Prosecution seeks 20 years’ jail for Hin Leong founder O.K. Lim

Hin Leong founder Lim Oon Kuin will be sentenced on Nov 18 for three charges of cheating and forgery in what prosecutors described as “one of the most serious cases of trade financing fraud that have ever been prosecuted in Singapore”.

The prosecution on Oct 15 sought a maximum sentence of 20 years for the 82-year-old better known as O.K. Lim, whose offences “affected the delivery of financial services in Singapore, and tarnished Singapore’s hard-earned reputation as Asia’s leading oil trading hub”.

Lim, a legend in Singapore’s oil industry, was convicted in May of two cheating charges and one count of instigating forgery for the purpose of cheating. His bail of $4 million has been extended until Nov 18.

The former oil tycoon was found guilty of cheating HSBC through employees of his “family business”, by claiming that Hin Leong had entered into two contracts to sell oil to China Aviation Oil (Singapore) and Unipec Singapore, and then applying for discounting of these purported transactions.

The court found that the two transactions were complete fabrications, concocted on Lim’s directions, and the discounting applications were supported by forged or fabricated documentation.

As a result, the bank was deceived into disbursing US$111.6 million (S$146.1 million) to Hin Leong, of which US$85 million remains its total outstanding loss.

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong said Lim’s two cheating charges are “examples of the worst possible offences of cheating” and warrant a sentence of 10 years’ jail per charge, while the forgery charge warrants a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.

The prosecution asked for the two cheating sentences to run consecutively for a total of 20 years.

In response to Lim’s mitigation plea which proposed a jail term of seven years, Mr Ong said: “No weight should be given to (Lim’s) age, given the gravity of the offences. Even if mitigatory weight were to be given... no more than one year’s sentencing discount should be granted.”

He pointed to the amount of monies cheated and the losses caused, and how Lim’s offences affected Singapore’s financial services and economic infrastructure and potentially undermined public confidence in the country’s oil industry.

The defence, in its mitigation plea, argued that there was no actual harm done to the oil trading industry.

To this, Mr Ong said “had there been actual harm, that would have made this a more aggravated offence”.

“Inference has to be drawn that the fraud played a role in the crisis that was addressed by the authorities and would have a role in shaking public confidence in the oil industry,” he said, pointing to a joint statement issued in April 2020 by the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Enterprise Singapore and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore shortly after Hin Leong sought bankruptcy protection from its lenders.

On the defence’s claim that Lim committed the offences out of concern for his employees’ continued livelihoods, Mr Ong said that “must ring hollow, considering how he tried to throw them under the bus” during the trial.

“At the time, he supposedly came clean to HSBC and made the disclosures, what he told HSBC was that the two transactions took place due to ‘miscommunications in the company’. In that call, he said the family would take responsibility,” he said.

“But he was already prepared to blame his employees and this was reflected in the way he conducted his defence, when he sought to place blame on (his former assistant) Serene Seng’s shoulders despite her many years of service and his claims that he treated her as a daughter,” Mr Ong added.

On whether the sentence of 20 years amounts to a life sentence, Mr Ong pointed out that “at the age of 78 years, (Lim) was still vital enough and in control of Hin Leong enough to engineer and direct that these frauds take place or be committed”.

“It would be unjust if having been able to engineer such fraud at such age, (Lim) then escapes the consequences of his crime by using his age as an excuse,” he said.

As for Lim’s medical conditions, such as his reliance on a wheelchair and fall risk, Mr Ong said that, as with any prisoner, Lim would be assessed fully upon his admission to Changi Prison, his needs would be identified, and he could be housed in special assisted living correctional facilities or in Changi Medical Centre.

“There is nothing to suggest Lim will suffer disproportionately from being in prison, given the provisions that can be made,” he said.

But Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who represents Lim, challenged the prosecution’s claims that Lim’s fraud had affected Singapore’s financial services and economic infrastructure and undermined public confidence in its oil industry.

“To say that (Lim’s) two cheating offences within a span of four days affected Singapore’s financial services and economic infrastructure is a stretch... One must take into account evidence that the bank was prepared to disburse the monies even without full documentation,” Mr Singh argued.

He also disputed the prosecution’s claim that it was difficult to detect Lim’s offences.

“The only reason it was detected was because Lim told the bank there were no underlying transactions. The bank (then knew) that the discounting was done when there were no actual contracts. After the bank was told that, it lodged a police report,” Mr Singh said.

He also argued that the Singapore Prison Service did not deal with all of Lim’s medical conditions, which include anxiety, depression, insomnia, a large prostate, asthma, coronary artery disease and cerebral vascular disease with cognitive impairment and sensorineural hearing loss.

“Would Lim suffer disproportionately? Without addressing all these other conditions identified, how can this court know there is no such concern?” Mr Singh said.

But Mr Ong disagreed.

“While it is undeniable that Lim suffers from several medical conditions... many of the conditions are degenerative in nature and, because of age, that degeneration will take place,” he said.

He added: “Defence has made much of the disclosure that Lim made to HSBC during a phone call in April 2020, and parties have gone back and forth on the significance or motive for the call and whether it signifies remorse.

“But when has Lim ever apologised for having defrauded HSBC by perpetrating these offences for which he has been convicted?”

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

Bill passed to counter digitally manipulated content, deepfakes during elections ADV: Singapore International Commercial Court Conference 2025