S$140 million held by convicted Indonesian palm oil tycoon’s son to remain seized despite CPIB lapses: Court

Under the law, CPIB was required to report the seizure to the magistrate within one year.

On May 3, 2024, CPIB informed Bill that it intended to report the seizure and seek an extension, and asked whether he intended to object.

On May 29, 2024, Bill’s lawyers wrote to CPIB requesting the basis of the intended application so they could advise their client.

CPIB overlooked the request and did not respond. By then, it had also failed to report the seizure by the deadline of May 17, 2024.

Bill’s lawyers from Drew & Napier argued that CPIB’s failure to report the seizure within the prescribed time rendered the continued seizure illegal and warranted the return of the funds.

District Judge Shen Wanqin accepted the prosecution’s submission that the earlier delay no longer warranted the return of the funds.

CPIB lacked the lawful authority to continue exercising control over the funds from May 17, 2024 until it filed the report on Mar 24, 2025.

However, the filing of the report brought the seizure within the court’s supervisory jurisdiction, even if it did not retrospectively validate CPIB’s control during the period between May 2024 and March 2025.

“The earlier period of unlawful control therefore does not, by itself, warrant the return of the funds now,” said Judge Shen.

“Although CPIB had been in wrongful control of the seized property during the period of delayed reporting, the Court of Appeal held that once the seizure was reported, the delay ceased to provide a basis for judicial review seeking its release.”

Judge Shen said her conclusion did not diminish the significance of CPIB’s non-compliance.

“The lapse was significant and should not be repeated,” she said.

Judge Shen found that Bill’s right to be heard had been infringed in relation to the 2025 extension application. CPIB neither notified him of the application nor furnished him with the associated report.

Without notice of the application, Bill had no opportunity to make representations before the order was made. He also could not assess the grounds on which CPIB sought continued seizure, despite his lawyers expressly requesting that information.

CPIB furnished him with the report only on Apr 30, 2026, more than a year later.

Bill’s lawyers had argued that there was no reasonable basis to think the investigations remained ongoing, because they had not progressed substantively since 2023.

Judge Shen rejected this, saying the investigations concerned proceeds of foreign corruption offences channelled into Singapore and required CPIB to seek the cooperation of overseas authorities.

“Their progress therefore depends, at least in part, on responses from those authorities,” she said, pointing to correspondence CPIB had with overseas authorities between 2023 and 2025.

The evidence traced funds from Indonesian companies linked to Surya into the accounts of Palmbridge and Rich Asian, said the judge.

The evidence also traced “substantial sums” from Palmbridge and Rich Asian into Bill’s bank accounts, she added.

She found that the continued seizure of most of the funds was justified, as there was a reasonable basis to think they were proceeds of an offence.

The exception was about US$8.7 million, which could not presently be traced to fund flows linked to Surya’s criminal conduct. However, this sum will also remain under seizure because it is the subject of pending High Court proceedings.

“CPIB’s handling of the seizure was attended by significant procedural lapses,” concluded the judge.

“Its failure to notify Bill of the 2025 extension application and furnish him with the 2025 report infringed his right to be heard. Its failure to report the seizure by 17 May 2024 also meant that it lacked lawful authority to continue exercising control over the funds until the 2025 report was filed on 24 March 2025,” said Judge Shen.

“These safeguards serve important purposes. The right to be heard affords a person with an interest in seized property a meaningful opportunity to address its continued seizure, while the reporting requirement ensures that continued seizure is subject to timely judicial oversight.”

Bill has since been given a full opportunity to address the factual and legal bases for continued seizure, she said.

The High Court hearing will take place at a later date.