Convicted billionaire Ong spared jail after Singapore scandal
(Bloomberg) – Convicted billionaire Ong Beng Seng will avoid jail in Singapore despite his involvement in a scandal that stunned a city-state known for being one of the world's least corrupt nations.
The Malaysian tycoon, who gained international fame for bringing Formula One racing to Singapore, was granted the reprieve by a district judge at a sentencing hearing on Friday afternoon. Ong will be fined S$30,000 ($23,374), the judge said, citing his dire medical condition.
The 79-year-old last week pleaded guilty to one charge of abetting former Singapore transport minister S. Iswaran to obstruct the course of justice. Prosecutors said Ong in 2023 helped to bill Iswaran for a S$5,700 business class ticket while authorities were investigating the matter.
The ex-politician was jailed last year after obtaining gifts that included tickets to Singapore's Grand Prix, a luxury hotel stay and other valuable items while in public office. Ong's charge related to a 2022 trip to the FIFA World Cup quarterfinals in Doha, which he had invited Iswaran to.
Under Singapore's Penal Code, Ong could have been imprisoned for up to seven years in addition to being fined. Prosecutors had earlier sought eight weeks' jail for him, but his defence had asked for a fine instead based on his medical conditions, which include advanced multiple myeloma, an incurable cancer that has compromised his immune system.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Mayor of New Orleans had a years-long romance with her bodyguard. She's been indicted for spending city money on hotels and wine tastings with him
The mayor of New Orleans had been treating her bodyguard to trips on the taxpayers' dime during their years-long affair, a new federal grand jury indictment alleges. New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell was indicted on Friday resulting from a corruption investigation. Cantrell's lawyer confirmed to The Associated Press that an indictment was returned, and her name was read aloud by a federal magistrate judge as a defendant. She has been charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making false statements and false declaration before a grand jury, according to the indictment. The city of New Orleans told NBC News it will have no comment on the indictment until the mayor's legal team has time to review the indictments. "The Mayor's attorney, Eddie Castaing, recently received the information, and is thoroughly reviewing the document," the statement said. "Until his review is complete, the City will not comment further on this matter." The indictment is the culmination of a long-running federal investigation into Cantrell, the first female mayor in the City's 300-year history. Prosecutors allege that Cantrell was having a romantic relationship with New Orleans Police Officer Jeffrey Paul Vappie II, who is on the department's executive protection unit. That relationship allegedly occurred between 2021 and 2024. Cantrell was married during the period of the alleged affair to attorney Jason Cantrell. He died in August 2023. 'To hide their relations from detection and to maximize their time together, Cantrell and Vappie exploited their public positions to develop and implement a scheme to defraud the city of New Orleans and the New Orleans Police Department by engaging in personal activities while Vappie claimed to be on duty and was paid for,' the indictment says. They further claimed that the pair had exchanged some 15,000 messages, photos, and audio clips on WhatsApp over an eight month period. The investigators also allege that Cantrell and Vappie were using the app to intimidate their subordinates and hide evidence. Vappie and Cantrell traveled together on 14 trips in eight months, several of which were romantic vacations under the pretense of work trips, according to prosecutors. In total, the city spent $70,000 to sent Vappie along with the mayor on her trips — which in some cases included visits to wine tastings — the prosecutors claimed. Vappie was initially charged with wire fraud and making false statements. He has pleaded not guilty. Cantrell was added to the case after an investigation into Vappie's actions. If the pair are convicted, both could go to prison, though for how long varies based on the indictment. Some indictments carry a five year penalty, and others could put them away for up to 20. The term-limited Democratic mayor will leave office in January.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Unpacking claim Canada PM Carney tied to sale of donated plasma to foreign company
In August 2025, a rumor began to spread that donated blood plasma had been sold for profit to a foreign company. That foreign company was the target of a takeover attempt by a Canadian fund to which Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney had ties, the rumor claimed. For example, an Aug. 13, 2025, a post on X shared a video in which a man exposed the alleged scheme (archived): The post had gained 305,000 views and 10,000 likes as of this writing. The same video appeared on Facebook. Further, Snopes readers searched the website seeking to confirm the veracity of the claim. In the video, the man claimed this was "one of the biggest scandals of the year." He went on to explain that a charitable organization known as Canadian Blood Services had sold donated plasma to Spanish pharmaceutical company Grifols, which had then resold it for profit. Grifols, the man said, had been the target of a second takeover attempt by Canadian fund Brookfield Asset Management in April 2025 (the first one occurred in late 2024). He added that Carney had "significant personal investments in Brookfield," which he suggested posed a conflict of interest for the prime minister. As outlined below, we were able to confirm that Grifols discussed selling a byproduct of plasma in China. We were able to verify that Grifols had indeed been the target of a takeover attempt from Brookfield, to which Carney has ties. However, we did not receive direct confirmation that Grifols was selling specifically albumin made from Canadian plasma abroad, or that Carney had any involvement with this matter. We have therefore left the claim unrated. The Globe and Mail report The claim stemmed from an investigative report by the right-leaning newspaper The Globe and Mail. Published on Aug. 12, 2025, the report said Grifols was "selling medicine abroad" made from blood plasma donated to Canadian Blood Services. Snopes was able to confirm Grifols partnered with CBS in 2022 to help Canada achieve "at least 50% Ig [immunoglubolin] self-sufficiency for Canadians." In June 2023, Grifols announced that it was also partnering with Canadian Plasma Resources to "secure plasma supplies" in Canada. "Production is exclusively for Canadian Blood Services and Canadian patients," Grifols' statement read. Immunoglobulins are made from plasma and are used for a variety of therapeutic needs, including in case of immunodeficiency. The Globe and Mail also cited CBS CEO Graham Sher as saying, "None of the plasma that will be collected through this transaction can be sold offshore," including "none of the product made from plasma." Sher had reportedly said these words in 2022. However, despite this promise, The Globe and Mail said Grifols had been making albumin in Montreal from a byproduct of the manufacturing of immunoglobulins and selling it abroad. Albumin is a protein used therapeutically to manage blood volume, for example. The publication cited a call Grifols CEO Nacho Abia had hosted on the occasion of the earnings report for the second quarter of 2025. Snopes found the transcript of the call and was able to verify that Abia said Grifols' plant in Montreal was now producing albumin. He also discussed China's need for the product. We contacted Grifols asking whether it was selling albumin made from Canadian plasma to China and other countries. We will update this report should they respond. The Globe and Mail then cited CBS as saying that Canada's albumin needs were already met, and that the albumin produced in Montreal would otherwise go to waste. CBS added that this product benefited Grifols' patients abroad, the report said. However, the newspaper added that CBS had said this in an "unsigned statement." "None of the plasma collected at Canadian Blood Services' donation centres is being used to make medicine that is being sold in other countries, including albumin," CBS told Snopes in an email, contradicting the Globe report. "Blood and plasma that is collected by Canadian Blood Services is used exclusively for Canadian patients." The organization also referred Snopes to an Aug. 13, 2025, statement it posted on its website in response to The Globe and Mail report. But the online CBS statement includes a few sentences that appeared to reiterate the quote attributed to them in the Globe report (emphasis ours): Canadian Blood Services has been meeting Canada's demand for albumin so we agreed in early 2025 that, as a prudent measure, we would sell Grifols the byproducts that are leftover when immunoglobulins are manufactured from plasma Grifols collects on our behalf in Canada. These byproducts would otherwise be discarded. Instead Grifols can use the byproducts to create albumin which will help patients in other countries, because Canada's needs for these medicines are already being met. Canada benefits from this, as the sale of the byproducts to Grifols offsets the cost Canadian Blood Services pays for immunoglobulins manufactured by Grifols. We asked what CBS made of this apparent contradiction. We also contacted The Globe and Mail to inquire about their understanding of the situation. We will update this story should one or both of them respond. The Conservatives' letter Following the conservative publication's report, Conservative lawmakers on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health sent a letter to committee Chair Hedy Fry, a Liberal from British Columbia, calling for an investigation into the matter. Dan Mazier, a Conservative from Manitoba and Shadow Minister of Health, posted the letter on X (archived): In this letter, the Conservative members of Parliament expressed concern that Grifols had been the target of a takeover attempt by Brookfield Asset Management, a Canadian fund to which Carney has ties. "Given Mark Carney's significant personal investments in Brookfield, we are further concerned about the Prime Minister's potential financial conflict-of-interests in this matter," the letter read. Indeed, Grifols had been in talks twice with Brookfield. In November 2024, the company announced it had terminated deal talks with Brookfield. Then again in April 2025, several reports said the family that owns Grifols was discussing a possible $7 billion takeover deal with Brookfield. Snopes was able to verify that Carney did have ties to Brookfield. While he did not own any of its shares outright, a Form 10-K annual report from the company showed he owned $6.8 million in unexercised options to acquire shares of the fund as of Dec. 31, 2024. Carney had also been chair of the board until the day he announced his candidacy to lead the Liberal Party in the 2025 elections. However, after his victory and before he was sworn in as prime minister, Carney put his assets into a blind trust — that is, a trust whose rules preclude the trustee from consulting with Carney on how to invest or divest. On July 10, 2025, the ethics commissioner published the list of Carney's assets in the blind trust. They did include stock options for Brookfield. We have contacted Carney's office asking if he was considering divesting from the company altogether and we will update this report should he respond. "Form 10-K 2024 | Brookfield Asset Management." Jan. 2025, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. "Grifols Board of Directors Announces Termination of Acquisition Discussions with Brookfield." Nov. 2024, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. "Grifols Enters into Agreement with Canadian Blood Services to Accelerate Self-Sufficiency in Immunoglobulins for Canada." Sept. 2022, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. "Grifols Group Enters into Agreement with Canadian Plasma Resources to Secure Plasma Supply in Canada." 2023, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. Hannay, Chris. "Spanish Drugmaker Using Canadian-Donated Blood Plasma for Products Sold Abroad." The Globe and Mail, 12 Aug. 2025, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. "Mark Carney Holdings | Ethics Commissioner." 10 July 2025, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. Reuters Staff. "Grifols in 15-Year Deal with Canada for Plasma-Based Medicines." Reuters, 7 Sept. 2022, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. ---. "Spanish Pharma Company Grifols' Shares up on Brookfield Talk." Reuters, 2 Apr. 2025, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. "The Honourable Hedy Fry - Member of Parliament - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada." 2025, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. Transcript: Grifols Q2 Earnings Call. Grifols, 29 July 2025, Accessed 15 Aug. 2025. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's unprecedented, potentially unconstitutional deal with Nvidia and AMD, explained: Alexander Hamilton would approve
'We negotiated a little deal,' President Donald Trump told reporters on August 11, about the developing situation with leading chip makers Nvidia and AMD continuing to do business in China. He explained that he originally wanted a 20% cut of Nvidia's sales in exchange for the company obtaining export licenses to sell H20 chip to China, but he was persuaded to settle at 15%. The H20 chip is 'obsolete,' Trump added … 'he's selling a essentially old chip.' The chips do appear to be quite significant to China, considering that the Cyberspace Administration of China held discussions with Nvidia over security concerns that the H20 chips may be tracked and turned off remotely, according to a disclosure on its website. The deal, which lifted an export ban on Nvidia's H20 AI chips and AMD's MI308, and followed heated negotiations, was widely described as unusual and also still theoretical at this point, with the legal details still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce. Legal experts have questioned whether the eventual deal would constitute an unconstitutional export tax, as the U.S. Constitution prohibits duties on exports. This has come to be known as the 'export clause' of the constitution. Indeed, it's hard to find much precedent for it anywhere in the history of the U.S. government's dealings with the corporate sector. Erik Jensen, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has studied the history of the export clause, told Fortune he was not aware of anything like this in history. In the 1990s, he added, the Supreme Court struck down two attempted taxes on export clause grounds (cases known as IBM and U.S. Shoe). Jensen said tax practitioners were surprised that the court took up the cases: 'if only because most pay no attention to constitutional limitations, and the Court hadn't heard any export clause cases in about 70 years.' The takeaway was clear, Jensen said: 'The export clause matters.' Columbia University professor Eric Talley agreed with Jensen, telling Fortune that while the federal government has previously applied subsidies to exports, he's not aware of other historical cases imposing taxes on selected exporters. Talley also cited the export clause as the usual grounds for finding such arrangements unconstitutional. Rather than downplaying the uniqueness of the arrangement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been leaning into it. In a Bloomberg television interview, he said: 'I think you know, right now, this is unique. But now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it? I think we could see it in other industries over time.' Bessent and the White House insist there are 'no national security concerns,' since only less-advanced chips are being sold to China. Instead, officials have touted the deal as a creative solution to balance trade, technology, and national policy. How rare is this? The arrangement has drawn sharp reaction from business leaders, legal experts, and trade analysts. Julia Powles, director of UCLA's Institute for Technology, Law & Policy, told the Los Angeles Times: 'It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration, which is quite rare.' Experts warned that if replicated, this template could pressure other firms—not just tech giants—into similar arrangements with the government. Already, several unprecedented arrangements have been struck between the Trump administration and the corporate sector, ranging from the 'golden share' in U.S. Steel negotiated as part of its takeover by Japan's Nippon Steel to the federal government reportedly discussing buying a stake in chipmaker Intel. Nvidia and AMD have declined to comment on specifics. When contacted by Fortune for comment, Nvidia reiterated its statement that it follows rules the U.S. government sets for its participation in worldwide markets. 'While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide. America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America's AI tech stack can be the world's standard if we race.' The White House declined to comment about the potential deal. AMD did not respond to a request for comment. While Washington has often intervened in business—especially in times of crisis—the mechanism and magnitude of the Nvidia/AMD deal are virtually unprecedented in recent history. The federal government appears to have never previously claimed a percentage of corporate revenue from export sales as a precondition for market access. Instead, previous actions took the form of temporary nationalization, regulatory control, subsidies, or bailouts—often during war or economic emergency. Examples of this include the seizure of coal mines (1946) and steel mills (1952) during labor strikes, as well as the 2008 financial crisis bailouts, where the government took equity stakes in large corporations including two of Detroit's Big three and most of Wall Street's key banks. During World War I, the War Industries Board regulated prices, production, and business conduct for the war effort. Congress has previously created export incentives and tax-deferral strategies (such as the Domestic International Sales Corporation and Foreign Sales Corporation Acts), but these measures incentivized sales rather than directly diverting a fixed share of export revenue to the government. Legal scholars stress that such arrangements were subjected to global trade rules and later modified after international complaints. Global lack of precedent The U.S. prohibition on export taxes dates back to the birth of the nation. Case Western's Jensen has written that some delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, such as New York's Alexander Hamilton, were in favor of the government being able to tax revenue sources such as imports and exports, but the 'staple states' in the southern U.S. were fiercely opposed, given their agricultural bent, especially the importance of cotton at that point. Still, many other countries currently have export taxes on the books, though they are generally imposed across all exporters, rather than as one-off arrangements that remove barriers to a specific market. And many of the nations with export taxes are developing countries who tax agricultural or resource commodities. In several cases (Uganda, Malaya, Sudan, Nigeria, Haiti, Thailand), export taxes made up 10% to 40% of total government tax revenue in the 1960s and 1970s, according to an IMF staff paper. Globally, most countries tax profits generated within their borders ('source-based corporate taxes'), but rarely as a direct percentage of export sales as a market access precondition. The standard model is taxation of locally earned profits, regardless of export destination; licensing fees and tariffs may be applied, but not usually as a fixed percent of export revenue as a pre-negotiated entry fee. Although the Nvidia/AMD deal doesn't take the usual form of a tax, Case Western's Jensen added. 'I don't see what else it could be characterized as.' It's clearly not a 'user fee,' which he said is the usual triable issue of law in export clause cases. For instance, if goods or services are being provided by the government in exchange for the charge, such as docking fees at a governmentally operated port, then that charge isn't a tax or duty and the Export Clause is irrelevant. 'I just don't see how the charges that will be levied in the chip cases could possibly be characterized in that way.' Players have been known to 'game' the different legal treatments of subsidies and taxes, Columbia's Talley added. He cited the example of a government imposing a uniform, across-the-board tax on all producers, but then providing a subsidy to sellers who sell to domestic markets. 'The net effect would be the same as a tax on exports, but indirectly.' He was unaware of this happening in the U.S. but cited several international examples including Argentina, India, and even the EU. One famous example of a canny international tax strategy was Apple's domicile in Ireland, along with so many other multinationals keeping their international profits offshore in affiliates in order to avoid paying U.S. tax, which at the time applied to all worldwide income upon repatriation. Talley said much of this went away after the 2018 tax reforms, which moved the U.S. away from a worldwide corporate tax, with some exceptions. The protection racket comparison If Trump's chip export tax is an anomaly in the annals of U.S. international trade, the deal structure has some parallels in another corner of the business world: organized crime, where 'protection rackets' have a long history. Businesses bound by such deals must pay a cut of their revenues to a criminal organization (or parallel government), effectively as the cost for being allowed to operate or to avoid harm. The China chip export tax and the protection rackets extract revenue as a condition for market access, use the threat of exclusion or punishment for non-payment, and both may be justified as 'protection' or 'guaranteed access,' but are not freely negotiated by the business. 'It certainly has the smell of a governmental shakedown in certain respects,' Columbia's Talley told Fortune, considering that the 'underlying threat was an outright export ban, which makes a 15% surcharge seem palatable by comparison.' Talley noted some nuances, such as the generally established broad statutory and constitutional support for national-security-based export bans on various goods and services sold to enumerated countries, which have been imposed with legal authority on China, North Korea, Iraq, Russia, Cuba, and others. 'From an economic perspective, a ban on an exported good is tantamount to a tax of 'infinity percent' on the good,' Talley said, meaning it effectively shuts down the export market for that good. 'Viewed in that light, a 15% levy is less (and not more) extreme than a ban.' Still, there's the matter, similar to Trump's tariff regime, of making a legal challenge to an ostensibly blatantly illegal policy actually hold up in court. 'A serious question with the chips tax,' Case Western's Jensen told Fortune, 'is who, if anyone, would have standing to challenge the tax?' In other words, it may be unconstitutional, but who's actually going to compel the federal government to obey the constitution? This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
