KUALA LUMPUR – Malaysian John Soh Chee Wen, the alleged mastermind behind the 2013 penny stock crash in neighbouring Singapore, together with his alleged co-conspirator Quah Su-Ling, have been convicted of 180 and 169 charges each.
In a report by The Edge Singapore, Soh and his girlfriend were found guilty of several of the charges they were facing under three groups of criminal conspiracy which includes forced trading, price manipulation and deception.
As Singapore’s High Court judge Hoo Sheau Peng read out her verdict today, she told a full court that the “participation in criminal conspiracy itself is an offence”.
Hoo then convicted Soh of 180 charges of the 188 he was facing, while Quah was found guilty of 169 of 178 charges she faced.
Both were acquitted of eight charges today.
The Edge Singapore described the duo as “long-term partners in both business and personal affairs” and had been on trial for orchestrating the manipulation of three penny stocks in 2013 which ultimately crashed spectacularly.
The saga, which involved 189 securities trading accounts held with 20 financial institutions and 60 individuals and companies, has been described as Singapore’s largest ever case of share manipulation.
Both of them allegedly conspired to manipulate the shares of Blumont Group, Asiasons Capital and LionGold Corp – collectively known as BAL – withheld from a network of associates and brokers for over a year, between 2012 and 2013.
When BAL stocks crashed on October 4, 2013, some S$8 billion in market value was destroyed.
According to the same report, dozens of local and foreign financial institutions, ranging from small brokerages to global banks were involved in the case.
Blumont has since been renamed Southern Archipelago, Asiasons was first named Attilan Group before being delisted, while LionGold has been renamed Shen Yao Holdings under new shareholders and management.
The trial began on March 25, 2019 and ended on June 30, 2021, following 194 hearing days.
In August 2020, Hoo had denied the defence counsels’ application for a permanent or conditional stay of proceedings.
For the record, a permanent stay would have brought the trial to a premature end.
Meanwhile, a conditional or temporary stay would also have required the prosecution to pay the defendant's costs in order to minimise the “prejudice” they suffered as a result of the lengthy delays and adjournments during the trial.
Several prosecution witnesses who testified during the trial agreed to having received instructions on trades to be made from either Soh or Quah. – The Vibes, May 5, 2022
