Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 31 May 2025
Author: Shaffiq Alkhatib
Helen Chia Chwee Imm pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor.
A former lawyer was sentenced to six months' jail on May 30 after she charged two victims for legal services, even though she had been barred from practising law due to bankruptcy.
On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor.
Two other charges were considered during her sentencing.
Before handing down the sentence, District Judge James Elisha Lee said the overriding sentencing consideration for offences under the Legal Profession Act is the need to protect the public.
He added that stiff sentences are warranted for such offences.
Judge Lee also noted that defence lawyer Nicholas Narayanan earlier told the court that Chia had depression due to incidents involving two other clients.
One of them was a woman she represented in 2015, whose child was killed by the father.
The judge said that while he empathised with Chia, there was a 'lack of clarity' on whether there was a contributory link between her mental state and her current offences.
In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999.
However, she did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016, after a bankruptcy order made against her earlier that month.
Despite this, Chia met her first victim on Dec 19, 2016, for a consultation after the woman e-mailed her. They then discussed legal issues concerning the woman's care and custody of her son.
Subsequently, and without Chia's involvement, the woman and her son's father signed an agreement to manage aspects of their child's life amicably.
But on Aug 24, 2017, the woman contacted Chia again after disputes with the man resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as the lawyer.
Chia agreed, concealing the fact that she did not have a practising certificate.
After collecting $2,000 in legal fees, Chia gave her client legal advice.
In a court application filed on Nov 9, 2017, Chia indicated that another lawyer was the solicitor in charge of the case, deliberately excluding her own name.
It was only on Dec 18, 2017, after the woman asked Chia to attend a mediation session with her, that Chia revealed she was an undischarged bankrupt.
In total, Chia collected nearly $13,700 from the woman.
Separately, some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia's friend – the second victim – asked her to act as the lawyer in her divorce proceedings and her plan to apply for a personal protection order.
They met on Feb 13, 2018, and Chia reviewed her friend's divorce papers and personal protection order case file.
The friend then formally engaged Chia to represent her in the divorce proceedings, and the latter did not say that she could not practise.
Instead, Chia told the friend about the follow-up steps and quoted her legal fees of $20,000, saying it was a 'friend' rate – a third of what she would usually charge.
After receiving a $3,000 deposit from her friend, Chia gave her legal advice and did a host of legal work for her.
Chia also enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter.
On May 2, 2018, the friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees.
Chia's bankruptcy order was annulled on May 22, 2018, and she was allowed to practise law again.
But a disciplinary tribunal was appointed after a complaint of misconduct was made against her.
In June 2021, Chia's friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and did not have a practising certificate when she was representing her.
On Oct 26 that year, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia.
She was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2022.
In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her.
She is now out on bail of $80,000 and is expected to begin serving her sentence on July 21.
Shaffiq Alkhatib is The Straits Times' court correspondent, covering mainly criminal cases heard at the State Courts.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
Print
150
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
6 hours ago
- Straits Times
Legal challenges facing South Korea's incoming President Lee Jae-myung
Lee Jae-myung, the presidential candidate for South Korea's Democratic Party, speaks to his supporters, in front of the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea, June 4, 2025. REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji SEOUL - South Koreans voted in Lee Jae-myung as their next president in the country's June 3 snap election to heal the wounds of a shock martial law declaration in December, but the liberal leader comes with his own legal baggage in the form of five different criminal trials. Democratic Party leader Lee has denied wrongdoing and while a president has immunity from most crimes, legal experts are unclear whether this applies to cases that started before they took office. Here are some aspects of the trials the president is involved in. ELECTION LAW South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court after overturning an earlier ruling clearing him. The Seoul High Court decided to schedule its reconsideration of the case for June 18, pushing back a ruling that could determine his eligibility to run until after the election. Violation of election law had been in the spotlight because if the appeals court finalises a guilty verdict in line with the Supreme Court's decision, Lee would be barred from contesting elections for at least five years. The Supreme Court ruling sparked criticism from Lee's Democratic Party, which controls parliament, leading to bills being introduced that suggested the court and its chief justice engaged in abuse of jurisdiction and interference in the presidential election. ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION This trial combines allegations of corruption such as bribery from four separate cases related to property development projects and licensing, during Lee's 2010-2018 stint as mayor of Seongnam City bordering Seoul's wealthy Gangnam district. A major portion of the trial involves Lee allegedly colluding with a group of private property developers to help them rake in money from a 1.5 trillion won ($1.08 billion) project, while inflicting losses on the city. The trial at Seoul Central District Court began in 2023 with around 200,000 pages of records submitted to the court, according to the Yonhap News Agency. A hearing planned in May was postponed to June 24, after the election. MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS, SENDING MONEY TO NORTH KOREA These two trials are ongoing at Suwon District Court, south of Seoul. In one, prosecutors alleged that Lee committed breach of trust by using public funds for personal expenses when he was governor of Gyeonggi province in 2018-2021, including parking an official car at his home and letting his wife use it regardless of the errand, plus purchases of food and payment for personal laundry with provincial funds. In another, prosecutors alleged that Lee was an accomplice in a former Gyeonggi province vice governor's involvement in handing over money to North Korea in 2018, and indicted him for violations of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, as well as bribery of a third party. ALLEGED SUBORNATION OF PERJURY A case is also before the Seoul High Court, in which prosecutors alleged Lee induced a witness to lie under oath in court concerning another case in 2019 in which he was cleared. A lower court had cleared Lee of the charge, before prosecutors appealed. A hearing set for May 20 was postponed, court records showed. WHAT'S NEXT? The fate of the trials is unclear. South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes. However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected. The Democratic Party introduced to committee in May a bill which suspends ongoing trials if the defendant is elected president. However, some legal experts have noted the Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, which would increase political uncertainties. The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where the trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May. "The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Singapore Law Watch
2 days ago
- Singapore Law Watch
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy Source: Straits Times Article Date: 31 May 2025 Author: Shaffiq Alkhatib Helen Chia Chwee Imm pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. A former lawyer was sentenced to six months' jail on May 30 after she charged two victims for legal services, even though she had been barred from practising law due to bankruptcy. On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. Two other charges were considered during her sentencing. Before handing down the sentence, District Judge James Elisha Lee said the overriding sentencing consideration for offences under the Legal Profession Act is the need to protect the public. He added that stiff sentences are warranted for such offences. Judge Lee also noted that defence lawyer Nicholas Narayanan earlier told the court that Chia had depression due to incidents involving two other clients. One of them was a woman she represented in 2015, whose child was killed by the father. The judge said that while he empathised with Chia, there was a 'lack of clarity' on whether there was a contributory link between her mental state and her current offences. In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999. However, she did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016, after a bankruptcy order made against her earlier that month. Despite this, Chia met her first victim on Dec 19, 2016, for a consultation after the woman e-mailed her. They then discussed legal issues concerning the woman's care and custody of her son. Subsequently, and without Chia's involvement, the woman and her son's father signed an agreement to manage aspects of their child's life amicably. But on Aug 24, 2017, the woman contacted Chia again after disputes with the man resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as the lawyer. Chia agreed, concealing the fact that she did not have a practising certificate. After collecting $2,000 in legal fees, Chia gave her client legal advice. In a court application filed on Nov 9, 2017, Chia indicated that another lawyer was the solicitor in charge of the case, deliberately excluding her own name. It was only on Dec 18, 2017, after the woman asked Chia to attend a mediation session with her, that Chia revealed she was an undischarged bankrupt. In total, Chia collected nearly $13,700 from the woman. Separately, some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia's friend – the second victim – asked her to act as the lawyer in her divorce proceedings and her plan to apply for a personal protection order. They met on Feb 13, 2018, and Chia reviewed her friend's divorce papers and personal protection order case file. The friend then formally engaged Chia to represent her in the divorce proceedings, and the latter did not say that she could not practise. Instead, Chia told the friend about the follow-up steps and quoted her legal fees of $20,000, saying it was a 'friend' rate – a third of what she would usually charge. After receiving a $3,000 deposit from her friend, Chia gave her legal advice and did a host of legal work for her. Chia also enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter. On May 2, 2018, the friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees. Chia's bankruptcy order was annulled on May 22, 2018, and she was allowed to practise law again. But a disciplinary tribunal was appointed after a complaint of misconduct was made against her. In June 2021, Chia's friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and did not have a practising certificate when she was representing her. On Oct 26 that year, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia. She was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2022. In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her. She is now out on bail of $80,000 and is expected to begin serving her sentence on July 21. Shaffiq Alkhatib is The Straits Times' court correspondent, covering mainly criminal cases heard at the State Courts. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print 150
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
Unease intensifies as FBI chief Patel ousts top officials
Mr Kash Patel (pictured) and his deputy Dan Bongino quickly restock senior ranks with agents and turn the agency's attention to immigration. PHOTO: AFP WASHINGTON – Before being confirmed as the director of the FBI, Mr Kash Patel made clear his intent to remake it in his own image, reflecting a larger desire by the White House to bend the agency to its will. 'The FBI has become so thoroughly compromised that it will remain a threat to the people unless drastic measures are taken,' he wrote in his book 'Government Gangsters,' asserting that the top ranks of the bureau should be eliminated. Behind the scenes, his vision of an FBI under President Donald Trump is quietly taking shape. Agents have been forced out. Others have been demoted or put on leave with no explanation. And in an effort to hunt down the sources of news leaks, Mr Patel is forcing employees to take polygraph tests. Taken together, the moves are causing worrisome upheaval at the FBI, eliciting fear and uncertainty as Mr Patel and his deputy Dan Bongino quickly restock senior ranks with agents and turn the agency's attention to immigration. Their persistent claims that the bureau was politicised under previous directors, in addition to their swift actions against colleagues, have left employees to wonder whether they, too, will be ousted, either because they worked on an investigation vilified by Trump supporters or had ties to the previous administration. The actions have obliterated decades of experience in national security and criminal matters at the FBI and raised questions about whether the agents taking over such critical posts have the institutional knowledge to pursue cornerstones of its work. 'The director and I will have most of our incoming reform teams in place by next week,' Mr Bongino wrote on social media last week. 'The hiring process can take a little bit of time, but we are approaching that finish line. This will help us both in doubling down on our reform agenda.' He added that the agency would revisit past investigations, like the 2022 leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion on abortion, cocaine found two years ago at the White House and pipe bombs found near the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. (Two of the cases were not the FBI's to start – the Secret Service investigated the cocaine and the Supreme Court marshal the leak of the draft opinion.) 'The director and I evaluated a number of cases of potential public corruption that, understandably, have garnered public interest,' Mr Bongino said, oddly referring to the pipe bombs as a potential act of public corruption rather than domestic terrorism. In his previous role as a podcast host, he insisted, without offering evidence, that the pipe bombs were 'an inside job' and that 'the FBI knows who this person is'. The FBI typically does not talk about investigations, and Mr Bongino's statement did little to dispel perceptions that he and Mr Patel are eager to rehash years-old right-wing grievances by revisiting episodes that have angered conservatives aligned with the president. Their actions have fuelled the same criticism they levelled at the bureau under the Biden administration: that the FBI is becoming weaponised. This article is based on interviews with nearly a dozen current and former law enforcement officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The FBI, which typically does not respond to questions involving personnel, did not provide comment. Former and current FBI officials warned that the attempts by Trump loyalists to mold the bureau to their worldview could ultimately have a chilling effect on agents seeking to open cases that could upset Trump or his base. They added that they viewed many of the personnel moves as retribution. Mr Patel and Mr Bongino have sent a clear message on previous FBI investigations that focused on Mr Trump or his allies. In essence, former officials said, nobody is above the law except Mr Trump. In recent weeks, the FBI disbanded the Washington field office's elite federal public corruption squad, which was best known for investigating Mr Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, among other sensitive inquiries involving prominent government officials. The move, former and current agents say, suggests that investigations involving Mr Trump could be out of bounds. Those extend to inquiries that might ensnare senior Trump officials who used the Signal messaging app to discuss highly sensitive details of military strikes on Yemen in advance. The platform is not an approved, secure means of communicating sensitive national defence information. When new leaders take office, they inevitably want to put their own stamp on an agency. But some departures amount to a significant loss in expertise, including the abrupt retirement of an official running an office established in 2020 to uncover and reduce the risk of misuse of national security surveillance, arguably one of the bureau's most important intelligence gathering tools. Others, including a recent round of forced retirements and transfers, veer from traditional processes, former officials said. The bureau's webpage detailing the agency's leadership roles is in disarray, with employees who have left still listed as working there. Mr Patel has put other officials on administrative leave with pay, including two men who dealt with issues related to Hunter Biden's laptop, which Republicans have long insisted shows evidence of politicalisation. One of the men had already been disciplined for his work examining ties between Mr Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia before Mr Patel took over as director. 'Anyone out there who thinks we have not taken appropriate action against political actors, you – they're just making that up,' Mr Bongino said on 'Fox and Friends' last week. 'We can't go out and advertise this stuff.' Addressing the broader challenge of overseeing the bureau, Mr Bongino described the demands of making 'big, bold changes'. 'Part of you dies a little bit when you still see all this stuff from behind the scenes.' One FBI lawyer was removed from a key job overseeing human resources and notified while on medical leave. Others have been forced out of jobs, typically with no explanation. A succession of top agents, all women, were given an ultimatum: Take a different post or be asked to retire. A senior agent, who was until April in charge of intelligence at the Los Angeles field office, was asked to relocate to the FBI's campus in Huntsville, Alabama – where former officials said she would take on fewer responsibilities – or to retire. Similar scenarios have played out in San Diego; St. Louis; Jacksonville, Florida; and in Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama; as well as the Washington field office. In at least some cases, people were told to go because they held their positions at the director's discretion. It is not clear how Mr Patel is reaching these decisions, but former FBI officials say such removals would typically be set off by conduct that warranted being investigated or adjudicated, like a bad inspection or reports of misconduct. Under previous directors, special agents in charge, who typically lead field offices, were rarely removed. By one estimate, more than a half dozen were asked to transfer or face a demotion. Another wave of agents has been promoted to fill major jobs at headquarters and run field offices around the country, including St. Louis; Newark, New Jersey; Phoenix, Indianapolis and San Diego. Former officials praised some of the choices while they viewed others as less inspiring. To help fill those roles, Mr Patel has made exceptions, elevating assistant special agents in charge to the top spot at field offices. Such agents have not ascended to lead a section at headquarters – long considered the requisite to become a top agent in the field. In another unusual instance, he brought back a retired senior agent to oversee the counterterrorism division, which is typically stocked with a deep bench of veterans qualified to run it. Other agents and at least one top analyst have retired rather than risk being targeted by FBI leadership for causes embraced by conservative critics of the bureau. Testifying before senators about his agency's budget request in recent weeks, Patel said retirements were routine but did not affect the FBI. 'The good news is from the folks that I've met in the bureau, we've been able to retain significant levels of senior leadership both in Washington and throughout the country,' he said. The FBI's increasingly pervasive use of the polygraph, or a lie-detector test, has only intensified a culture of intimidation. Mr Patel has wielded the polygraph to keep agents or other employees from discussing a number of topics, including his decision-making or internal moves. Former agents say he is doing so in ways not typically seen in the FBI. Even though it is not admissible in court, a polygraph can be a powerful tool in supporting a criminal investigation or serious allegations of misconduct. Mr Jim Stern, who conducted hundreds of polygraphs while an FBI agent, said he used the tool in criminal and counterintelligence investigations and on applicants and security issues. Mr Stern said that if someone violated policy, the FBI could polygraph them. But if an agent who legitimately talked to the news media in a previous role had to take one, he said, 'that's going to be an issue'. 'I never used them to suss out gossip,' he said. At a recent meeting, senior executives were told that the news leaks were increasing in priority – even though they do not involve open cases or the disclosure of classified information. Former officials say senior executives, among others, were being polygraphed at a 'rapid rate.' In May, one senior official was forced out, at least in part because he had not disclosed to Mr Patel that his wife had taken a knee during demonstrations protesting police violence in the District of Columbia in 2020. The veteran agent retired, but not before passing a polygraph as part of Mr Patel's efforts to stanch leaks. He quickly found a job in the private sector. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
