,758,223 on escrow in its client account for the Complainant with DBS Bank Ltd (Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) (the “Escrow Account”). The Respondent signed the agreement for and on behalf of the Firm. 13. The Escrow Agreement states that the Complainant appoints the Firm to act as escrow agent to hold the Escrow Funds subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Escrow Agreement and that the Firm is obliged to hold the funds in the Escrow Account as client funds on trust for the Complainant, until it is instructed by the Complainant to release the funds. 14. The Escrow Agreement further states that the funds in the Escrow Account can only be released when the Complainant issues a Release Notice to the Firm, duly executed by any two out of the three Authorised Signatories specified in the Escrow Agreement, except that clause 3.3 provides the additional circumstances when the funds can be released, namely: (a) following the resignation of the Escrow Agent (i.e. the Firm); or (b) in accordance with a Singapore Court order or judgment to release the funds. 15. The authorized signatories for the Escrow Account were changed twice prior to 23 March 2019. The Complainant informed the Firm of these changes via email and the Respondent acknowledged the change in signatories by reply to the said emails. 16. From 1 November 2017 to 22 January 2019, various sums were placed into and withdrawn from the Escrow Account. The last escrow notice was provided by the Firm on 22 January 2019 by way of a letter from the Firm to the Complainant signed by the Respondent dated 22 January 2019, in which the Firm confirmed in writing that it was holding $33,153,416.56 (the “Balance Escrow Funds”) in the Escrow Account pursuant to the Escrow Agreement. 17, Between 19 March 2019 and 17 May 2019, the Complainant made six demands for the Firm to release the Balance Escrow Funds. These demands are described below. 18. On 23 March 2019, the Complainant issued a Release Notice dated 19 March 2019 for the sum of $$33,153,416.56 (i.e. the Balance Escrow Funds) by way of an email from the Complainant’s Ms Daisy Ong to the Respondent attaching the Release Notice. Under the terms of the Escrow Agreement, the Firm was to release the Balance Escrow Funds within seven banking days, i.e. by 2 April 2019 (“1 Demand”). 19. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Release Notice by way of an email to the Complainant’s Ms Daisy Ong dated 25 March 2019 and stated in the email that he would “arrange for the release of the balance Escrow Funds”. 20. The Respondent failed to release the Balance Escrow Funds within seven banking days upon receipt of the Release Notice from the Complainant on 23 March 2019. 21. On 5 April 2019, the Complainant’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Clement Leow sent a chaser by way of an email to the Respondent stating that the Firm had failed to release the Balance Escrow Funds within the time provided under the Escrow Agreement and requested that the Firm release the Balance Escrow Funds immediately (“2"! Demand”). 22. On 16 April 2019, the Firm issued a DBS Cheque No. 304250 dated 15 April 2019 (the “Cheque”) payable to the Complainant for the sum of $$33,153,416.56 (i.e. the Balance Escrow Funds). However, upon the Complainant’s presentation of the Cheque at the POSB Bank on 24 April 2019, the Complainant was informed that the Cheque was unlikely to be cleared because: (a) the Cheque appeared to be altered and the authorised signatories were required to sign next to the alteration, which had not been done; and (b) there were smudges on the Cheque. 23. The Respondent provided the Cheque to the Complainant despite knowing that the Cheque would be dishonoured because inter alia there were insufficient funds in the Escrow Account at that time. 24. On the same day, 24 April 2019, the Complainant informed the Respondent by way of an email of the issues with the Cheque and requested that the Firm issue a cashier’s order in respect of the Balance Escrow Funds instead by 12pm on Friday that week (i.e. 26 April 2019) (3"4 Demand”). 25. The Respondent responded by way of an email to, infer alia, the Complainant’s Ms Daisy Ong on 25 April 2019 stating that he “will make the arrangements”. 26. On 30 April 2019, the Complainant sent a formal demand to the Respondent and the Firm for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds by 12pm on 7 May 2019 by way of an email from the Complainant’s Mr Clement Leow to the Respondent attaching a formal letter of demand of even date (“4" Demand”). 27. The Respondent did not respond to the 4‘" Demand of the Complainant. 28. On 9 May 2019, the Complainant sent a further demand for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds by 2pm on 10 May 2019 by way of an email from the Complainant’s Ms Daisy Ong to the Respondent (“5'" Demand”), 29. On 10 May 2019, the Respondent replied by way of an email to the Complainant stating that “[the Firm] will expedite the remittance”. The Respondent also stated “I understand that we are to remit the funds to a separate escrow set up in accordance with the SGX directive. Let us know the account details of the new escrow account.” There were further emails exchanged between the Complainant and the Respondent on the same day. The Respondent stated in a later email “since remittance to the new escrow account is not required, we will require some time to arrange for the cashiers order on Monday”. 30. On 13 May 2019, the Respondent sought an extension of time for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds by way of an email to the Complainant, explaining that the Firm would “require more time for signatories to be arranged for the release of the funds by latest this Friday 3pm” (i.e. 17 May 2019). 31. Between 25 March 2019 and 13 May 2019, the Respondent repeatedly made representations to the Complainant that the Firm would release the Balance Escrow Funds and/or that the release of the Balance Escrow Funds would be forthcoming, when the Respondent knew the Balance Escrow Funds would not be released because, inter alia, there were insufficient funds in the Escrow Account at that time. 32. On 17 May 2019, the solicitors for the Complainant, issued a formal letter of demand to the Firm for the release of the Escrow Funds by 22 May 2019, 4 pm (“6% Demand”). 33. Despite the six demands from the Complainant and/or its solicitors for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds, the Firm and/or the Respondent failed to release the Balance Escrow Funds to the Complainant. 10 34. On 22 May 2019, the Firm issued a letter to the Complainant informing the Complainant, inter alia, “that the Funds have been paid out from our firm's Clients’ Account. We are still investigating, but have reasons to believe that the Funds were paid out on the instructions of our partner, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (“Jeffrey Ong”) and might have been unauthorised...”. 35. On 23 May 2019, the Complainant’s solicitors sent a letter to the Firm requesting details of the matters stated in the Firm’s letter dated 22 May 2019. On 24 May 2019, the Firm replied by way of a letter to the Complainant’s solicitors that the Firm has no knowledge of any of the Complainant’s demands or communications with the Respondent, and in tum requested copies of all demands and communications with the Respondent. The Firm also stated in the letter that the Law Society had intervened into the Firm’s client accounts. 36. On 28 May 2019, the Complainant’s solicitors sent a letter to the Firm requesting further details in addition to the requests in the letter dated 23 May 2019. After several chasers, the Firm’s solicitors responded to the Complainant’s queries by way of a letter dated 6 June 2019 to the Complainant’s solicitors. In the letter, it was stated that the funds in the Escrow Account were paid out in the period between 31 October 2017 and 21 August 2018, and the funds were paid out by cheque or intemet funds transfer. 37: The Firm’s Response also stated that the authorised signatories in the Firm to the Escrow Account for the period between September 2017 and May 2019 were as follows: “For the period between September 2017 to sometime in October 2018, the cheque signatories of the Clients’ Account were (a) Mr Jeffrey Ong, (b) Mr Desmond Ong, and (c) Mr Vincent Lim. Mr Desmond Ong ceased to be a partner in or around October 2018 and he was removed as a cheque signatory short while after [sic]. For the period between end-February 2019 to 13 May 2019, the cheque signatories of the the [sic] Clients’ Account were (a) Mr Jeffrey Ong, (b) Mr Mark Tan, and (c) Mr Vincent Lim.” 38. The Respondent allowed the funds in the Escrow Account to be paid out to party(ies) other than the Complainant, without receiving the relevant authorisation from the Complainant. There were several occasions between October 2017 and May 2019 where the Respondent allowed funds to be paid out of the Escrow Account without the authorisation of the Complainant. These instances are set out below: (a) (b) S$4 million was paid out to Asia Box Office Pte. Ltd. (a subsidiary of the Complainant); about $4 million (either SGD or USD) was paid out to a Mr Lim Tah Hwa @ Lin Tah Hwa, the substantial shareholder of the Complainant; and 11 (c) some amounts were paid into Platform Capital Asia (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which the Respondent was aware was Mr Kenneth Low’s personal corporate vehicle. Mr Kenneth Low is the sole shareholder and director of Platform Capital Asia (Singapore) Pte Ltd. 39. Insofar as the Respondent took instructions from the Complainant’s Mr Kenneth Low, the Respondent accepts that Mr Kenneth Low is not authorised by the Complainant to solely authorise any transactions pertaining to the Escrow Account. Accordingly, the following escrow notices issued by the Firm did not state the true balance of the Escrow Account at the relevant times: (a) escrow notice dated 3 November 2017; (b) (c) (d) escrow notice dated 16 March 2018; escrow notice dated 26 March 2018; escrow notice dated 5 April 2018 (reflecting the balance at $15,297,637.95); (e) escrow notice dated 5 April 2018 (reflecting the balance at $38,297,627.95); (f) \| escrow notice dated 6 April 2018; (g) escrow notice dated (nN) escrow notice dated (i) \| escrow notice dated (j) \| escrow notice dated 41. 11 April 2018; 11 June 2018; 12 July 2018; 30 July 2018; (k) escrow notice dated 3 August 2018; (I) escrow notice dated 10 October 2018; (m) (n) escrow notice dated 12 July 2018; escrow notice dated 31 December 2018; and (0) escrow notice dated 22 January 2019. To date, the Respondent and the Firm have failed to account for the Balance Escrow Funds and/or release or return the Balance Escrow Funds to the Complainant. The Law Society’s Submissions 42. The Law Society filed its written submissions to the Tribunal on 1 December 2021. It submits that the present case is one where sufficient cause for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (“the LPA”) exists due to the gravity of the Respondent’s misconduct. 43. It submits that the present case is one which necessitates severe sanction given that the Respondent was clearly dishonest in the discharge of his professional duties. The Agreed Statement of Facts (Amendment No. 1) and the facts in the Statement of Case (Amendment No. 1) (which the Respondent does not dispute) show that the Respondent was not just dishonest for an isolated incident but acted dishonestly on numerous occasions. 44, In support of that submission, the Law Society highlights a number of acts of the Respondent. 12 45. First, the Respondent made a number of unauthorized payments out of the Escrow Account that were not authorized by the Complainant. Secondly, the Respondent accepted that his Firm issued 15 escrow notices that stated a false balance in the Escrow Account between October 2017 and January 2019, This was done to keep knowledge of the unauthorized payments from the Complainant. 47. Thirdly, when the Complainant made demands for the release of the funds from the Escrow Account, the Respondent misrepresented on numerous occasions that he would be arranging for the release of the funds when he had no intention to do so and it was not possible to release the full sum of $33,153,416.56 as there were insufficient funds in the Escrow Account. 48. Lastly, the Respondent signed and issued a cheque to the Complainant in the sum of $33,153,416.56, knowing that the cheque would be dishonored as there were insufficient funds in the Escrow Account. 49. The Law Society emphasized that in cases which involved dishonest conduct on the part of a solicitor handling a client account, the Court of Three Judges found the most severe sanction applicable and ordered the errant solicitor to be struck off the rolls. 50. On his part, the Respondent did not file any written submissions, nor did he make any oral submissions opposing the Law Society’s submission that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed at the hearing on 3 December 2021. The Tribunal’s Decision 51. The Tribunal accepts the Law Society’s submission that cause of sufficient gravity exists. BZ: The Tribunal is of the view that the totality of the acts of the Respondent highlighted by the Law Society in its submissions undoubtedly establish a pattern of dishonest conduct on the part of the Respondent in connection with funds that his Firm held for the Complainant. 53. In such event, there is no option but for this Tribunal to find that cause of sufficient gravity exists. 54. The pronouncements of the Courts have made this much clear. The case of Law Society of Singapore v Chia Choon Yang [2018] 5 SLR 1068 is illustrative. The Court of Three Judges made a number of observations in relation to the consequences of dishonesty. Jj3. At [16]: “We have repeatedly and consistently held that dishonesty on the part of a solicitor will be viewed with utmost gravity and generally be met with the direst consequences ”. 13 56. At [19]: “...we identified three broad categories of cases where dishonesty will almost invariably lead to an order for striking off (at [105] — [108]: (a) First where the errant solicitor has been convicted of a criminal offence involving dishonesty that implies a “defect of character” that renders him unfit for the profession, (b) Second, where the errant solicitor fails to deal appropriately with his client’s money or his firm’s accounts. This category of cases would also include instances where the solicitor has been dishonest in his dealings with the client such that there is a violation of the relationship of trust and confidence that inheres in the solicitor-client relationship (c) Third, where the errant solicitor is fraudulent in his dealings with the court, breaches his duty of candour to the court and violates his obligations as an officer of the court. This is rooted in the fact that at the core of the solicitor’s role is the duty to assist in the administration of justice.” 57. At [20]: “These categories of cases illustrate the overarching principle that striking off will be the presumptive sanction in cases involving dishonesty that is indicative of a character defect rendering the solicitor unfit for the profession, or if it undermines the administration of justice”. 58. The present case falls squarely within category (b) above involving dealings with client’s money. The Respondent’s actions resulted in financial loss of close to $33 million to the Complainant. It is noted that it has not been established before the Tribunal that the Respondent benefited personally from the acts that are in the Agreed Statement of Facts (Amendment No. 1), but this is not an integral part of the case against the Respondent, nor does it take it out of category (b). 59. The present case further involves breaches of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules, which were connected to the Respondent’s dishonest dealings with his client’s money. Adherence to these rules is important for the protection of the public and maintaining public confidence in the manner in which client’s money is to be handled and safeguarded by members of the legal profession. 60. The seven alternative charges to which the Respondent has pleaded guilty are brought under section 83(2)(A) of the LPA which provides for disciplinary action to follow where a Respondent has been guilty of such misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honorable profession. 61. In the recent case of Law Society of Singapore v Yong Wei Kuen Paul [2020] 4 SLR 1284, the Respondent was struck off the rolls following a finding of dishonesty on a charge brought under section 83(2)(A) of the LPA (at [13] and [22]). 62. For the above reasons, and based on the Respondent’s plea of guilt on all seven alternative charges, the Tribunal determines pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the LPA that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the LPA. 28th Amended by agreement. IN THE MATTER OF ONG SU AUN JEFFREY AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR Dated this 3% day of December 2021 AND a IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT —_—~ (CHAPTER 161) Drew & Napier LLC Counsel for the Law Society STATEMENT OF THE CASE (AMENDMENT NO. 1) COUNSEL FOR THE LAW SOCIETY MR ADAM MANIAM MS GINA DING Drew & Napier LLC 10 Collyer Quay 10" Floor Ocean Financial Centre Singapore 049315 Tel: +65 6531 2741 Fax: +65 6220 0324 Ref: AMYM/GDHX/378119 Datedthis—15""—day of —July—_2024. Re-dated this 3% day of December 2021. STATEMENT OF THE CASE (AMENDMENT NO. 1) Mr Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (the “Respondent’), an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, was admitted to the roll in 2003 and was at all material times the managing partner at the firm of JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm’). Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (“LP(PC)R’) made pursuant to Section 71(2) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”) mandates that a legal practitioner must be honest in all his or her dealings with the client. Rule 5(2)(b) of the LP(PC)R mandates that a legal practitioner must, when advising the client, inform the client of all information known to the legal practitioner that may reasonably affect the interests of the client in the matter. Rule 5(2)(i) of the LP(PC)R mandates that a legal practitioner must follow all lawful, proper and reasonable instructions that the client is competent to give. Rule 5(5) instructions ensure of the LP(PC)R mandates that when a legal practitioner is given purportedly on behalf of his or her client, the legal practitioner must that the person giving those instructions has the authority to give those instructions on behalf of the client; or if there is no evidence of such authority, obtain the client’s confirmation of those instructions within a reasonable time after receiving those instructions. Rule 16(1) of the LP(PC)R sets out the principle that a legal practitioner is under a duty to ensure that any money or other property which a client of the legal practitioner, with the agreement of the legal practitioner, has entrusted with the legal practitioner, or has made the legal practitioner responsible for, is held in a way that protects the interests of the client. Rule 16(2) of the LP(PC)R mandates that a legal practitioner is accountable to his or her client for any money or other property which the client has entrusted with the legal practitioner, or has made the legal practitioner responsible for. Rule 8(1) read with rule 7 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed) (“LP(SA)R”) made pursuant to Section 72(1) of the LPA provides that, except as provided under rule 7, no money shall be drawn from a client account unless the Council upon an application made to it by the solicitor specifically authorises in writing such withdrawal. Rule 7(1)(a) of the LP(SA)R provides the specific instances money may be withdrawn from a law firm’s client account. Rule 11(1) read with rule 11(2) of the LP(SA)R provides that every solicitor shall at all times keep properly written up in the English language such cash books, ledgers and journals and such other books and accounts as may be necessary, to show inter alia, all his dealings with client's money received, held or paid by him through a client account. 10. The Respondent has violated Rules 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b), 5(2)(i), 5(5), 16(1) and 16(2) of the LP(PC)R and Rules 7(1)(a) and 8(1), 11(1) and 11(2) of the LP(SA)R. The particulars of the violations are set out below. Circumstances giving rise to the complaint 11. The Complainant in this case is Allied Technologies Limited (the “Complainant’), a company incorporated in Singapore which is listed on the Singapore Exchange. The complaint in this case was made on behalf of the Complainant by its Chief Financial Officer, Ms Ong Lizhen Daisy (“Ms Daisy Ong’). 12. On 21 September (‘Placement Agent”) 2017, Agreement’) where the the Complainant entered with OCBC Securities Placement Agent would into a placement Private procure Limited agreement (“Placement subscribers for up to 675,164,460 new ordinary shares in the capital of the Complainant at an issue price of S$0.05 per share (“Proposed Placement’). 13. On 23 October 2017, the Complainant entered into an agreement with the Firm (‘Escrow Agreement’) where the Firm agreed to act as the escrow agent to hold a sum of up to $$33,758,223 on escrow in its client account for the Complainant with DBS Bank Ltd (Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) (the “Escrow Account”). The Respondent signed the agreement for and on behalf of the Firm. 14. Preambular clauses A and B of the Escrow Agreement refer to the Placement Agreement and state that it was agreed that all funds raised through the Proposed Placement (up to the maximum sum Placement Agent to an in 2 tranches, of S$33,758,223) account held shall be disbursed by the Firm (the by the “Escrow Funds’). 15. Clause 1 of the Escrow Agreement states that the Complainant appoints the Firm to act as escrow agent to hold the Escrow Funds subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Escrow Agreement. 16. Pursuant to clause 2.4 of the Escrow Agreement, the Firm is obliged to hold the funds in the Escrow Account as client funds on trust for the Complainant, instructed by the Complainant to release the funds. until it is 17. Pursuant to clause 3.2 read with clause 3.1 of the Escrow Agreement, the funds in the Escrow Account can only be released when the Complainant issues a release notice to the Firm, duly executed specified in the Escrow Agreement, by any 2 out of the 3 Authorised Signatories except that clause 3.3 provides the additional circumstances when the funds can be released, namely: (a) following the resignation of the Escrow Agent (i.e. the Firm); or (b) in accordance with a Singapore Court order or judgment to release the funds. 18. The key terms of the Escrow Agreement are as follows: “1. APPOINTMENT The company hereby appoints the Escrow Agent to act as escrow agent to hold the Escrow Funds subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 2. RECEIPT OF THE ESCROW FUNDS 2.1 Upon receipt of any of the Escrow Funds, the Escrow Agent shall as soon as reasonably practicable, issue a notice to the Parties in the form, or substantially in the form, attached hereto as Schedule 1 confirming receipt of the Escrow Funds (or part thereof) (the “Escrow Notice’). 2.4 The Escrow Agent shall hold the Escrow Funds as client funds on trust for the Company as provided in this Agreement until instructed hereunder, or to deliver the Escrow Funds as provided in this Agreement. The Escrow Agent shall have no beneficial interest in the Escrow Funds for its own account. 3. RELEASE OF THE COMPANY ESCROW FUNDS 3.1 For the purposes of this Agreement, “Authorised Signatory” means the 3 persons as set out in Schedule 2. 3.2 Upon the receipt of a release notice duly executed by any 2 out of the 3 Authorised Signatories in the form attached hereto as Schedule 3 (the “Release Notice”) the Escrow Agent shall, subject to the Company’s provision of any documents the relevant bank might request for (including without limitation the constitution and/or such other documents confirming the incorporation or registration of the recipient entity), as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within seven (7) banking days, release the Escrow Funds by bank transfer in the amount and to the bank account as set out in the Release Notice. 3.3 Other than a release of the Escrow Funds in accordance with Clauses 3.1 to 3.2 above of this Agreement, the Escrow Agent shall otherwise release the Escrow Funds or any portion thereof only in the following circumstances: 3.3.1 following the resignation of the Escrow Agent in accordance with Clause 4.4 below of this Agreement; or 3.3.2 in accordance with the terms of a Singapore Court order or judgment or decree ordering the release of the Escrow Funds or any portion thereof ... SCHEDULE 2: AUTHORISED SIGNATORIES Name Specimen Signature Lim Jin Wei [] Yau Woon Foong [] Shih Chih-Lung [] ...” [Emphasis added.] 19. On 11 July 2018, “July 2018 the Complainant Resolution’) to passed change the a Directors’ authorised Resolution signatories in Writing (the for the Escrow Account. Pursuant to the July 2018 Resolution, the Escrow Account can be operated by any of the two authorised signatories, being Mr Lim Jin Wei, Mr Poh Wee Chiow Roger, and Mr Low Si Ren Kenneth. Paragraph 2 of the resolution states the following: “any two Directors of the [Complainant], being Mr Lim Jin Wei, Mr Poh Wee Chiow Roger, empowered and Mr Low Si Kenneth, be and are authorized and for and on behalf of the [Complainant] to maintain, deposit into and withdraw from the escrow stated Ren in the Escrow account held Agreement (the by the said escrow “Authorized signatories Account”), for transactions that have been prior approved resolution dated 21 September 2017.” agent as for Escrow by way of board 20. On 11 July 2018, the Complainant informed the Firm of the change in signatories for the Escrow Account by way of an email from the Complainant's Ms Ang Lee Ai to the Respondent, attaching the Respondent acknowledged executed copies of the July 2018 Resolution. The by way of email on the same date to confirm that the change of signatories was effective from that day (i.e. 11 July 2018). 21: On 8 October 2018, the Complainant passed a Directors’ Resolution in Writing (the “October 2018 Resolution’) to remove Mr Poh Wee Chiow Roger as an authorised signatory for the Escrow Account. Pursuant to the October 2018 Resolution, the Escrow Account can be operated jointly by the two authorised signatories, being Mr Lim Jin Wei and Mr Low Si Ren Kenneth. 22. On 9 October 2018, the Complainant informed the Firm of the further change in signatories for the Escrow Account by way of an email from the Complainant's Ms Ang Lee Aji to the Respondent, attaching the executed copy of the October 2018 Resolution. The Respondent acknowledged by way of an email on the same date to thank Ms Ang Lee Ai for the update. 23: From 1 November 2017 to 22 January 2019, various sums were placed into and withdrawn from the Escrow Account. The details of these deposits and withdrawals are not relevant for the various charges against the Respondent. 24. As at 22 January $33,153,416.56 2019, the Firm (the “Balance Escrow confirmed in writing that it was holding Funds’) in the Escrow Account pursuant to the Escrow Agreement, by way of a letter from the Firm to the Complainant dated 22 January 2019 (“Escrow Notice”). The Escrow Notice was signed by the Respondent. Complainant’s instructions / demands to release the Escrow Funds 25. Between 19 March 2019 and 17 May 2019, the Complainant made 6 demands for the Firm to release the Balance Escrow Funds. These demands are described below. 26. On 23 March 2019, the Complainant issued a Release Notice dated 19 March 2019 (Release Notice”) for the sum of $$33,153,416.56 (i.e. the Balance Escrow Funds) by way of an email from the Complainant's Ms Daisy Ong to the Respondent attaching the Release Notice. Pursuant to clause 3.2 of the Escrow Agreement, the Firm was to release the Balance Escrow Funds within seven banking days, i.e. by 2 April 2019 (18t Demand”). The Release Notice was signed by Mr Lim Jin Wei and Mr Low Si Ren Kenneth. 27. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Release Notice by way of an email to the Complainant’s Ms Daisy Ong dated 25 March 2019 and stated in the email that he would “arrange for the release of the balance Escrow Funds’. 28. On 5 April 2019, the Complainant’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Clement Leow (“Mr Clement Leow’) sent a chaser by way of an email to the Respondent stating that the Firm had failed to release the Balance Escrow Funds within the time provided under the Escrow Agreement and requested that the Firm release the Balance Escrow Funds immediately (“2"4 Demand’). 29. On 16 April 2019, the Firm issued (the “Cheque”) payable to a DBS Cheque Allied No. 304250 dated 15 April 2019 Technologies Limited for the sum of $$33,153,416.56 (i.e. the Balance Escrow Funds). However, upon the Complainant's presentation of the Cheque at the POSB Bank Branch at Ngee Ann City on 24 April 2019, the bank officers informed the Complainant that the Cheque was unlikely to be cleared because: (a) the Cheque appeared to be altered and the authorised signatories were required to sign next to the alteration, which had not been done; and (b) there were smudges on the Cheque. 30. On the same day, 24 April 2019, the Complainant's Ms Daisy Ong informed the Respondent by way of an email of the issues with the Cheque and requested that the Firm issue a cashier's order in respect of the Balance Escrow Funds instead by 12pm on Friday that week (i.e. 26 April 2019) (3' Demand’). 31; The Respondent responded by way of an email to, infer alia, the Complainant's Ms Daisy Ong on 25 April 2019 stating that he “will make the arrangements’. 32. On 30 April 2019, the Complainant sent a formal demand to the Respondent and the Firm for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds by 12pm on 7 May 2019 by way of an email from the Complainant’s Mr Clement Leow to the Respondent attaching a formal letter of demand of even date (“4 Demand’). 33. The Respondent did not respond to the 4" Demand of the Complainant. 34. On 9 May Balance 2019, Escrow the Complainant sent a further demand for the release Funds 10 of an email by 2pm on May 2019 by way of the from the Compiainant’s Ms Daisy Ong to the Respondent (“5‘" Demand’). 35. On 10 May 2019, the Respondent replied by way of an email to, infer alia, the Complainant's Mr Clement Leow, stating that “[the Firm] will expedite the remittance’. The Respondent separate escrow also stated “Il understand set up in accordance that we with the SGX are to remit the funds to a directive. Let us know the account details of the new escrow account.” There were further emails exchanged 10 between the Complainant and the Respondent on the same day. The Respondent stated in a later email “[s]ince remittance to the new escrow account is not required, we will require some time to arrange for the cashiers order on Monday” (i.e. 13 May 2019). 36. On 13 May 2019, the Respondent sought an extension of time for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds by way of an email to, inter alia, the Complainant's Mr Clement Leow, explaining that the Firm would “require more time for signatories to be arranged for the release of the funds by latest this Friday 3pm” (i.e. 17 May 2019). 37. On 17 May 2019, the solicitors for the Complainant, Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP, issued a formal letter of demand to the Firm for the release of the Escrow Funds by 22 May 2019, 4 pm (“6" Demand’). 38. Despite the 6 demands from the Complainant and/or its solicitors for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds, the Firm failed to release the Balance Escrow Funds. 39. On 22 May 2019, the Firm issued a letter to the Complainant informing the Complainant, inter alia, “that the Funds have been paid out from our firm’s Clients’ Account. We are still investigating, but have reasons to believe that the Funds were paid out on the instructions of our partner, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (“Jeffrey Ong”) and might have been unauthorised...” 40. On 23 May 2019, the Complainant's solicitors sent a letter to the Firm requesting details of the matters stated in the Firm’s letter dated 22 May 2019. 41. On 24 May 2019, the Firm replied by way of a letter to the Complainant's solicitors that the Firm has no knowledge of any of the Complainant's demands or 11 communications with the Respondent, and in turn requested copies of all demands and communications with the Respondent. The Firm also stated in the letter that the Law Society had intervened into the Firm’s client accounts. 42. To the Law Society's knowledge, the Balance Escrow Funds have not been released to the Complainant to date. To the best of the Law Society’s knowledge (based in the main on media reports and the Inquiry Committee report dated 11 September 2020), investigations by the Commercial Affairs Department into the affairs of the Complainant relating to the funds in the Escrow Account are continuing. Complaint to the Law Society 43. On 11 June 2019, the Complainant filed a complaint to the Law Society pursuant to section 85(1) of the LPA in relation to the Respondent's conduct in the aforesaid matters ( “Compiaint’). Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee 44. The Complaint was referred by the Council of the Law Society to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel. The Inquiry Committee was constituted by the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel on 24 October 2019 to inquire into the conduct of the Respondent. 45. The following facts were undisputed during the hearing before the Inquiry Committee: (a) The Firm informed the Complainant in writing on 22 January 2019 by way of its Escrow Notice that the Firm was holding $33,153,416.56 (i.e. the Balance Escrow Funds) in the Escrow Account Respondent signed the Escrow Notice. on trust for the Complainant. The 12 (b) The Firm failed to release the Balance pursuant to the terms of the Escrow (Balance) Escrow Funds within seven Escrow Funds to the Complainant Agreement, by failing to release the banking days upon receipt of the Release Notice from the Complainant on 23 March 2019. (c) The Firm also failed to release the Balance Escrow Funds pursuant to the 5 other requests / formal demands given after the initial Release Notice. (d) Between 25 March 2019 and 13 May 2019, the Respondent repeatedly made representations to the Complainant that the Firm would release the Balance Escrow Funds and/or that the release of the Balance Escrow Funds would be forthcoming. (e) The Respondent issued the Cheque dated 15 April 2019 on behalf of the Firm to the Complainant knowing that the Cheque would be dishonoured. The Respondent paid out the funds in the Escrow Account to party(ies) other than the Complainant, without receiving the relevant Release Notice(s) from the Complainant. Violations of the LP(PC)R and LP(SA)R 46. In light of the matters raised at paragraphs 11 to 45 above, the Respondent's actions amount to fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of the Respondent's professional duty as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore within the meaning of Section 83(2)(b) of the LPA and/or in the alternative, misconduct unbefitting an advocate and meaning of Section 83(2)(h) of the LPA. solicitor of the Supreme Court within the 13 Respondent _ failed to be honest, competent and diligent in dealings with the competent and diligent in all his Complainant 47, The Respondent ought to have dealings with the Complainant been who honest, is his client. This obligation was not fulfilled. Materially, the Respondent ought to have, but failed to: (a) release the Balance Escrow Funds to the Complainant when the Complainant issued the Release Notice, and/or pursuant to the subsequent demands issued by the Complainant and/or its solicitors. In so failing, the Respondent has failed to follow all legal, proper and reasonable instructions that the client is competent to give, as he was required to do in accordance with Rule 5(2)(i) of the LP(PC)R; and (b) keep the Complainant informed of any information that may reasonably affect the interests of the Complainant in respect of the Escrow Account. Among other things, the Respondent ought to have informed the Complainant of any transactions pertaining to the Escrow Account, including any payments out of the Escrow Account. Instead, the Respondent continued to convey the impression to the Complainant that the Balance Escrow Funds were still at all material times informed of in the Escrow Account. information that may In failing to keep the Complainant affect the Complainant’s interest, the Respondent has violated Rule 5(2)(b) of the LP(PC)R. 48. Further, the Respondent dishonestly towards dishonoured, the 2019 has violated Rule 5(2)(a) of the LP(PC)R by his client. Despite being aware that the Cheque would Respondent issued to give the false impression the Cheque that the to the Complainant Firm would be releasing on acting be 16 April the Balance 14 Escrow Funds to the Complainant. The Respondent also made _ repeated representations to the Complainant by email correspondence that he would arrange for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds when he was aware that the said release could not take place. Respondent's dealings with the funds 49. Given that the Complainant was a client of the Respondent and the Balance Escrow Funds received were client's monies, the Respondent ought to have, but failed, to: (a) ensure that the Balance Escrow Funds, which the Complainant had entrusted with the Firm, was held in a way that protects the interests of the Complainant, in accordance with Rule 16(1) of the LP(PC)R, and account for the Balance Escrow Funds in accordance with Rule 16(2) of the LP(PC)R; ensure that the instructions to withdraw the funds in the Escrow Account were done in accordance with the manner specified in the Escrow Agreement and/or pursuant to the client's authorisation. In so failing, the Respondent has failed to comply with Rule 7(1)(a) read with Rule 8(1) of the LP(SA)R and Rule 5(5) of the LP(PC)R; and keep cash books, ledgers and journals and such other books and accounts as may be necessary to show all his dealings with the monies received from the Complainant which the Respondent held and dealt with through a client account with the Firm, in accordance with Rule 11 of the LP(SA)R. 50. To date, the Respondent has failed to account for the Balance Escrow Funds and/or return the Balance Escrow Funds to the Complainant. 15 The Charges 51. For the reasons set out above, the Law Society formulates the following charges against the Respondent: Respondent failed to act on the instructions of client 1st CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that between March 2019 and May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm’”) you failed to follow all lawful, proper and reasonable instructions of your client, Allied Technologies Limited (“ATL”), to release to ATL the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-9020660), the instructions which were provided by way of the following: (1) a Release Notice dated 19 March 2019 issued to you and the Firm on 23 March 2019; (2) emails to you on 5 April 2019, 24 April 2019, 30 April 2019, and 9 May 2019 from ATL’s representatives; (3) a formal letter of demand from ATL’s solicitors, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP to the Firm dated 17 May 2019, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 5(2)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct in the 16 discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 1% ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that between March 2019 and May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm’) you failed to follow all lawful, proper and reasonable instructions of your client, Allied Technologies Limited (“ATL”), to release to ATL the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-9020660), the instructions which were provided by way of the following: (1) a Release Notice dated 19 March 2019 issued to you and the Firm on 23 March 2019; (2) emails to you on 5 April 2019, 24 April 2019, 30 April 2019, and 9 May 2019 from ATL’s representatives; (3) a formal letter of demand from ATL’s solicitors, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP to the Firm dated 17 May 2019, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 5(2)(i) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 17 Respondent failed to act honestly (representations) 2™¢ CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that between March 2019 to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm’”) you failed to act honestly in your dealings with your client, Allied Technologies Limited (“ATL”), by making repeated representations that the Firm would be releasing the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) to wit, by emails to ATL dated 25 March 2019, 25 April 2019, 10 May 2019 and 13 May 2019, when you were aware that the said release would not take place, and in so doing, you contravened Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules fraudulent or grossly improper conduct 2015, and Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal you in the discharge are thereby guilty of of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Eq). 2" ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that between March 2019 to May 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm’”) you failed to act honestly in your dealings with your client, Allied Technologies Limited (“ATL”), by making the repeated representations that the Firm would be releasing the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) to wit, by emails to ATL dated 25 March 2019, 25 April 2019, 10 May 2019 and 13 May 2019, when you were aware that the said release 18 would not take place, and Profession (Professional misconduct unbefitting in so doing, you contravened Conduct) Rules 2015, advocate and solicitor within an and Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal you are the thereby meaning guilty of of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent failed to act honestly (issue of irreqular Cheque 3'¢ CHARGE You, Ong Singapore, Su Aun Jeffrey, are charged an Advocate that on or around and Solicitor of the Supreme 16 April 2019, Court whilst you were of at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm”), you failed to act honestly in your dealings with your client, Allied Technologies Limited (“ATL”), by issuing a DBS Cheque No. 304250 dated 15 April 2019 (the “Cheque’) to ATL, for the sum of S$33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), when you were aware that the Cheque was unlikely to be cleared, and in so doing, you contravened Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules fraudulent or grossly improper conduct 2015, and Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal you are thereby guilty of in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 3" ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Singapore, Su Aun Jeffrey, are charged an Advocate that on or around and Solicitor of the 16 April 2019, Supreme Court whilst you were of at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm’), you failed to act honestly in your dealings with your client, Allied Technologies Limited (“ATL”), by 19 issuing a DBS Cheque No. 304250 dated 15 April 2019 (the “Cheque’”) to ATL, for the sum of $$33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), when you were aware that the Cheque was unlikely to be cleared, and in so doing, you contravened Profession (Professional misconduct unbefitting Conduct) Rules 2015, advocate and solicitor within an and Rule 5(2)(a) of the Legal you are the thereby meaning guilty of of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent failed to keep client reasonably informed of matters 4" CHARGE You, Ong Su Singapore, Aun Jeffrey, are charged an Advocate that for a period and Solicitor of the up to May Supreme Court of 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm”) you failed to keep your client, Allied Technologies Limited, informed of all information that may affect the interests of your client in the matter of the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on Escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-9020660), and in so doing, you contravened Rules 5(2)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 4'" ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Singapore, Su Aun Jeffrey, are charged an Advocate that for a period and Solicitor of the up to May Supreme Court of 2019, whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm”) you failed to 20 keep your client, Allied Technologies Limited, informed of all information that may affect the interests of your client in the matter of the sum of $33, 153,416.56 held on Escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-9020660), and in so (Professional doing, you Conduct) contravened Rules 2015, Rules 5(2)(b) you are and of the thereby unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning Legal guilty Profession of misconduct of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent made unauthorised payments out of the Firm’s client account 5" CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, Singapore, are charged material the times, an Advocate and that for a period managing partner Solicitor of the Supreme Court up to May 2019, whilst you were at JLC Advisors LLP (the of at all “Firm’), you authorised payment(s) out of the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048902066-0) held for client, Allied Technologies Limited, without the authorisation of the client, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 7(1)(a) (read together with Rule 8(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed). To the extent that you believed instructions, you have that also the payments contravened Rule were made 5(5) of pursuant the Legal to client's Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, in failing to ensure the person purportedly giving instructions had the authority to give instructions on behalf of the client, and you are thereby guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 21 5 ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey, Singapore, are charged material the times, an Advocate and that for a period managing partner Solicitor of the up to May at JLC Supreme Court 2019, whilst you were Advisors LLP (the of at all “Firm’), you authorised payment(s) out of the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048902066-0) held for client, Allied Technologies Limited, without the authorisation of the client, and in so doing, you contravened Rule 7(1)(a) (read together with Rule 8(1) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed). To the extent that you believed instructions, you have that also the payments contravened were Rule made 5(5) of pursuant the to Legal client's Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, in failing to ensure the person purportedly giving instructions had the authority to give instructions on behalf of the client, and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent failed to remain accountable for Escrow Funds 6'" CHARGE You, Ong Su Singapore, Aun Jeffrey, are charged an Advocate that for a period and Solicitor of the Supreme Court up to May 2019, whilst you were of at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm”) you failed to ensure the sum Account No. of $33,153,416.56 048-902066-0) held (‘Balance in the Firm’s Escrow client account Funds”) for (DBS Bank client, Allied Technologies Limited was held in a way that protects the interests of the client and/or you failed to be accountable to the client for the Balance Escrow Funds, and in so doing, you contravened Rules 16(1) and/or 16(2) of the Legal Profession 22 (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 6" ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Su Singapore, Aun Jeffrey, are charged an Advocate and that for a period Solicitor of the up to May 2019, Supreme Court whilst you were of at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm”), you failed to ensure the sum Account No. of $33,153,416.56 048-902066-0) held in the Firm's client account (“Balance Escrow Funds”) for (DBS Bank client, Allied Technologies Limited was held in a way that protects the interests of the client and/or you failed to be accountable to the client for the Balance Escrow Funds, and in so doing, you contravened (Professional Conduct) Rules Rules 16(1) 2015, and/or and you 16(2) are of thereby unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning the Legal guilty Profession of misconduct of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Respondent failed to record dealings in cash books, ledgers, and journals 7" CHARGE You, Ong Singapore, Su Aun Jeffrey, are charged an Advocate that for a period and Solicitor of the up to May Supreme Court 2019, whilst you were of at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm’”), you failed to record your dealings with the monies in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) held for client, Allied Technologies Limited, to wit, by failing to record the transactions in any cash books, ledgers and journals in respect of the 23 client account, and in so doing, you contravened Rules 11(1) and/or 11(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed), and you are thereby guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duty within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). 7 ALTERNATIVE CHARGE You, Ong Singapore, Su Aun Jeffrey, are charged an Advocate that for a period and Solicitor of the up to May 2019, Supreme Court of whilst you were at all material times, the managing partner at JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm”), you failed to record your dealings with the monies in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) held for client, Allied Technologies record the transactions client account, and in any cash books, Limited, to wit, by failing to ledgers and journals in respect of the in so doing, you contravened Rules 11(1) and/or 11(2) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed), and you are thereby guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed). Dated-this-15"-day-of July 2024. Re-dated this 3% day of December 2021. Drew & Napier LLC Counsel for the Law Society Amended by agreement. IN THE MATTER OF ONG SU AUN JEFFREY AN ADVOCATE AND SOLICITOR Dated this 3 day of December 2021 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT (CHAPTER 161) Drew & Napier LLC Counsel for the Law Society AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS (AMENDMENT NO. 1) For the Law Society of Singapore The Respondent Mr Adam Muneer Yusoff Maniam Ms Gina Ding Huaxing Mr Ong Su Aun Jeffrey Drew & Napier LLC 10 Collyer Quay #10-01 Ocean Financial Centre Singapore 049315 Cluster B 984 Upper Changi Road North Singapore 506969 Tel : 6531 2741 Fax Ref : : 65327149 AMYM/GDHX/378119 Dated+this—26": : Re-dated this 3% day of December 2021. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS (AMENDMENT NO. 1) Mr Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (the “Respondent’), an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, was admitted to the roll in 2003 and was at all material times the managing partner at the firm of JLC Advisors LLP (the “Firm’). The Complainant in this case is Allied Technologies Limited (the “Complainant’), a company incorporated in Singapore which is listed on the Singapore Exchange. The complaint in this case was made on behalf of the Complainant by its Chief Financial Officer, Ms Ong Lizhen Daisy (“Ms Daisy Ong’). On 21 September (‘Placement Agent”) 2017, Agreement’) where the the Complainant entered with OCBC Securities Placement Agent would into a placement Private procure Limited agreement (“Placement subscribers for up to 675,164,460 new ordinary shares in the capital of the Complainant at an issue price of S$0.05 per share (‘Proposed Placement’). On 23 October 2017, the Complainant entered into an agreement with the Firm (‘Escrow Agreement’) where the Firm agreed to act as the escrow agent to hold a sum of up to $$33,758,223 on escrow in its client account for the Complainant with DBS Bank Respondent Ltd (Bank Account signed No. 048-902066-0) the agreement for and on (the “Escrow Account”). behalf of the Firm. A copy The of the Escrow Agreement is annexed hereto at Annex A. Preambular clauses A and B of the Escrow Agreement refer to the Placement Agreement and state that it was agreed that all funds raised through the Proposed Placement (up to the maximum sum of S$33,758,223) shall be disbursed by the Placement Agent in 2 tranches, to an account held by the Firm (the “Escrow Funds’). Clause 1 of the Escrow Agreement states that the Complainant appoints the Firm to act as escrow agent to hold the Escrow Funds subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Escrow Agreement. Pursuant to clause 2.4 of the Escrow Agreement, the Firm is obliged to hold the funds in the Escrow Account as client funds on trust for the Complainant, until it is instructed by the Complainant to release the funds. Pursuant to clause 3.2 read with clause 3.1 of the Escrow Agreement, the funds in the Escrow Account can only be released when the Complainant issues a release notice to the specified Firm, duly executed in the Escrow Agreement, by any 2 out of the 3 Authorised Signatories except that clause 3.3 provides the additional circumstances when the funds can be released, namely: (a) following the resignation of the Escrow Agent (i.e. the Firm); or (b) in accordance with a Singapore Court order or judgment to release the funds. The key terms of the Escrow Agreement are as follows: “1. APPOINTMENT The company hereby appoints the Escrow Agent to act as escrow agent to hold the Escrow Funds subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 2. RECEIPT OF THE ESCROW FUNDS 2.1 Upon receipt of any of the Escrow Funds, the Escrow Agent shall as soon as reasonably practicable, issue a notice to the Parties in the form, or substantially in the form, attached hereto as Schedule 1 confirming receipt of the Escrow Funds (or part thereof) (the “Escrow Notice’). 2.4 The Escrow Agent shall hold the Escrow Funds as client funds on trust for the Company as provided in this Agreement until instructed hereunder, or to deliver the Escrow Funds as provided in this Agreement. The Escrow Agent shall have no beneficial interest in the Escrow Funds for its own account. 3. RELEASE OF THE COMPANY ESCROW FUNDS 3.1 For the purposes of this Agreement, “Authorised Signatory” means the 3 persons as set out in Schedule 2. 3.2 Upon the receipt of a release notice duly executed by any 2 out of the 3 Authorised Signatories in the form attached hereto as Schedule 3 (the “Release Notice”) the Escrow Agent shall, subject to the Company's provision of any documents the relevant bank might request for (including without limitation the constitution and/or such other documents confirming the incorporation or registration of the recipient entity), as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within seven (7) banking days, release the Escrow Funds by bank transfer in the amount and to the bank account as set out in the Release Notice. 3.3 Other than a release of the Escrow Funds in accordance with Clauses 3.1 to 3.2 above of this Agreement, the Escrow Agent shall otherwise release the Escrow Funds or any portion thereof only in the following circumstances: 3.3.1 following the resignation of the Escrow Agent in accordance with Clause 4.4 below of this Agreement; or 3.3.2 in accordance with the terms of a Singapore Court order or judgment or decree ordering the release of the Escrow Funds or any portion thereof ... SCHEDULE 2: AUTHORISED SIGNATORIES Name Specimen Signature Lim Jin Wei [] Yau Woon Foong [] Shih Chih-Lung [] ...” [Emphasis added.] 10. The authorised signatories for the Escrow Account were changed twice prior to 23 March 2019. The Complainant passed a Directors’ Resolution in Writing on 11 July 2018 (the “July 2018 Resolution”) and once more on 8 October 2018 (the “October 2018 Resolution”) to change the authorised signatories for the Escrow Account. A copy of the July 2018 Annex B and Resolution (signed in counterparts) a copy of the October 2018 Resolution is annexed (signed hereto at in counterparts) is annexed hereto at Annex C. 11. The Complainant Account on informed both the Firm of the change occasions by way of emails in signatories for the Escrow from the then-Group Financial Controller of the Complainant, Ms Ang Lee Ai (“Ms Ang’) to the Respondent on 11 July 2018, and separately, on 9 October 2018. The Respondent acknowledged the change in signatories and replied to Ms Ang’s emails on both 11 July 2018 and 9 October 2018. Respondent Resolution Copies of the email correspondence between Ms in respect of the change in signatories pursuant to the 2018 Resolution, are annexed hereto at Annex 2018 Resolution, the Account can and October Ang and the July 2018 D and Annex E respectively. 12. Pursuant to the October Escrow be operated jointly by the two authorised signatories, being Mr Lim Jin Wei and Mr Low Si Ren Kenneth (“Mr Kenneth Low’). 13. From 1 November 2017 to 22 January 2019, various sums were placed into and withdrawn from the Escrow Account. The details of these deposits and withdrawals are not relevant for the various charges against the Respondent. Copies of escrow notices and release notices issued during this period are annexed hereto at Annex F. 14. The last escrow notice was provided by the Firm on 22 January 2019 by way of a letter from the Firm to the Complainant Notice’), in which the Firm confirmed (the “Balance Escrow Funds’) dated 22 January 2019 (‘Last Escrow in writing that it was holding $33,153,416.56 in the Escrow Account pursuant to the Escrow Agreement. The Last Escrow Escrow Notice is annexed Notice was signed by the Respondent. The Last hereto at Annex G. Complainant’s instructions / demands to release the Escrow Funds 15. Between 19 March 2019 and 17 May 2019, the Complainant made 6 demands for the Firm to release the Balance Escrow Funds. These demands are described below. 16. On 23 March 2019, the Complainant issued a Release Notice dated 19 March 2019 (‘Release Notice’) for the sum of $$33,153,416.56 (i.e. the Balance Escrow Funds) by way of an email from the Complainant's Ms Daisy Ong to the Respondent attaching the Release Notice. Pursuant to clause 3.2 of the Escrow Agreement, the Firm was to release the Balance Escrow Funds within seven banking days, i.e. by 2 April 2019 (1st Demand”). The Release Notice was signed by Mr Lim Jin Wei and Mr Low Si Ren Kenneth. A copy of the Release Notice is annexed hereto at Annex H. 17. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Release Notice by way of an email to the Complainant’s Ms Daisy Ong dated 25 March 2019 and stated in the email that he would “arrange for the release of the balance Escrow Funds’. 18. The Respondent failed to release the Balance Escrow Funds within seven banking days upon receipt of the Release Notice from the Complainant on 23 March 2019. 19. On 5 April 2019, the Complainant’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Clement Leow (“Mr Clement Leow’) sent a chaser by way of an email to the Respondent stating that the Firm had failed to release the Balance Escrow Funds within the time provided under the Escrow Agreement and requested Funds immediately (“2" Demand’). that the Firm release the Balance Escrow 20. On 16 April 2019, the Firm issued (the “Cheque”) payable to a DBS Cheque Allied No. 304250 dated 15 April 2019 Technologies Limited for the sum of $$33,153,416.56 (i.e. the Balance Escrow Funds). The Complainant's Mr Kenneth Low collected the Cheque by hand from the Respondent. Complainant’s presentation of the Cheque at the POSB However, upon the Bank Branch at Ngee Ann City on 24 April 2019, the bank officers informed the Complainant that the Cheque was unlikely to be cleared because: (a) the Cheque appeared to be altered and the authorised signatories were required to sign next to the alteration, which been done; and (b) there were smudges annexed hereto at Annex \|. Both had not on the Cheque. A copy of the Cheque is signatures on the Cheque were made by the Respondent. 21. The Respondent personally provided the Cheque to the Complainant's Mr Kenneth Low despite knowing that the Cheque would be dishonoured because inter alia there were insufficient funds in the Escrow Account at that time. 22; On the same day, 24 April 2019, the Complainant's Ms Daisy Ong informed the Respondent by way of an email of the issues with the Cheque and requested that the Firm issue a cashier’s order in respect of the Balance Escrow Funds instead by 12pm on Friday that week (i.e. 26 April 2019) (“3"? Demand’). 23. The Respondent responded by way of an email to, inter alia, the Complainant's Ms Daisy Ong on 25 April 2019 stating that he “will make the arrangements”. 24. On 30 April 2019, the Complainant sent a formal demand to the Respondent and the Firm for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds by 12pm on 7 May 2019 by way of an email from the Complainant's Mr Clement Leow to the Respondent attaching a formal letter of demand of even date (“4*" Demand’). A copy of the letter of demand dated 30 April 2019 is annexed hereto at Annex J. 25. The Respondent did not respond to the 4° Demand of the Complainant. 26. On 9 May Balance 2019, Escrow the Complainant sent a further demand for the release Funds 10 of an by 2pm on May 2019 by way email of the from the Complainant's Ms Daisy Ong to the Respondent (“5t" Demand’). 27. On 10 May 2019, the Respondent replied by way of an email to, infer alia, the Complainant's Mr Clement Leow, stating that “[the Firm] will expedite the remittance”. The Respondent separate escrow also stated “I understand set up in accordance that we are to remit the funds with the SGX directive. to a Let us know the account details of the new escrow account.” There were further emails exchanged between the Complainant and the Respondent on the same day. The Respondent stated in a later email “[sJince remittance to the new escrow account is not required, we will require some time to arrange for the cashiers order on Monday’ (i.e. 13 May 2019). 28. On 13 May 2019, the Respondent sought an extension of time for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds by way of an email to, inter alia, the Complainant's Mr Clement Leow, explaining that the Firm would “require more time for signatories to be arranged for the release of the funds by latest this Friday 3pm” (i.e. 17 May 2019). 29. The email correspondence referred to above are annexed hereto at Annex K. 30. Between 25 March 2019 and 13 May 2019, the Respondent repeatedly made representations to the Complainant that the Firm would release the Balance Escrow Funds and/or that the release of the Balance Escrow Funds would be forthcoming, when the Respondent knew the Balance Escrow Funds would not be released because, inter alia, there were insufficient funds in the Escrow Account at that time. 31. On 17 May 2019, the then-solicitors for the Complainant, Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP (“R&T”), issued a formal letter of demand to the Firm for the release of the Escrow Funds by 22 May 2019, 4 pm (“6 Demand’). A copy of the letter from R&T to the Firm dated 17 May 2019 is annexed hereto at Annex L. 32. Despite the 6 demands from the Complainant and/or its solicitors for the release of the Balance Escrow Funds, the Firm and/or the Respondent failed to release the Balance Escrow Funds to the Complainant. 33. On 22 May 2019, Complainant, the Firm issued a inter alia, “that the Funds letter to the have been Complainant paid out from informing the our firm's Clients’ Account. We are still investigating, but have reasons to believe that the Funds were paid out on the instructions of our partner, Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (“Jeffrey Ong’) and might have been unauthorised...”. A copy of the letter from the Firm to the Complainant dated 22 May 2019 is annexed hereto at Annex M. 34. On 23 May 2019, the Complainant's solicitors sent a letter to the Firm requesting details of the matters stated in the Firm’s letter dated 22 May 2019. A copy of the letter from the Complainant's solicitors to the Firm dated 23 May 2019 is annexed hereto at Annex N. 35, On 24 May 2019, the Firm replied by way of a letter to the Complainant's solicitors that the Firm has no knowledge of any of the Complainant's demands or communications with the Respondent, and in turn requested copies of all demands 10 and communications with the Respondent. The Firm also stated in the letter that the Law Society had intervened into the Firm's client accounts. A copy of the letter from the Firm to the Complainant's solicitors dated 24 May 2019 is annexed hereto at Annex O. 36, On the same day, the Complainant instructed its solicitors to file a police report. The police report dated 24 May 2019 filed by Ms Doreen Chia is annexed hereto at Annex P. 37. The Complainant also made announcements on the Singapore Exchange on 23 May 2019, 25 May 2019, 28 May 2019, and 29 May 2019 to update its shareholders on developments pertaining to the escrow funds deposited with the Firm. These announcements are annexed hereto at Annex Q. 38. On 28 May 2019, the Complainant's solicitors sent a letter to the Firm requesting further details in addition to the requests in the letter dated 23 May 2019. A copy of the letter from the Complainant’s solicitors to the Firm dated 28 May 2019 is annexed hereto at Annex R. 39. On 30 May 2019, the Firm's Complainant's solicitors stating solicitors, Advocatus Law LLP, wrote to the a substantive reply would be given by 3 June 2019. A copy of the letter from the Firm’s solicitors to the Complainant's solicitors dated 30 May 2019 is annexed hereto at Annex S. 40. Between 3 June 2019 and 6 June 2019, the Complainant’s solicitors sent several chasers to the Firm’s solicitors. In response, the Firm’s solicitors requested more time. Copies of the letters from the Complainant's solicitors to the Firm’s solicitors dated 3 June 2019 and 6 June 2019, and a copy of the letter from the Firm’s 11 solicitors to the Complainant's solicitors dated 4 June 2019 are collectively annexed hereto at Annex T. 41. On 6 June 2019, the Firm’s solicitors responded to the Complainant's queries by way of a letter to the Complainant's solicitors. In the letter, it was stated that the funds in the Escrow Account were paid out in the period between 31 October 2017 to 21 August 2018, and the funds were paid out by cheque or internet funds transfer. A copy of the letter from the Firm's solicitors to the Complainant’s solicitors dated 6 June 2019 (“Firm’s Response’) is annexed hereto at Annex U. 42. The Firm’s Response also stated that the authorised signatories in the Firm to the Escrow Account for the period between September 2017 to May 2019 were as follows: “For the period between September 2017 to sometime in October 2018, the cheque signatories of the Clients’ Account were (a) Mr Jeffrey Ong, (b) Mr Desmond Ong, and (c) Mr Vincent Lim. Mr Desmond Ong ceased to be a partner in or around October 2018 and he was removed as a cheque signatory short while after [s/c]. For the period between end-February 2019 to 13 May 2019, the cheque signatories of the the [sic] Clients’ Account were (a) Mr Jeffrey Ong, (b) Mr Mark Tan, and (c) Mr Vincent Lim.” 43. The Respondent allowed the funds in the Escrow Account to be paid out to party(ies) other than the Complainant. Complainant, without receiving the There were at least two occasions relevant between authorisation from the October 2017 and May 12 2019 where the Respondent allowed funds to be paid out of the Escrow Account without the authorisation of the Complainant. These instances are set out below: (a) $$4 million was paid out to Asia Box Office Pte. Ltd. (a subsidiary of the Complainant); (b) about $4 million (either SGD or USD) was paid out to a Mr Lim Tah Hwa @ Lin Tah Hwa, the substantial shareholder of the Complainant; and (c) some amounts were paid into Platform Capital Asia (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which the Respondent was aware was Mr Kenneth Low’s personal corporate vehicle. Mr Kenneth Low is the sole shareholder and director of Platform Capital Asia (Singapore) Pte Ltd. A copy of the company’s ACRA Business Profile is exhibited hereto at Annex V. 44, insofar as the Respondent took instructions from the Complainant’s Mr Kenneth Low, the Respondent accepts that Mr Kenneth Low is not authorised by the Complainant to solely authorise any transactions pertaining to the Escrow Account. 45. Accordingly, the following escrow notices issued by the Firm,_on the instructions of the Respondent, did not state the true balance of the Escrow Account at the relevant times: (a) escrow notice dated 3 November 2017; (b) escrow notice dated 16 March 2018; (c) escrow notice dated 26 March 2018; (d) escrow notice dated 5 April 2018 (reflecting the balance at $15,297,637.95); 13 (e) escrow notice dated 5 April 2018 (reflecting the balance at $38,297,627.95); (f) escrow notice dated 6 April 2018; (g) escrow notice dated 11 April 2018; (h) escrow notice dated 11 June 2018; (i) escrow notice dated 12 July 2018; (j) escrow notice dated 30 July 2018; (k) escrow notice dated 3 August 2018; (I) escrow notice dated 10 October 2018; (m) 46. — escrow notice dated 12 July 2018; (n) escrow notice dated 31 December 2018; and (0) escrow notice dated 22 January 2019. On 11 June 2019, the Complainant's Society pursuant to section Ms Daisy Ong filed a complaint to the Law 85(1) of the Respondent's conduct in the aforesaid (‘Complaint’). Copies of the Complaint declaration from Ms Daisy Ong dated the Complainant dated 11 June Legal Profession Act in relation to the matters on behalf of the Complainant dated 11 June 2019, the statutory 12 June 2019, and letter of authorisation from 2019 (authorising Ms Daisy Ong to lodge the complaint against the Respondent) are annexed hereto at Annex W. 47. The Complaint was referred by the Council of the Law Society to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel. The Inquiry Committee was constituted by the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel on 24 October 2019 to inquire into the conduct of the Respondent. 14 48. A hearing with the Respondent was held on 25 June 2020 at Changi Prison. A copy of the Inquiry Committee Report dated 11 September 2020 is annexed hereto at Annex X. 49. To date, the Respondent and the Firm has failed to account for the Balance Escrow Funds and/or release or return the Balance Escrow Funds to the Complainant. 50. In light of the above, the Respondent is guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 (Professional Rev Ed), by Conduct) the Rules following 2015 contraventions (“PCR”) and of the the Legal Legal Profession Profession (Solicitors’ Account) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed) (“SAR”): (a) failure to follow all lawful, proper and reasonable Allied to Technologies Limited ("ATL”), instructions of his client, release to ATL the sum of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), and in so doing, he contravened Rule 5(2)(i) of the PCR; (b) failure to act honestly repeated in his dealings with representations that the Firm his client, ATL, would be by making releasing the sum the of $33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm's client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) to wit, by emails to ATL dated 25 March 2019, 25 April 2019, 10 May 2019 and 13 May 2019, when he was aware that the said release would not take place, and in so doing, he contravened Rule 5(2)(a) of the PCR; 15 (c) failure to act honestly in his dealings with his client, ATL, by issuing a DBS Cheque No. 304250 dated 15 April 2019 (the “Cheque”) to ATL, for the sum of S$33,153,416.56 held on escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), when he was aware that the Cheque was unlikely to be cleared, and in so doing, he contravened Rule 5(2)(a) of the PCR; failure to keep his client, ATL, informed of all information that may affect the interests of his client in the matter of the funds held on Escrow by the Firm in the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0), and in so doing, he contravened Rules 5(2)(b) of the PCR; (e) authorising payment(s) out of the Firm’s client account (DBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) held for client, ATL, without the authorisation of the client, and in so doing, he contravened Rule 7(1)(a) (read together with Rule 8(1)) of the SAR. To the extent that the Respondent believed that the payments were made pursuant to ATL’s instructions, he has also contravened Rule 5(5) of the PCR, in failing to ensure the person purportedly giving instructions had the authority to give instructions on behalf of the client; (f) failure to ensure the sum (DBS of $33,153,416.56 held in the Firm’s client account Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) for client, ATL, was held in a way that protects the interests of the client and/or he failed to be accountable to the client for the Balance Escrow Funds, 16(1) and/or 16(2) of the PCR; and and in so doing, he contravened Rules 16 (9) __ failure to record his dealings with the monies in the Firm's client account (OBS Bank Account No. 048-902066-0) held for client, ATL, to wit, by failing to record the transactions that were not authorised by ATL, in any cash books, ledgers and journals in respect of the client account, and in so doing, he contravened Rules 11(1) and/or 11(2) of the SAR. Dated-thi 9 pt Re-dated this 3rd day of December 2021. Drwenlyn— (,\ — aN Drew & Napier LLC Ong SUApilJeftrey Counsel for the Law Society of Singapore	2024-12-11T02:00:15+00:00	https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2024/	In the Matter of Ong Su Aun Jeffrey (Respondent), Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-dec-2024/	1134

Links from other tables

1 row from _item in lss_dt_reports_version