Fine for company director who played role in collecting $112k in kickbacks from migrant workers
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 25 Jul 2025
Author: Samuel Devaraj
A company director has been fined after he admitted to playing a role in collecting $112,400 in kickbacks from migrant workers as a condition for renewing their work passes in December 2020.
A company director has been fined after he admitted to playing a role in collecting $112,400 in kickbacks from migrant workers as a condition for renewing their work passes in December 2020.
On July 24, Loo Kim Huat was fined $90,000 and also ordered to pay a penalty of $42,000, after he pleaded guilty to six charges under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.
Another 12 similar charges were taken into consideration during sentencing.
According to a press release from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Loo, 68, was the director and group head of conservancy at WIS Holdings, which manages Weishen Industrial Services, a company providing estate cleaning and maintenance services for town councils.
He had conspired with four others in the collection of kickbacks from 18 employees of Weishen as a condition for renewing their work passes.
The illicit payments ranged from $900 to $7,000 for each worker.
His four co-conspirators were Lim Choong Seng, a former site manager at Weishen; conservancy workers Kabir Mohammad Humayun and Robel; and Kamaruzzaman, an employment agent based in Bangladesh.
According to court documents, the 18 foreign employees were primarily conservancy workers deployed to perform estate cleaning and maintenance services for town councils.
The scheme which had been ongoing for four to five years before December 2020 originated from Kamaruzzaman, who was responsible for bringing in Bangladeshi nationals to work in Singapore at Weishen.
Kamaruzzaman instructed Lim, Kabir, Robel and Kamaruzzaman's relatives in Singapore to collect the employment kickbacks from foreign employees whose work permits were applied for under Weishen.
After the employment kickback monies were collected by Kabir and Robel, they would be handed to Lim, and then to Loo.
Loo, who was Lim's direct superior, would pay Lim $300 for every kickback collected from each foreign employee.
Loo and Lim would decide which foreign workers' work passes to renew, providing positive feedback to Weishen's human resources department for only the foreign employees who had paid the kickbacks.
After receiving information on possible contravention of the laws under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, MOM employment inspectors carried out investigations into Weishen on Dec 8, 2020.
MOM said Lim was convicted in August 2024 and fined $84,000 while Kabir's case is still pending before the court.
According to court documents, Robel remains at large.
An MOM prosecutor told the court on July 24 that Kamaruzzaman, who operated from Bangladesh, remained outside of Singapore's jurisdiction the last time the ministry checked.
Loo has paid a total of $83,050 as restitution to the affected migrant workers.
Nine of the workers have returned home; the other nine are working in Singapore, with three employed at Weishen, MOM said.
Those who are found to have collected kickbacks can be jailed for up to two years, fined up to $30,000, or both.
Migrant workers who suspect that they are being asked to give kickbacks can seek help by calling MOM at 6438-5122, or the Migrant Workers' Centre at 6536-2692.
MOM said members of the public who are aware of suspicious employment activities, or know of people or employers who contravene the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, should report the matter to the ministry on its website.
All information will be kept strictly confidential, it said.
An anonymous complaint led to 24 weeks' jail for a former operations manager of a conservancy company, who oversaw estate cleaners in Nee Soon East and Pasir Ris-Punggol.
Derrick Ho had collected $396,440 from 57 Bangladeshi workers from 2014 to 2020 for the renewal of their work permits, in one of the largest cases of kickbacks that MOM has investigated to date. He was sentenced in November 2024.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
16 hours ago
- Straits Times
4 arrested after Singapore Customs seize over 4,000 cartons of contraband cigarettes
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Duty-unpaid cigarettes and vans seized from raids in Canberra Street (top row) and Eunos Ave 7. SINGAPORE - One Singaporean and three Bangladeshi men were arrested by the Singapore Customs in two raids on July 29, where 4,311 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes and two vans were seized. The total duty and G oods and S ervices T ax (GST) evaded amounted to abou t $467,000 , the agency said on Aug 4. It added its officers had been observing a man and checked a van at a multi-storey carpark at Canberra Street after he was about to board the vehicle. The Singaporean, 30, was arrested after officers found 2,881 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes inside the van. Singapore Customs said its i nvestigations showed that the man was allegedly engaged by an unknown person to deliver the cigarettes. In a separate operation on the same day, three Bangladeshi men aged 29, 33 and 37 were arrested at an industrial building at Eunos Ave 7 . Singapore Customs officers observed two men alighting from a van near a cargo lift there, with one of them then unloading brown boxes from the vehicle. The driver remained inside the van . Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Govt forms 5 new committees to look at longer-term economic strategies; report due in mid-2026 Singapore Ong Beng Seng to be sentenced on Aug 15, prosecution does not object to fine due to his poor health Singapore All recruits at BMTC will be trained to fly drones and counter them: Chan Chun Sing Singapore Pritam Singh had hoped WP would 'tip one or two more constituencies' at GE Singapore Eu Yan Sang warns of counterfeits of its health supplements being sold online Singapore Electric car-sharing firm BlueSG to wind down current operations on Aug 8 Singapore Woman, 26, hit by car after dashing across street near Orchard Road Singapore Car passenger dies after accident involving bus in Yishun 'Upon seeing our officers approaching, the men attempted to flee and were apprehended,' said Singapore Customs. It added that its officers uncovered 1,170 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes inside the van and another 260 cartons near the cargo lift. Investigations are ongoing for the 29-year-old and the 37-year-old men , said Singapore Customs. Court proceedings against the rest are ongoing.
Singapore Law Watch
a day ago
- Singapore Law Watch
At UN's Wipo, Singaporean Daren Tang strives to create an equal music for haves and have-nots
At UN's Wipo, Singaporean Daren Tang strives to create an equal music for haves and have-nots Source: Straits Times Article Date: 03 Aug 2025 Author: Ravi Velloor Singaporean helming agency works to simplify intellectual property and strike a balance. Shortly after he took over as director-general of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (Wipo) five years ago – the first Singaporean to head a major UN agency – an ambassador from an African nation had this to say to Mr Daren Tang. 'The problem with intellectual property, DG,' he told the former government lawyer, 'is that it is too intellectual.' The 53-year-old Mr Tang, who in an earlier career avatar had been involved in some of the trickiest trade negotiations on behalf of Singapore, took the message to heart. In the five years he has helmed Wipo, he has worked to reduce the 'cheem' ('difficult to understand' in Singlish) factor in intellectual property (IP) and bring it closer to the ground – something that accompanies people in their daily lives. 'I wanted to make IP relevant to not just 1 per cent of the world, but also for the remaining 99 per cent,' he tells The Straits Times. 'Of course, IP is a legal right, but it is also about technology, about branding, music, arts and culture. IP should support those innovating and creating, wherever they are in the world.' The world's surface rumblings latterly may be all about rising protectionist instincts, particularly in its biggest economy. But below that is unprecedented innovation as the human capacity to imagine and invent and share soars like never before. Every minute, more than 40 IP applications are filed somewhere in the world. Since 2018, over 20 million applications have been made each year, including more than 23 million in 2023. These days, seven in 10 of those IP applications are from Asia, Africa and Latin America – up from 50 per cent from these regions a decade ago. This trend will only increase as investments in intangible assets – think brands such as Yakun and Gojek or SIA's golden bird and sarong kebaya – grow nearly four times faster than investments in tangible assets. Indeed, 87 per cent of the value of companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 is in intangibles. A third of all patents registered are in digital and related technologies. The US, says Mr Tang, remains the 'pre-eminent innovation engine' because it is the best in commercialising ideas. It is bringing protection to the IP that resides in this burst of innovation and discovery that the Geneva-based Mr Tang presides over, helped by a 1,700-member staff. Wipo, which he has run since 2020, has 194 members – one more than the UN itself. In contrast, the trade-focused World Trade Organisation has 166 members. Last week, Singapore nominated Mr Tang for another six-year term starting 2026. If no other country nominates a candidate of its own by the end of October, Mr Tang could be returned unopposed. Otherwise, the nominations go to a vote. In 2020, Mr Tang was elected to the job 55-28, prevailing over a Chinese candidate in the second round, from an initial field of six. The value to Singapore in keeping Mr Tang in his post is to continue demonstrating how a small country such as itself can remain relevant to the world in concrete ways. An Equal Music As a law student in the early 1990s, Mr Tang, a jazz pianist trained by the famed Jeremy Monteiro, was the ivory-thumper in Mr Eddie Chan's Thomson Jazz Club, and he sometimes made extra cash by playing gigs at places such as Tanglin Club. Today, he strives to create an equal music for both the haves and have-nots through IP, which had been used in the past sometimes as a vehicle to empower the privileged. One example is UnBalivable – a project Wipo concluded in 2024 in Bali where, working with the local Indonesian authorities, it mentored 25 Balinese handicraft makers and artisans in creating their own brands. One such brand, Macha – a maker of cushion and pillow covers using Balinese designs and fabric – subsequently graduated from being a 'white label' supplier to stores in Australia and New Zealand, to being a branded supplier of heritage products with a shop in Switzerland operated through a franchisee. Over the course of Mr Tang's tenure, 620,000 have been trained in IP through the Wipo Academy, as it moved beyond focusing on training IP lawyers and professionals and towards providing practical skills to creators, founders and small business owners, thus widening its reach. Registering and protecting IP, says Mr Tang, is only the first part of the value-creation journey. If you do not commercialise it – turn it into a product or service – that IP has got little value. At the country level, therefore, it is about economic outcomes and employment. IP, ultimately, should be shaped as a tool for growth and development. 'If you ask me, this is probably the most satisfying (part of my work), emotionally.' The challenging part is that in this era of immense geopolitical churn, consensus – Wipo moves on all members agreeing – tends to be more and more elusive. Nevertheless, the Singaporean has over his term managed to get two hugely contentious treaties passed. The first is the Wipo Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK), which was adopted in 2024 after a quarter-century of negotiations. It adjusts patent rules such that when a patent application is made based on traditional knowledge, the application has to disclose it – a move meant to protect the rights of indigenous people and local communities, and one that signals a good balance in the IP system between technology and innovation on the one hand, and heritage and culture on the other hand. The classic example of what the GRATK tries to avoid is situations where plant or medicinal products known for a long time become patented, such as India's neem plant. The other agreement, also adopted in 2024 and after 20 years of negotiations, is the Riyadh Design Law Treaty that harmonises design protection – whether it be the shape of a bottle or the contours of your latest BYD car – across Wipo member nations. The creative works of Singapore's SK Jewellery or Greece's Ilias LALAoUNIS are what the Riyadh treaty would protect. 'This is classic UN agency work, you know, getting people to come together and sit down and negotiate and find consensus to cross the finishing line together,' says the NUS and Georgetown-educated Mr Tang. 'Both treaties were adopted by consensus. We do not like things to go to a vote because it destroys the atmosphere and the mood (around the room).' An issue I have often grappled with intellectually is the morality around IP, especially when it comes to life-saving drugs and treatments. In 2019, for instance, when Novartis released Zolgensma, a gene-therapy miracle drug for treating spinal muscular atrophy – a rare disease that manifests usually in childhood – the single-shot drug was priced at US$2.1 million. Novartis had bought the company that developed the drug for almost US$9 billion, the acquisition price factoring in the cost of bringing the drug to market. But even so, the drug's price seemed to me to exceed value-based thresholds, and I inquired of Mr Tang where he stood on the issue. Mr Tang notes that these issues are a matter of balance. Not just pharma, but a lot of research and development proceeds on the basis that the vast sums extended for the purpose – often futilely – sometimes result in a new discovery that turns a huge profit. 'Without IP, there would not be this powerful incentive to innovate, and the IP system functions to connect those with ideas with the market and society.' Latterly, IP issues have been involving not just 'hard' areas such as drug research or jewellery design, but also creative spaces such as music. A Wipo project Mr Tang initiated is Clip, short for Creators Learn IP, in collaboration with Music Rights Awareness Association, a non-governmental organisation. One person who works closely with him on Clip is Bjorn Ulvaeus, star of the sensational Swedish rock group Abba and author of the group's biggest hit, Dancing Queen. Mr Ulvaeus, now 80, devotes his time to ensuring that creators are duly credited and compensated for their work. 'Being a successful musician today means that you need to know enough technology, enough IP and enough data to take care of yourself, and Clip seeks to help in that,' says Mr Tang. 'We try to be the UN agency that is not just for IP, but for innovation and creativity as well. Clip is free, and the website is in all the six UN languages, as well as Portuguese.' What about the next stage of creativity, when machines create art and music and poetry? Mr Tang points out that technology has always been part of creative expression, especially in music. When it comes to music, an earlier era brought the drum machines and synthesisers – think Kraftwerk's 1978 hit The Robots, or Bernard Sumner's group New Order in the early 1980s. The new trend is digital technology driving changes in creative expression – video games, for instance, are an example of technology blending with heritage and culture to create content. That said, current IP laws do not recognise creative work generated start to finish by machines or artificial intelligence (AI). 'By doing that, you would be giving AI human agency, and that means a major shift in the entire legal system.' A related issue is how IP rules ought to be framed – if at all – to address issues surrounding AI and generative AI. While the European Union is for regulation, the US vehemently feels that the technology should be allowed to develop without excessive regulation at this point in time. The Wipo Secretariat and its director-general function to facilitate these discussions, but it is for member states to make their choices on such matters. Neither is it a dispute-settlement body; Wipo facilitates the speedy movement of IP across borders, but once within national boundaries, it is for individual legal systems to enforce the regulations. Similarly, while Wipo can provide a forum for arbitration and mediation, it does not itself get involved in arbitrating. Interestingly, IP mediation is growing in double digits every year. Singaporeans would be relieved to know that one area in which Wipo thankfully does not operate is patenting food recipes. Not that this has not crossed Mr Tang's mind. Born to a Peranakan father (who, in retirement, organises hawker food tours) and a Cantonese mother – cultures that tend to be more food-obsessed than others – Mr Tang, as then head of the IP Office of Singapore some years ago, offered local hawkers help to bring IP protection to their recipes. To a man, they resisted the idea. 'Don't touch our hawker food, because we learn from others and inspire each other,' they told him. 'If you make it a part of IP, you may slow down innovation because we are forever looking to see what our competitor is doing and if he is trying out something new, I want to try that myself.' Mr Tang took away something from that experience. 'The lesson I learnt from that was that IP is also about balance – it is a tool to achieve something and not an end in itself,' he says. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
a day ago
- Singapore Law Watch
Decoupling to save on tax? You may lose right to property if ties go awry
Decoupling to save on tax? You may lose right to property if ties go awry Source: Straits Times Article Date: 03 Aug 2025 Author: Tan Ooi Boon Test is whether transaction was done in good faith or was a deliberate attempt to avoid tax. Just google the word 'decoupling' and you will see multiple listings from realtors and lawyers alike promoting their services to help property buyers avoid paying additional buyer's stamp duty (ABSD) with such a creative home ownership plan. But those who have been peddling such services for years may want to hit the pause button for now so that they can study the recent High Court case which found that such transactions are not without pitfalls. Indeed, the court found that owners who decouple can run afoul of the tax law if they are not upfront with their arrangements. This is especially so if property buyers are lured into thinking that decoupling is a watertight loophole that allows Singapore home owners to buy a second property without paying ABSD, while still retaining ownership in both properties. Joint owners who decouple – that is, one takes over the whole property – often have the endgame of letting the person who sold out buy a second property as a first-timer who does not have to pay the 20 per cent ABSD levied on Singaporeans. To further save on stamp duty, some couples plan ahead and buy their first property in a 99-to-1 share, so they need to pay the normal stamp duty on just that 1 per cent share if the 99 per cent co-owner takes over that tiny share. This scheme is not the same as that in the recent 99-to-1 saga that saw some families penalised for avoiding ABSD. Such cases involved first-time buyers who could not afford a home, so they roped in their relatives, who already own homes, to support mortgage applications. But instead of buying as joint owners, which would attract ABSD on the full price, the first-timers bought solely as 100 per cent owners and then 'sold' just 1 per cent of the property to relatives. So the relatives paid ABSD on only that minute share. Owners caught using the two-stage sham have been ordered to pay the full ABSD and a 50 per cent surcharge. But decoupling has long been viewed as a legitimate move for longer-term planning because owners can hold and dispose of properties in whatever proportions they choose. The spotlight fell on such transactions recently because a couple who fought over their property stakes highlighted to the High Court that such deals were not as simple as they had made them out to be. Ironically, the case that sparked the court's probe into this popular tax-saving move did not even involve decoupling, as the then dating couple broke up before any prospect of another purchase. During the good times, they had planned to hold their first property in the ratio of 99 to 1, in favour of the girlfriend. A reason for doing so was to avoid paying ABSD if they were to purchase a second property. When they fell out, the true picture emerged, because the boyfriend claimed he paid more and so should own a lot more than his tiny share. In the end, he was awarded a share of over 50 per cent, only because the court took note that no taxes were avoided as the couple did not decouple or buy another property. The outcome might have been different had the boyfriend bought a second property after decoupling without paying ABSD and then staked a claim for a share in the first property. High Court Judge Lee Seiu Kin noted that while there was nothing inherently wrong with buyers holding their stakes in the 99-to-1 proportion, the transaction could turn illegal if the decoupling was not a genuine outright transfer but merely a scheme to avoid paying tax. For instance, if the 1 per cent owner gives up the share but has an arrangement with the other owner to still co-own that same property, this owner would be deemed to have evaded tax by wrongly declaring his true beneficial ownership. If he then buys another property as a 'first-time buyer' and so saves 20 per cent of ABSD, he could be accused of duping the taxman because he is still a 'beneficial' co-owner of the first property. If that is not risky enough, using the 1 per cent as a ploy to save on buyer's stamp duty in an anticipated decoupling move could also attract penalties for underpayment of tax. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) noted that whether tax avoidance or tax evasion has been committed would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The test often boils down to whether the property transactions are carried out in good faith as a financial planning move or a deliberate attempt to avoid paying more tax, such as using a contrived scheme that has little or no commercial substance or withholding crucial information from the taxman. Penalties aside, the recent case provides a cautionary tale that those who commit an 'illegal' act, such as using a scheme to deliberately avoid paying taxes, may find it hard to stake claim on any disputed property. Assume co-owner Jim 'transfers' his share in the property to co-owner Jane to avoid paying more tax on his next purchase. Jim is likely to face an uphill task to claim that he still owns a share in the property fully owned by Jane because the courts are unlikely to uphold a sham deal. So before owners think about saving on taxes, they should ask whether they are prepared to give up the decoupled real estate should they end up in a dispute or divorce later. Still prudent to go 99 to 1? The stark manner in which one owner holds 99 per cent while the other has 1 per cent is a dead giveaway to the taxman that this could be a scheme to pay less tax. After all, the couple in the High Court case admitted that they held their property in this way because they had planned to decouple later. But this was done solely to pay less tax because the 1 per cent owner actually viewed himself as an equal owner and had contributed substantially to the property purchase. Based on Justice Lee's analysis, such decoupling cases would minimally attract the penalty for underpayment of stamp duty unless the owner can convince the taxman that he genuinely held only 1 per cent of the property. However, the 1 per cent owner who makes such a declaration and then transfers away the share is as good as forgoing the rights to the decoupled property. After all, claiming otherwise would amount to an admission of giving false information to Iras, which is a serious offence. No wrongdoing for genuine gifts and sales National University of Singapore tax expert Stephen Phua said he knew of owners who were holding unequal shares in their properties long before the ABSD scheme started in 2011 to curb speculation. 'Some may just hold 1 per cent because they genuinely only wanted to help pay down the mortgage,' said Associate Professor Phua, who also practises as a tax consultant with Allen & Gledhill. So, if such owners subsequently transfer their 1 per cent share in the property before buying another one, it would be difficult to accuse them of wrongdoing since the arrangement was a genuine gift. Similarly, existing joint owners who decouple cannot be said to be under-declaring their shares if the transfer was genuine and stamp duty was properly paid on 50 per cent of the market value. If the spouse who no longer owns any residential property buys another property, no ABSD is payable, Prof Phua added. This means that if you decouple, you no longer own that property. If that is not your intention, you should do your sums to see if it's worth losing your stake in this property just because you want to save on ABSD for the next purchase. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
