\n<\/p>\n
Earlier during the trial, Mr Singh argued that the Bloomberg article falsely portrayed Singapore\u2019s GCB market \u2014 and by implication their transactions \u2014 as linked to secrecy, opacity, weak oversight and money laundering concerns.<\/span><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019s GCB market, and did not allege any wrongdoing or money laundering.<\/span><\/p>\n A key issue in the trial was whether non-caveated property transactions were secretive, as suggested in Bloomberg\u2019s article.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019s (SLA\u2019s) Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS).<\/span><\/p>\n However, he said that while the information was available, it remained difficult and costly for members of the public to do such searches.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Mr Singh also pointed to internal Bloomberg emails discussing how his GCB sale could be \u201cwrapped\u201d into a broader story about buyers using trust structures to transact properties.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Mr Low disagreed with the characterisation, arguing that his interest was primarily on the buyer of the property.<\/span><\/p>\n The internal emails presented during the trial also showed how Bloomberg editors had raised concerns about whether the article amounted to \u201cnaming and shaming\u201d individuals whose transactions were not previously widely known.<\/span><\/p>\n Mr Singh argued that Mr Low had deliberately downplayed Singapore\u2019s anti-money laundering safeguards despite being referred to information such as ministerial speeches detailing the country\u2019s anti-money laundering regime.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Mr Low maintained that the article was not focused on money laundering, although he accepted under further questioning that the article did make repeated references to money laundering.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Another line of argument by Mr Singh centred on whether the article falsely implied that the Singapore government did not verify the identities of beneficiaries behind trusts.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The claimants alleged that the article suggested checks were largely left to private sector \u201cservice providers\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Mr Low disagreed, stating that his article did not indicate that the private sector was the only responsible parties.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n During Mr Sreenivasan\u2019s questioning of Mr Low, the court also heard evidence from internal SLA correspondence that showed why officers did not include information about INLIS in their reply to Bloomberg\u2019s queries.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n