Li Hua v Farooq Mann and another

District Judge Crystal Tan:

[1] This case involved a disposal inquiry over 33 items that were seized for investigations by the Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”) from (a) Mr Li Hua, (b) Sunmax Global Capital Pte Ltd (“SMGC”) and (c) Sunmax Global Capital Fund Pte Ltd (“Sunmax Fund”) (to be referred to as “the seized items”) . Mr Li Hua, the first claimant, was dissatisfied with the disposal orders by the Court and filed a criminal revision on the disposal orders.

[2] Briefly, for context, Mr Li Hua was the former director of SMGC. Sunmax Fund was an approved fund under the Global Investor Programme that was managed by SMGC at the material time. Sunmax Fund shared the same office premises as SMGC. The seized items were seized by CAD on 3 April 2014 for investigations into a case of possible offences for false trading and market rigging transactions under Section 197 of the Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed) (“SFA”), employment of manipulative and deceptive devices under Section 201 of the SFA and cheating under Section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), arising from trading irregularities in the shares of Blumont Group Limited, Asiasons Capital Limited and LionGold Corp Limited.

[3] Mr Li Hua was adjudged a bankrupt on 28 June 2022 while SMGC has been in liquidation since 2018.

[4] The claimants involved in the disposal inquiry are as follows:

(a) Mr Li Hua, the first claimant;

(b) Mr Farooq Mann, the Private Trustee in Bankruptcy (“PTIB”) of the estate of Mr Li Hua, the second claimant; and

(c) Mr Wong Joo Wan (“Mr Wong”), the liquidator of Sunmax Fund, the third claimant.

[5] All the parties agreed that the governing provision for the seized items fell under Section 370(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”):

[6] The key dispute between the three claimants was who was entitled to the possession of the seized items. Briefly, the parties’ position was as follows:

(a) Mr Li Hua claimed the seized items on the basis that they were his “personal items without any commercial value” and they were seized before he became a bankrupt;

(b) PTIB claimed the seized items on the basis that Mr Li Hua was now a bankrupt and all his property vested with PTIB under Section 369(1) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (“IRDA”);

(c) Mr Wong claimed the seized items on the basis that they belonged to Sunmax Fund. In addition, Mr Wong had an Order of Court vide HC/ORC 3519/2023 (“ORC 3519”) that he submitted required Mr Li Hua to produce to Mr Wong any documents belonging to and/or relating to Sunmax Fund. However, Mr Wong was willing to relinquish his claim and rights to these properties if the seized items were released to PTIB;

(d) The State did not take a position on which claimant was legally entitled to the seized items. The State was of the view that no offence was committed in respect of the seized items.

[7] At the first hearing of the disposal inquiry on 9 January 2025, the State had listed the seized items in the Investigation Report, P1, as follows:

One envelope containing (1) Phone messages (photocopies) from “John” (2) email correspondence with “John Soh” (3) Miscellaneous documents containing “UnionMet (Singapore) Pte Ltd”

One brown envelope containing a binded set of documents titled “Report to SGX Regarding John Soh Chee Wen and his nominees”

[8] On 3 April 2014, CAD had seized the items in Annex A and Annex B1 above from 80 Raffles Place #30-23, which was the registered address of both SMGC and Sunmax Fund. On the same day, the items in Annex B2 were seized from Mr Li Hua’s personal residence or from him directly.

[9] After the Court had considered the parties’ affidavits, submissions and the evidence canvassed in the disposal inquiry hearing itself, the Court made the following disposal orders:

(a) Seized items in Annex A and Annex B1 (Items no. 1 to 10) to be delivered to the third claimant, Mr Wong as the liquidator of Sunmax Fund;

(b) Seized items in Annex B2 (Items no. 1 to 13) to be delivered to the second claimant, PTIB.

[10] Before the DI Hearing on 9 January 2025, the three claimants filed affidavits and written submissions. Their positions are summarised below.

[11] Briefly, the first claimant, Mr Li Hua, submitted as follows:

(a) Both PTIB and Mr Wong were acting against the first claimant “in retaliation for Mr Song” ;

(b) Conflict of interest between the group of Mr Song, PTIB and Mr Wong , and including Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC ;

(c) Section 369(1) of the IRDA “contradicts” the principles governing a disposal inquiry and PTIB failed to comply with elements of Section 369(1) IRDA ;

(d) The seized items do not fall under the bankrupt’s estate but consist of his “personal records” ;

(e) He is the last possessor of the seized items because CAD’s seizure letter stated that they were searching for items belonging to Mr Li Hua and not SMGC or Sunmax Fund ;

(f) The premises that the seized items were seized from belonged to SMGC and not Sunmax Fund . In his affidavit, he stated that Sunmax Fund “did not have its own office, but its registered address was the same as SMGC’s. In other words, SMGC allowed Sunmax Fund to use SMGC’s office address as its registered address” .

[12] For the second claimant, PTIB submitted as follows:

(a) PTIB’s role as a court-appointed officer was to recover assets to compensate Mr Li Hua’s creditors;

(b) Mr Li Hua declared liabilities totalled $81,367,951.70 and no assets but he appeared to lead “a very good life” and lived “in a luxury District 9/ District 10 condominium”. Mr Li Hua refused to disclose his source of funds ;

(c) Mr Li Hua was the sole shareholder and director of an investor fund that solicited up to $65,700,000 in investments from third parties and only a fraction was returned to investors. PTIB’s task was to identify where the bulk of the monies went so as to return to the creditors. Hence, it was critical for PTIB to conduct a “full and thorough investigation into the Bankrupt’s business and affairs” ;

(d) PTIB’s claim is premised on Sections 369(1) and 370 of the IRDA because they are “relevant to the Bankrupt’s estate and affairs” ;

(e) Under Section 369(1) of the IRDA, PTIB “must” take possession of “the deeds, books and documents which relate to the bankrupt’s estate or affairs, and which belong to the bankrupt or are under the bankrupt’s control” and “all other parts of the bankrupt’s property capable of manual delivery” ;

(f) Section 370(1) of the IRDA gives effect to Section 369(1) of the IRDA by empowering PTIB to “take an inventory of and seize any property comprised in the bankrupt’s estate” ;

(g) Mr Li Hua had not claimed that the seized items contain “purely personal documents” (italics in original) and has “remained conspicuously quiet about the contents of the items” ;

(h) PTIB claimed all the items in Annex A. PTIB understood that Mr Wong inspected the items and managed to identify No. 1, 3 and 5 of Annex A as being relevant to the dealings of Sunmax Fund. However, the rest of the items in Annex A have not been identified because PTIB did not have an opportunity to inspect the items ;

(i) Without having the opportunity to inspect, PTIB identified a few items in Annex A that appeared to belong to Mr Li Hua, for example, Item no. 2 “Stack of miscellaneous legal and court documents with cover titled “Tony’s own notes for 63b/12”;

(j) PTIB claimed all the items in Annex B. For the items seized from SMGC/Sunmax Fund, PTIB identified at least 3 items which “presumably belong” to Mr Li Hua and not SMGC and/or Sunmax Fund, for example, “Tony’s Personal Investment UOB Account”, “Li Hua” and “Family II” ;

(k) For the items seized from Mr Li Hua, PTIB submitted that it was entitled to take possession in its capacity as the PTIB over Mr Li Hua’s estate ;

(l) Mr Li Hua could not “hide behind an excuse” that it was a matter of privacy for his items to be returned to him as he had failed to prove that the contents were “merely personal to him and have no connection to his affairs and estate” ;

(m) In any event, PTIB was willing to make copies of the items and or contents of the seized items, return the originals to Mr Li Hua and undertake to delete whichever items were unrelated to Mr Li Hua’s affairs and estate.

[13] For the third claimant, Mr Wong submitted as follows:

(a) There are “several suspicious dealings” between Mr Li Hua, SMGC and Sunmax Fund. The seized items should not be released to Mr Li Hua because he may likely “surreptitiously dispose of and/or tamper with the same, to cover up his wrongdoings” ;

(b) On 27 July 2023, the High Court granted ORC 3519 which ordered for Mr Li Hua to produce to Mr Wong “any and all documents that are within his possession, custody or power belonging to and/or relating to [Sunmax Fund]…” ;

(c) On 3 June 2024, the High Court clarified that ORC 3519 required Mr Li Hua to deliver to Mr Wong “the Visa Application Form and all documents belonging to and/or relating to [Sunmax Fund] that may be released by [the CAD in respect of the Disposal Inquiry]” ;

(d) The seized items in Annex A and Annex B fell within the ambit of ORC 3519 and are documents that Mr Li Hua has to provide to Mr Wong as liquidator of Sunmax Fund ;

(e) The items in Annex A were seized from SMGC and/or Sunmax Fund. Sunmax Fund is the only claimant who has a proprietary interest in the items in Annex A and was in lawful possession of the items before they were seized ;

(f) For the items in Annex B, it was submitted that they fell within the scope of ORC 3519 and Mr Li Hua is required to produce them to Mr Wong.

[14] Subsequently, the first claimant filed reply affidavits to the second and third claimants’ affidavits, whilst the second and third claimants also filed reply affidavits to the first claimant.

[15] At the DI hearing itself, parties addressed the Court orally on their written submissions and the State stated that they did not have a position on who was entitled to the possession of the seized items.

[16] The Court noted that there was no information or details provided on the contents of the seized items in the Investigation Report (see [7] above). The claimants did not appear to have had the opportunity to inspect the seized items. For example, the second claimant “were not given the opportunity to inspect … phones and laptops in Annex B1. And therefore, we do not know if the items or the soft copy documents therein would fall within the ambit of the order.” The third claimant did not get an opportunity to inspect the seized items at all.

[17] The Court asked the State Counsel if more information and details could be provided on the seized items as the listing of the seized items in Annex A and Annex B in the Investigation Report (see [7] above) did not give any details on what the ring folders or items actually contained. The Court needed more information in order to decide the issues raised by parties regarding if the seized items were Mr Li Hua’s personal records, documents of Sunmax Fund or part of Mr Li Hua’s estate that fell under Section 369 of the IRDA.

[18] There was also the factual dispute raised by Mr Li Hua if the seized documents were seized from Mr Li Hua, SMGC or Sunmax Fund as Mr Li Hua was claiming the seized items on the basis that he was the last legal possessor of the seized items.

[19] State Counsel stated that they would consider the claimants’ request to inspect the seized items and also consider if they could get a witness to address the issues in [17] and [18]. Parties were sent to pre-trial conference (“PTC”) to get further DI dates.

[20] Parties came back on 27 March 2025 to seek clarification on the directions before the next tranche of DI Hearings. State Counsel updated that CAD would allow for the claimants to inspect the seized items so that they could produce a list setting out a brief description of the documents. This was updated to the claimants.

[21] The second and third claimants agreed to the inspection but the first claimant objected to the inspection.

[22] State Counsel confirmed that they were not seeking directions from the Court regarding the inspection as the documents were in their custody and it was for the State to decide. The Court stated that the Court would not give any directions on the inspection and it would be left to the State and directed for the parties to return to PTC to take further DI hearing dates.

[23] During the September tranche of the DI hearing, the second and third claimants produced a Joint List describing the documents and items in Annex A and Annex B of the Investigation Report (“Joint List”) after inspecting the seized items. The first claimant had refused to inspect the seized items before the September tranche and time had to be given to him for the inspection on 23 and 24 September 2025. The first claimant then also produced his own list of description for the items in Annex A and Annex B (“1st Claimant List”).

[24] For the DI Hearing on 23 to 26 September 2025, 3 to 5 March 2026, three witnesses were called, (W1) Tan Teck Yeong Sheryl (“IO Sheryl”), (W2) Mr Li Hua and (W3) Tay Yi Jie (“IO Tay”). Their evidence is summarised below.

[25] IO Sheryl was the investigation officer who prepared the Investigation Report, P1. She was the lead investigator. She was not present during the seizures and her colleague, IO Tay, was the one who led the team to conduct the search and seizure. Regarding P3, the CAD acknowledgement receipts with serial 19546 on the first page of the 6 page document, IO Sheryl stated that the items were “seized from the company Sunmax. I believe they were--- this acknowledgement receipt was signed by Mr Li Hua as the signature of owner, as he is the representative of the company”. IO Sheryl, in reference to SMGC, testified that Mr Li Hua was “a director of the company back in 2014 and that is why he has signed off this acknowledgment receipt as a representative” .

[26] IO Sheryl also testified that Mr Li Hua was also a director of Sunmax, which was being managed by SMGC at the material time . IO Sheryl testified that the items in P3 were seized from SMGC and Sunmax Fund but was unable to differentiate specifically whether from SMGC or Sunmax Fund because they shared the same office premises. As to why only SMGC was stated in the acknowledgement receipts in P3, IO Sheryl testified that “[i]t could be at the point of seizure, we did not really differentiate between items seized from these two companies” .

[27] IO Sheryl testified that CAD’s investigations concerned dealings involving Sunmax Fund and SMGC. IO Sheryl agreed that the intention was “to seize items belonging to Sunmax Fund, as long as they were relevant [sic] investigations” . At the time of investigations, CAD was investigating Mr Li Hua in his personal capacity and as a director of both companies.

[28] IO Sheryl agreed that when Mr Li Hua signed at the signature block for the owner at P3, CAD’s intention was not that Mr Li Hua was “necessarily the owner of those documents” . IO Sheryl agreed that P4, the CAD orders under Section 20 of the CPC, was served to Mr Li Hua as director of SMGC and director of Sunmax Fund . The intention was not to only seize items belonging to Mr Li Hua personally. IO Sheryl explained that in the preparing of P1, when she put Annex A “List of items seized from Sunmax Global Capital Pte Ltd/ Sunmax Global Capital Fund 1 Pte Ltd”, she meant that it could be either one of them but that it was seized from one of them .

[29] IO Sheryl testified that she had reviewed the Joint List and “cross-checked against the physical items that were seized”. The descriptions in the Joint List were accurate. She also testified that she was physically present with Mr Li Hua during his inspection of the seized items and she noticed the following during his inspection :

[30] Mr Li Hua testified that P4 proved that most of the seized items “belong to Yap Kin An and myself”. He testified that IO Tay’s intention was to search for materials belonging to Yap Kin An and himself and had asked for the location of their working table. He testified that the items in P3 belonged to him because they emphasised “on Li Hua’s desk and Kin An’s desk, the cabinet that were used to store our documents… our personal materials would also be kept in our personal cabinet. So though some documents were related to the situation of the company, but those were personal copies” .

[31] Mr Li Hua also testified that these were his personal copies because document with serial number 19569 and 19570 referred to the cabinet in his office for both receipts. Hence, the documents in Annex A and B belonged to him. Mr Li Hua agreed that even if the documents in Annex A and B belonged to him, he had a duty to give any documents relating to Sunmax Fund to the liquidator.

[32] IO Tay is the team leader of the raid conducted at SMGC, Sunmax Fund and Mr Li Hua’s residence on 3 April 2014 . IO Tay testified that CAD was investigating both SMGC and Sunmax Fund and there was “suspicion that they were involved as entities, either in the funding, in the trading, related to the shares trading of the subjects involved in our investigations”. IO Tay also testified that on that day, she had confirmed with Mr Li Hua that SMGC and Sunmax Fund’s address was at 80 Raffles Place.

[33] IO Tay testified that at the time of the seizure, she did not make a determination if the seized items belonged to SMGC, Sunmax Fund or Mr Li Hua personally. The production order issued would have covered both Mr Li Hua’s items as well as items belonging to SMGC and Sunmax Fund. The investigation was “not just Mr Li Hua personally, but the corporate entities that he was involved in or he was a director of”. She agreed that she asked Mr Li Hua to sign the acknowledgement forms in P3 because he was the director of Sunmax and SMGC. It was not to say that Mr Li Hua was the owner of those items.

[34] Parties then filed closing submissions, which are set out briefly below.

[35] The first claimant, Mr Li Hua, submitted as follows:

(a) The documentary evidence in the DI and the testimony of the CAD officers established that “CAD accessed three locations with Mr. Li for the purpose of obtaining data, equipment and devices associated with Mr. Li and Mr. Yap Keng Ann”;

(b) The evidence showed that CAD identified Mr Li Hua as the “operational recipient of the production orders” and thus that the seized items in Annex A and Annex B of P1 were seized from Mr. Li Hua’s possession and control;

(c) The CAD operation was directed primarily through Mr Li Hua rather than through the six companies. CAD prepared seven production letters of which one was directly addressed to him and the other six were addressed to “The Director” instead of the companies;

(d) The production letters expressly stated that CAD required access to electronic data, information technology equipment and storage devices belonging to Mr Li Hua and in the case of Sunmax and SMGC, also belonging to Mr Yap;

(e) The evidence established that on 3 April 2014, the items located within the UOB Plaza II Office were in the possession and control of Mr Li Hua and Mr Yap;

(f) The evidence showed that many of the seized items bore descriptions “directly associated with Mr. Li personally, including ‘Tony’s Personal Investment UOB Account’, ‘Li Hua’, ‘Family II’ and ‘2nd Investment (Stocks) Feb 2008’” ;

(g) The Acknowledgment receipts had Mr Li’s signature in “Signature of Owner”;

(h) SMGC leased the UOB Plaza II Office and Sunmax merely used the address as its registered address. Sunmax did not maintain a separate office or staff at the premises;

(i) An earlier report from the CAD stated that the seized items were seized from “Mr Li Hua and a company of which he was the former director, Sunmax Global Capital Pte Ltd (now known as SMGC Pte Ltd, ‘SMGC’)”;

(j) Mr Li was the person from whom the seized items in Annex A and B were seized and the person in possession and control of the items at the material time. Alternatively, the items should be returned to him as he had the title to possess the seized items.

[36] For the second claimant, PTIB submitted that they were taking the same position as the third claimant, Mr Wong, in his written submissions dated 14 May 2026. However, to the extent that the Court found that the items listed belonged to the first claimant, Mr Li Hua, PTIB maintained that the second claimant should be entitled to those items in the capacity of Private Trustee. They relied on the written submissions previously filed on 30 December 2024 and the oral submissions on 9 January 2025.

[37] The third claimant, Mr Wong, submitted as follows:

(a) The seized items were not seized from Mr Li Hua personally but from Sunmax Fund and/or SMGC;

(b) The contents of the seized items related directly to Sunmax Fund’s business, affairs and/or dealings;

(c) Mr Li Hua’s evidence was not merely inconsistent or unsupported but “demonstrably unreliable” and “in material respects dishonest”. This included his “admitted attempt to tamper with one of the Annex A and/or B documents during an inspection at CAD’s office”;

(d) SMGC and Sunmax Fund were clearly the subject of CAD’s investigations at the material time. The evidence established that SMGC and Sunmax Fund were closely intertwined. Any SMGC document “necessarily relates” to Sunmax Fund;

(e) IO Sheryl had verified that the Joint List was accurate but in comparison the descriptions in the 1st Claimant List were “deliberately vague and notably omit references to Sunmax Fund’s affairs and dealings – matters which are expressly identified in the Joint List”;

(f) It was clear from the Joint List that the seized items in Annex A and Annex B relate to Sunmax Fund’s business, affairs and dealings;

(g) Mr Li Hua accepted that he must give to the Liquidator any SMGC-related documents and any documents relating to Sunmax Fund;

(h) The seized items belonged to SMGC and/or Sunmax Fund. However, there was no competing claim by SMGC’s liquidator, and he had confirmed that he had no objections for the items to be released to Mr Wong;

(i) Mr Li Hua had failed to adduce evidence to support his assertions that the seized items in Annex A and Annex B belonged to him. Hence, Sunmax Fund is the only party who has demonstrated proprietary interest in the seized items and fulfilled the lawful possession precondition;

(j) Even if the Court found that Mr Li Hua was entitled to the seized items, Mr Li Hua had to provide these items to Mr Wong under ORC 3519;

(k) There was a real and substantial risk that if the seized items were first released to Mr Li Hua, he would alter, conceal or dispose of them.

[38] In response to the first claimant’s closing submissions, the State made five brief comments:

(a) The closing submissions at [17] was inaccurate because CAD did perform a search and seizure at the office premises of Unionmax;

(b) The closing submissions at [23] was an inaccurate characterisation of IO Sheryl’s evidence;

(c) The closing submission at [32] was inaccurate as to what the Court’s question was;

(d) The closing submission at [34] was also inaccurate as to the characterisation of the Court’s questions to IO Sheryl;

(e) In the same table in [34], Mr Li Hua submitted that the item “1 CD-ROM with Post-It” was not found in P2 or P3 and this was inaccurate because it was in P3, the acknowledgment receipt with serial number 19569 at number 8 of the receipt.

[39] The High Court in Thai Chong Pawnshop Pte Ltd and others v Vankrisappan s/o Gopanaidu and others [1994] 2 SLR(R) 113 (“Thai Chong Pawnshop”) at [5] held that the purpose of a disposal inquiry is for it to be “an inexpensive and expeditious manner of distributing items produced at trial or found in the course of investigations”. It is “not conclusive as to title” and the “rightful legal owner can and should assert his rights in a separate civil suit” (Thai Chong Pawnshop at [5]).

[40] Chief Justice Yong Pung How (as he then was) gave useful guidance in Sim Cheng Ho & Anor v Lee Eng Soon [1998] 1 SLR 346 at [9] regarding how a Magistrate should consider who is entitled to possession of the property when the entitlement is disputed:

[41] The High Court in Lim Tien Hou William v Ling Kok Hua [2024] 3 SLR 457 (“Lim Tien Hou William”) at [33] to [39] considered the precondition of being in lawful possession of seized property (“Lawful Possession Precondition”) and found that it applied to Section 370(2)(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) as amended up to 2018 (“CPC 2018”) and also extended it to apply to Section 370(2)(b) of the CPC 2018. Although the governing provision in this DI was Section 370(2) of the CPC, it was not disputed by parties that the Lawful Possession Precondition also applied. Section 370(2) CPC was materially similar to Section 370(2)(e) of CPC 2018.

[42] The High Court in Lim Tien Hou William at [56] held that where all claimants satisfied the Lawful Possession Precondition, and there is no further evidence available as to who has a better claim, Section 370(2)(b) of the CPC 2018 “does not accommodate much further than for the return of the property to the lawful possessor of the property at the point of seizure”.

[43] After considering all the evidence in the disposal inquiry and parties’ affidavits and submissions, the Court found that the seized items in Annex A and Annex B1 (items no. 1 to 10) as listed in P1 were seized from the companies instead of Mr Li Hua. There was no need to make a specific finding on whether these items were seized from SMGC or Sunmax Fund since SMGC was not claiming and did not object to the delivery of these properties to Sunmax Fund.

[44] Mr Li Hua relied on exhibits P3 and 1C2, the acknowledgement receipts for the items in Annex A and Annex B1 of P1, and the fact that he had signed the acknowledgement receipt as the owner of these seized items.

[45] Mr Li Hua had also relied on exhibit 1C1 which was the CAD production orders under Section 20 of the CPC. There were eight production orders in exhibit 1C1, two of the production orders were addressed directly to Mr Li Hua at his personal residence and the remaining six production orders were addressed to “The Director” of six different companies, which included SMGC and Sunmax Fund. Mr Li Hua highlighted that in the production orders to the companies, CAD was looking for “all corporate electronic data, information technology equipment and data storage devices belonging to Li Hua and Yap Keng Ann”.

[46] The Court found that exhibits P3, 1C1 and 1C2 were not determinative that the items in Annex A and Annex B1 of P1 were seized from Mr Li Hua. IO Tay testified that the production orders issued would have covered both Mr Li Hua’s items as well as items belonging to SMGC and Sunmax Fund. The investigation was “not just Mr Li Hua personally, but the corporate entities that he was involved in or he was a director of”. She agreed that she asked Mr Li Hua to sign the acknowledgement forms in P3 because he was the director of Sunmax and SMGC. This would be consistent with how the production orders to the companies were addressed to “The Director” instead of Mr Li Hua directly.

[47] IO Sheryl and IO Tay both testified that the items were seized from the registered address of SMGC and Sunmax Fund and they did not differentiate from which company specifically at the time. CAD’s investigations concerned dealings involving Sunmax Fund and SMGC and their intention was “to seize items belonging to Sunmax Fund, as long as they were relevant [sic] investigations” . IO Tay testified that CAD was investigating both SMGC and Sunmax Fund and there was “suspicion that they were involved as entities, either in the funding, in the trading, related to the shares trading of the subjects involved in our investigations”. Based on the descriptions of the items in the Joint List and the 1st Claimant List, the contents of the seized items also appear to relate to SMGC and Sunmax’s business and dealings.

[48] Thus, after considering the evidence and submissions from parties, the Court was of the view that items in Annex A and Annex B1 which were seized from the registered address of SMGC and Sunmax Fund were seized from these companies.

[49] Hence, as both Mr Li Hua and the third claimant had fulfilled the Lawful Possession Precondition, the items in Annex A and Annex B1 should be delivered to the last possessor of the property at the time of the seizure. Thus, the items should be delivered to the third claimant, Mr Wong.

[50] Additionally, the third claimant’s submission could also be read as claiming better title than Mr Li Hua over the items in Annex A and Annex B1 because of the Court Order, ORC 3519. Mr Li Hua himself agreed in the DI when he took the stand that he had a duty to give the documents relating to Sunmax Fund to the third claimant .

[51] Thus, even if the Court had found that the items in Annex A and Annex B1 were seized from Mr Li Hua instead, the Court would have found that the seized items should still be delivered to the third claimant due to the Court Order, ORC 3519, which ordered for Mr Li Hua to “produce any and all documents that are within his possession, custody or power belonging to and/or relating to” Sunmax Fund to the third claimant. Based on parties’ submissions, the Joint List and the 1st Claimant List, the Court would find that all the items in Annex A and items no. 1 to 5, 7 to 10 in Annex B1 would prima facie fall under the scope of the Court Order, ORC 3519.

[52] For item 6 in Annex B1 which was “One black ring filed labelled ‘Family II’”, it was less clear whether this actually fell under the ambit of the Court Order, ORC 3519. However, even in such a case, the Court would have found that this item should be delivered to the second claimant under its private trustee’s power in Section 369(1) of the IRDA as it would fall under the bankrupt’s “estate or affairs”. Based on the second claimant’s submissions, this would not be an issue because the second claimant did not object for the seized items in Annex B1 to be delivered to the third claimant.

[53] Thus, overall considering that the Court found that the items in Annex A and Annex B1 were seized from the companies and the second claimant did not object to the third claimant’s claim to these seized items, the Court would order for the seized items in Annex A and Annex B1 to be delivered to the third claimant.

[54] Parties agreed that the seized items in Annex B2 of P1 were seized from Mr Li Hua. The seized items in Annex B2 were seized from his personal residence or Mr Li Hua directly.

[55] Mr Li Hua claimed these seized items on the basis that they belonged to him and that he was the last possessor of the seized items at the material time. The second claimant claimed these seized items on the basis that these items fell under his Private Trustee’s powers under section 369(1) of the IRDA as they fell under “estate or affairs” or “all other parts of the bankrupt’s property capable of manual delivery”.

[56] The third claimant, Mr Wong, based his claim on the Court Order ORC 3519 but was also willing to relinquish his claim to the second claimant.

[57] Based on parties’ evidence, submissions, the Joint List and the 1st Claimant List, the Court found that the items in Annex B2 of P1 did fall under the second claimant’s private trustee powers under Section 369(1) of the IRDA. Since the third claimant was willing to relinquish his claim to the second claimant, it was not necessary to go into whether these items also fell into the ambit of the Court Order ORC 3519.

[58] Although Mr Li Hua appeared to argue that these seized items were his personal items and did not fall under the second claimant’s private trustee’s powers, he did not actually give clear evidence as to how these items were not part of his estate, affairs or his own property capable of manual delivery.

[59] Mr Li Hua had argued that at least one of the laptops in the seized items (in Annex A and in Annex B2) belonged to his ex-wife instead , though he was not very clear on this and did not appear to continue this point in closing submissions. Furthermore, Mr Li Hua’s ex-wife did not actually step up to claim any items and was not one of the claimants in this DI. IO Tay had also agreed that during the seizure, Mr Li Hua did not claim that any of the seized items belonged to his wife or children instead of him. The Court thus rejected this argument from Mr Li Hua.

[60] Hence, with respect to the items in Annex B2 (items no. 1 to 13 listed in P1 as being seized from Li Hua), the Court accepted the submissions of the second claimant that these seized items should be delivered to the second claimant under the second claimant’s private trustee’s powers.

[61] Ultimately, the disposal inquiry was not conclusive of title. It was meant to be an expeditious way to decide how to distribute the seized properties and was a rough and ready approach. The disposal inquiry could not decide real title. Parties could go to civil proceedings for questions of ownership and title.

[62] Finally, the Court noted that in the third claimant’s further written submissions, Mr Wong submitted that Mr Li Hua’s conduct, which included tampering of documents and dishonesty, gave “rise to a real and substantial risk as to the integrity of the Annex A and/or B items if they are released to him”. Mr Wong submitted that there was a “legitimate concern that Mr Li Hua would destroy, alter, or otherwise interfere with the documents if they were returned to him”.

[63] In the above analysis, the Court had based the decision on the legal entitlements of the claimants and thus the Court did not need to consider whether Mr Li Hua’s conduct as Mr Wong submitted was such that he should not be entitled to the possession of the seized items. However, the Court noted that Mr Li Hua was indeed observed by IO Sheryl to have tried to tamper with one of the seized documents during inspection and thus there was some risk that Mr Li Hua would destroy or alter the documents if they were returned to him. Considering that the second and third claimants appeared willing to give a copy of the seized items to Mr Li Hua or return them to Mr Li Hua after their investigations, the Court’s disposal orders for the seized items to be given to the second or third claimants could not be considered unjust in this case.

[64] Hence, after considering all the relevant circumstances, the Court made the following disposal orders:

(a) Seized items in Annex A and Annex B1 (Items no. 1 to 10) to be delivered to the third claimant, Mr Wong as the liquidator of Sunmax Fund;

(b) Seized items in Annex B2 (Items no. 1 to 13) to be delivered to the second claimant, PTIB.

Deputy Senior State Counsel David Koh and State Counsel Sarah Thaker (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the State;

1st Claimant Mr Li Hua (self-represented);

Counsel Tham Li Jing and Lim Rui-Qi Rochelle (Tham Lijing LLC) for the 2nd Claimant;

Counsel Derek Tan and Nadine Neo (Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC) for the 3rd Claimant.