Judges find ‘no merit’ in 3 of 5 preliminary objections raised in John Soh, Quah Su-Ling’s appeals

The Court of Appeal has found no merit in three of the five preliminary objections raised by John Soh’s and Quah Su-Ling’s counsels on Monday (Mar 3). Soh and Quah were found guilty of market manipulation that led to the October 2013 penny stock crash that wiped S$8 billion in market capitalisation from the Singapore Exchange. 

The appeal was broken into tranches, with Monday’s hearing to deal with the preliminary objections by the defence counsels. Quah, having previously represented herself at the end of the trial in 2021, was represented by Sivananthan Nithyanantham, founding partner at Sivananthan Advocates & Solicitors, at the appeal.

Quah’s counsel raised the objections that: 1) the charges were duplicitous in that there was more than one offence in each charge; 2) the right provisions were not used in sentencing; 3) there were insufficient particulars in the charges; 4) there was inherent bias against Quah by the presiding judge; 5) that a joint trial was prejudicial against Quah.

The point of particulars was pressed on heavily by both Sivananthan and Soh’s counsel, Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan of Sreenivasan Chambers. Quah would claim that she did not understand the charges she was facing. “If you do not tell me what I did, how do I defend it?” said Sivananthan.

According to Sreenivasan, the lack of particularisation in the charges had left the defence in the dark on the approach of the prosecution. “My main issue is the lack of particularisation of the conspiracy charges and (that) the intended criminal offences were not identified with the degree of specificity needed in the (criminal penal code),” he said.

The prosecution answered that particularisation was given in the charges, and that Quah had understood the charges. Deputy Public Prosecutor Nicholas Tan referenced proceedings where her then appointed counsel Philip Fong, managing partner at Harry Elias Partnership, said that his client, Quah, understood the charges against her. There were also no complaints about criminal penal code breaches as well, noted DPP Tan.

Quah’s counsel withdrew his allegation of bias by the presiding judge, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng.

The Court of Appeal deferred on two of the issues, dealing with them in the next tranche of hearings, but found objections one, four and five without merit. The appeal hearing will continue with the next tranche of hearings which have yet to be announced.

Quah’s bail continues to be extended until the next appeal hearing.

Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: Ethics in Lawyering, 10 April 2025 (2 Public MEC Points) NRIC saga: Review finds key Acra, MDDI shortcomings; no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing