Brother of convict in S$3 billion money laundering case jailed over receiving S$17.6 million

Around Sep 9, 2020, Ruisheng explained that the transfers were due to the sale of a property in Macau.

He submitted a sales and purchase agreement dated Aug 8, 2020 linked to the purported sale of a commercial property in Macau from himself to a Wang Jian.

The sales and purchase agreement was purportedly signed by Ruisheng and Wang Jian, bearing the company stamp of Beiyin. The agreement stated that the property was sold for HK$87.7 million (S$14.3 million).

Around Sep 23, 2020, Ruisheng submitted a loan agreement to the relationship manager. The agreement purportedly showed that he had loaned S$6 million to Han Li and was due to receive repayments in two tranches of S$3 million within six and 12 months of the agreement date.

He claimed this was a friendly loan, with no interest charged.

The relationship manager conveyed Ruisheng’s explanation and documentation to CIMB’s financial crime analytics team.

However, the two documents were discovered to be forged.

Ruisheng later admitted that he never had any dealings with the two companies and had never owned any properties in Macau.

He also said he had never even heard of the two companies and claimed he had not signed the documents.

His brother, Ruijin, had been convicted of using the forged sales and purchase agreement as genuine.

MONEY USED ON PROPERTY

Ruisheng had used the money he received to buy property. He used about S$10.4 million to pay for the purchase price and stamp duty for a property at 69 Cove Drive between September and October 2020.

After the purchase was completed, CIMB decided to terminate the banking relationship with Ruisheng based on their review of the transactions and documents provided.

Before the account was closed, Ruisheng issued a cheque to withdraw the remaining balance of almost S$5 million in the account.

He later issued another cheque in March 2021 for the sum of S$2.1 million from another bank to pay for part of the 20 per cent deposit for the purchase of a property at 79 Cove Drive.

The property at 79 Cove Drive was held in the sole name of Ruisheng’s other brother, Zhang Ruicai.

Ruisheng later failed to give a satisfactory account for how he came by the S$17.6 million in his CIMB account.

He agreed to have the seized Toyota Vellfire and the 69 Cove Drive property forfeited to the state.

Ruisheng’s brother Ruijin had been ordered to forfeit around S$118 million of his assets to the state, about 90 per cent of the assets originally seized by the police.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Jordon Li sought 13 months’ jail, comparing Ruisheng’s case with his brother Ruijin’s.

Mr Li said both brothers had used essentially the same forged document to justify the transfers into their respective bank accounts.

He said money laundering is a serious offence that enables criminals to receive, withhold and enjoy the proceeds of their crimes.

Ruisheng was represented by Mr Julian Tay and Mr Anthony Wong from Lee & Lee.

Mr Tay pointed to his client’s “limited role” in the criminal enterprise and the “significant” surrender of his assets.

“At the very minimum, it evinces his remorse,” said the lawyer, adding that his client was a “mature first-time offender” who otherwise led a “law-abiding life”.

For possessing property that represents the benefits of criminal conduct, Ruisheng could have been sentenced to a maximum of three years’ jail, a fine of up to S$150,000, or both.

As his charge contained multiple instances, the maximum penalties were doubled.