| |
Today,
3 Apr 04
The man who bet $400,000 a time
by Jose Raymond
When caught Chia was said to have contributed $62m to casino coffers
around the world
SPORTING a dark grey shirt, short-cropped hair and black-rimmed spectacles,
a small man sat in the dock in the High Court on Friday, waiting to
learn of his fate. The mild demeanour of Chia Teck Leng belied the
enormity of the crime he was charged with – Singapore's biggest financial
fraud ever.
Through the afternoon, terms such as "criminal genius" and "master
rogue" were used to describe a man that could go unnoticed in any
neighbourhood Kopitiam. At the end of the day, the 44-year-old former
finance manager was sentenced to 42 years in prison, after he had
pleaded guilty to 14 charges of forgery and criminal breach of trust,
with another 32 related charges taken into consideration.
Over the course of five years, the former Asia Pacific Breweries (APB)
executive managed to cheat four foreign banks out of an incredible
$117 million, of which only $34.8 million has been recovered. The
money was spent mostly on an escalating gambling habit at casinos.
The $200-a-hand bets he placed in 1998 had grown into obscene $400,000-a-hand
wagers by the time he was caught last year. In total, it is estimated
that Chia alone contributed $62 million to casino coffers around the
world before the authorities finally caught up him.
The prosecution, led by deputy public prosecutor Thong Chee Kun, revealed
how Chia's addiction to gambling led him to shape an audacious plan
to cheat the four banks only days after he began his job as a finance
manager at APB in January 1999. "This was not a one-off offence committed
on a surge of sudden impulse. The offences required the systematic
planning and pre-meditation of a criminal genius," said Mr Thong.
The court, surprisingly bereft of any members of the Chia family,
heard that the financial manager was already more than $1 million
in debt before he joined APB due to accumulated losses in gambling.
He then proceeded to open bank accounts using forged documents under
APB's name and later obtained loans and credit lines from the four
banks, money which he later used as his personal gambling account.
As his gambling history was read out like an improbable Hollywood
script, Chia remained calm, looking straight at Judge Tay Yong Kwang,
perhaps resigned to his fate. But he broke down when his lawyer, Mr
Edmond Pereira, read out parts of a letter which Chia's two sons had
addressed to Justice Tay. The hand-written note moved Justice Tay
to urge the two teenagers to "continue loving your father as his guilt
is confined to the charges and none accuses him of being a bad dad".
During mitigation, the defence tried to suggest that Chia had been
infected with the "gambling disease" and obsessed on how to return
the money he was losing at the tables. "This was clearly reflected
by the way he gambled. He was seeking the highest bets available anywhere
so that he could recover the amounts he had lost and be able to repay
the amounts outstanding to the banks," said Mr Pereira.
Mr Pereira also said that when Chia applied for the credit facilities
with forged signatures, he had expected the banks to check on the
authenticity of the documents and the signatures. But Justice Tay
dismissed this, saying: "…burglars should not be blaming house owners
for leaving their gates open or for using inferior locks. Similarly,
forgers and fraudsters should not be decrying trusting or even gullible
victims."
Justice Tay added: "This is a case of a finance manager responsible
for the accounting integrity of a reputable company turning forger
and fraudster soon after joining the company. He was no mere corporate
sentry; he was the commander of the guards." . Justice Tay also agreed
with the prosecution's assertion that Chia's actions had damaged Singapore's
reputation as an honest and efficient financial hub. He said: "Crimes
such as the present case strike at the heart of banking and commerce.
"They erode the open halls of trust and erect high walls of suspicion."
Mr Pereira said after sentencing that 42 years was 'a crushing sentence'
and would look at the grounds of decision before advising his client
on his next course of action. |
|
