KEY ARGUMENTS FROM THE TRIAL
Earlier during the trial, Mr Singh argued that the Bloomberg article falsely portrayed Singapore’s GCB market — and by implication their transactions — as linked to secrecy, opacity, weak oversight and money laundering concerns.
During the trial, Mr Singh argued that Mr Low and his colleagues had an agenda to target the two Cabinet ministers, and to link their conduct with a concern over money laundering.
Mr Low, in his cross-examination, denied having any agenda or targeting the two ministers and maintained that the article merely made references to money laundering.
Represented by Mr Sreenivasan and senior counsel Chelva Retnam Rajah, Mr Low and Bloomberg argued that the article was a legitimate public interest story about transparency trends in Singapore’s GCB market, and did not allege any wrongdoing or money laundering.
A key issue in the trial was whether non-caveated property transactions were secretive, as suggested in Bloomberg’s article.
During cross-examination, Mr Low acknowledged that transaction details such as the buyer, seller, and purchase price could still be obtained through searches on Singapore Land Authority’s (SLA’s) Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS).
