MONEY LAUNDERING?
Throughout the cross-examination, Mr Low said his article, titled "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy", was not about money laundering, but had merely made references to it.
He was asked how he came to include a portion in the article which stated: "That’s especially been the case after a S$3 billion money laundering scandal erupted last year and drew attention to how some China-born Singapore residents were staying in mansions that they rented for as much as S$150,000 a month. Ten money launderers have since been convicted, jailed and deported."
This reference follows a quote by Mr William Wong, the founder of a property agency, in the article.
Asked by Justice Audrey Lim if the paragraph was in Mr Low's own words, Mr Low replied that he had been paraphrasing Mr Wong.
Justice Lim then asked if Mr Wong had referred to the entirety of the portion in his correspondence with Mr Low.
Mr Low said "yes", pointing to the phrase "money laundering saga" mentioned in correspondence. This prompted the High Court judge to note that not all the details in that portion, including the reference to China-born Singapore citizens, were said by Mr Wong.
At one point, Justice Lim called on Bloomberg's lawyer, Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan, to help Mr Low.
Upon further questioning by the judge, Mr Low admitted that Mr Wong had not mentioned China-born Singapore residents or other details in the portion.
Mr Singh then seized on the admission, thanking the judge for her intervention before turning to Mr Low. "Your evidence that you paraphrased him is a lie and you got called out by it because the court asked you to show the reference ... and not even your lawyer could do it."
Mr Sreenivasan immediately stood up to object to the characterisation, telling Mr Singh not to get "personal".
"In other words, you were seeking to mislead the court," Mr Singh said. Mr Low disagreed.
EMAILS WITH EDITORS
For a large part of the hearing, Mr Singh took the court through internal Bloomberg emails about Mr Low's article in its various draft stages.
These emails were between Mr Low and his colleagues, including an editor who raised questions about anti-money laundering checks, illicit flows and whether authorities could identify the ultimate owners behind trust structures.
Mr Singh contended that emails from several Bloomberg editors – Ms Lulu Chen, Ms Emily Cadman and Ms Serena Ng – showed they understood the article to involve issues of government access, disclosure and anti-money laundering checks. The lawyer also noted that Mr Low did not dispute their queries about money laundering.
Instead, Mr Low had engaged with their queries and said he would follow up with the authorities, rather than state that money laundering was not the point of his article, Mr Singh said.
This showed that money laundering was an important topic to the article, Mr Singh argued.
Mr Low disagreed with this characterisation and initially said that he did inform editors, particularly Ms Cadman, that his article had nothing to do with money laundering. He also testified that he had explained to her the focus of the article.
He also claimed that he had followed up with the queries by editors because he was obliged to answer them.
To this, Mr Singh noted that some queries were "irrelevant" given the focus of Mr Low's article, which the reporter had earlier testified was about full disclosure to the public and not disclosure to the government.
The Senior Counsel pressed Mr Low on why he followed up on the queries then.
Mr Low subsequently conceded that the questions raised by Ms Chen and Ms Ng were relevant to the draft. He also acknowledged to Mr Singh that he had not told Ms Cadman that money laundering was not the focus of the article.
This prompted Mr Singh to note the discrepancy in Mr Low's evidence in court. He urged Mr Low to "take your oath seriously", to which Mr Low replied "I am taking my oath seriously but you keep conflating premises Mr Singh".
"That's why you have trouble telling the truth, is it?" Mr Singh asked. Mr Low said "no" to this.
"AGENDA" TO TARGET DR TAN AND MR SHANMUGAM
Comparing the final article to an earlier draft, Mr Singh also alleged that Mr Low had targeted his clients with how he or his colleagues had positioned several paragraphs on combating money laundering.
Mr Singh referred to paragraphs exploring measures in New York and the United Kingdom.
In an earlier draft dated Oct 23, 2024, the relevant paragraphs were before any mention of Dr Tan and Mr Shanmugam, said Mr Singh.
However, in the final article, the paragraphs were repositioned between the mentions of Dr Tan and Mr Shanmugam.
Mr Low agreed that the paragraphs were moved, but added that it could have been someone else who moved them.
"I suggest to you sir, that it was intended by you and your colleagues pursuant to their agenda to target Mr Shanmugam as well as Dr Tan and to link their conduct with a concern over money laundering, that that is the reason these two paragraphs were moved to their location in the final article," Mr Singh said.
Mr Low replied: "I completely disagree with that, we don't have any agenda."
Mr Singh added that Mr Low had put the paragraphs under an irrelevant sub-heading so that a reader was "reminded" that the two Cabinet ministers were "involved in transactions (that) took advantage of the secrecy and opacity".
Mr Low disagreed with this.
The trial continues on Wednesday with the cross-examination of Mr Low.
Continue reading...