Connect with us

Legal

BP Singapore bunker trial: Prosecution and Defence present submissions (Part 1)

Submissions were the main focus of Tuesday’s trial involving the former BP Singapore Regional Marine Manager and executive director of Pacific Prime Trading.

Admin

Published

on

5b6a6b9738078 1533701015

Manifold Times was present at the BP Singapore bunker trial on Tuesday. The following report is part one (of two) focusing on submissions from Clarence Chang and Koh Seng Lee’s defence attorneys; part two which covers submissions from the public prosecutor will be published in a separate article on 9 August.

Submissions of the prosecution and defence were the main focus of Tuesday’s trial involving former BP Singapore Regional Marine Manager Clarence Chang and Koh Seng Lee, the sole shareholder and executive director of Pacific Prime Trading (PPT), at the State Courts of Singapore.

Chang was facing 20 charges for allegedly accepting bribes totalling USD $3.95 million from Koh between the period of July 31, 2006 and July 26, 2010.

Defence submissions of Koh Seng Lee
Chelva Retnam Rajah, Partner of Tan Rajah & Cheah, who represents Koh explained there was no “obvious advantage” for his client to participate in such an activity.

He said PPT participating in a back-to-back arrangement with BP, where PPT buys bunker fuel oil from BP, bore the risk of fluctuating oil prices.

“In coming to this arrangement BP cushioned themselves completely from the risk of price fluctuations,” says Rajah.

“Now, the allegation is that this back-to-back arrangement was to PPT's obvious advantage but what was this obvious advantage?

“That has not been spelled out because if BP read the market wrongly it was PPT that will be exposed to fluctuations in oil [prices].”

Rajah moved on to address evidence found from the Function for Approval Department of BP, which pointed out Chang offered advantages to PPT due to it being the oil major’s biggest counterparty.

“If that biggest counterparty does not know its business and doesn’t trade properly he will not get the biggest advantage [instead] he will get biggest losses as the counterparty is taking all the risk and there was no obvious advantage in this arrangement that gives you the opportunity to make a lot of money and also opportunity to lose a lot of money,” he said.

“Mr Koh was prepared to do that. Why was he selected in the first place? Mr Koh got the opportunity as he has been long in the business and he was given the opportunity as he was able to run the business successfully.”

Rajah also questioned the alleged bribes which Chang received from Koh, as the first bribe was paid to Chang in July 2006 – five years after PPT started business with BP in 2001.

“In those five years not a single dollar was paid to Clarence [Chang] if this was a plan from the start as alleged by the prosecution then one would have thought the reasonable time to withdraw payments [for inducement for business from 2001] but the payments started in 2006 and that scenario does not fit,” he says.

Rajah further noted PPT’s profit and loss accounts from 2005 to 2009 showed Koh paid Chang more than what the company earned during the period. Overall, BP was the entity which ultimately gained from commercial dealings between Chang and Koh.

“Finally, has BP suffered any loss on these transactions? No! In fact, it has achieved risk free oil deals and in those circumstances we submit to the first accused [Koh] that the essential elements of the crime and charge relating to the money paid to advance the interest of PPT and BP, and these monies were paid with corrupt motive, as not been brought out by any of the evidence.” he said.

Defence submissions of Clarence Chang 
Andre Maniam, Senior Counsel at WongPartnership, presenting Chang highlighted the prosecution may want to reframe charges against his client due to his employment status with BP during certain dates.

According to him, Chang was “charged in 26 July 2010 in Singapore being an agent of BP marine fuels”.  However, Chang was neither an employee nor an agent of BP after 9 July 2010 as he has already left the company.

“The problem is […] much more fundamental. Does this even fit into the case theory? After he left BP, he corruptly obtained gratification from someone he is not employed with. There is no evidence as there is none,” he said.

Maniam pointed out the prosecution’s portrayal of Chang allegedly taking a share of PPT profits as flawed because “a share of PPT profits cannot be more than PPT’s profits.”

“As in the prosecution’s case these were bribes. Mr Rajah says these bribes doesn’t make sense as in the first year Mr Koh was giving away almost all the profits [of PPT]. By March 2008 to March 2010, he had given more than what his business makes.”

Maniam further questioned the reliability of BP bunker trade data being used against his client due to the selective omission of marine gas oil (MGO) sales figures from Malaysia and non-Singapore ports.

“So what if PPT was the largest counterparty? Is it a reasonable reason to believe there was corruption? There was no evidence. If Koh was not good at what he did, he did not deserve the volumes being transacted with him. The fact is BP continued to transact with PPT some five years after Clarence Chang left,” he says.

“It is entirely unsafe to draw if PPT was the largest counterparty and if the share increased then there must be corruption.”

Chang’s suggestion to use Vermont UM Bunkering as an additional counterparty for BP, when PPT was not performing well in 2009, also went against the nature of his role in the case, Maniam said.

“Clarence Chang was getting money from Mr Koh supposedly to keep PPT business with BP going on and he was not getting anything from Vermont. Instead of doing supposedly what he was bribed to do, he brings in a new party where Mr Koh has a share and he gets nothing from Vermont,” said Maniam. 

“It all doesn’t make sense. It only makes sense in the prosecution’s case theory if he kept Vermont out of it and he maximised PPT as he was bribed to do.”

Related: BP Singapore bunker bribery case update: BP bunker trade data in question
RelatedBP Singapore bunker bribery case update: CPIB officer takes to the stand
RelatedUPDATE: BP Singapore bunker bribery case
RelatedBP Singapore bunker bribery case continues

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 8 August, 2018

 

Continue Reading

Incident

India: MSC faces USD 1.1 billion lawsuit from Kerala state over “MSC ELSA 3” bunker spill

Reports noted approximately 84 mt of diesel and 376 mt of fuel oil on board the stricken vessel when it sank carrying 643 boxes.

Admin

Published

on

By

MSC Elsa 3 MT

Swiss-based Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) is reportedly facing a USD 1.1 billion lawsuit from India’s southern state of Kerala which is seeking compensation over marine fuel leaked from MSC ELSA 3 into the Arabian Sea in May.

The High Court of Kerala on Monday (7 July) ordered authorities to seize containership MSC Akiteta II which was anchored in Vizhinjam Port until securities for the claim amount are deposited.

The 1,700 TEU capacity containership MSC ELSA 3 was sailing from Vizhinjam to Kochi when failure in its ballast management system caused it to sink on 25 May about 13 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala.

Reports noted approximately 84 metric tonnes (mt) of diesel and 376 mt of fuel oil on board the stricken vessel when it sank carrying 643 boxes.

 

Photo credit: Indian Ministry of Defence
Published: 9 July 2025

Continue Reading

Legal

Shell MGO bunker heist: Co-conspirator receives 302-month jail sentence

Abdul Latif Bin Ibrahim and accomplices siphoned over 150,000 mt of gasoil worth at least USD 74 million from Shell Pukom between August 2014 and January 2018.

Admin

Published

on

By

resized supreme court

A Judge at the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on Monday (7 July) sentenced Abdul Latif Bin Ibrahim, a former Process Technician working at Shell Pulau Bukom, to a jail term of 25 years and two months (302 months), reported the Straits Times.

Latif pleaded guilty to a total of 30 charges – 20 charges under criminal breach of trust and 10 charges under money laundering – while consenting to have 34 remaining charges taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

The 67-year-old male is due to start his prison sentence on 30 September 2025.

Court documents obtained by Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times showed Latif, with the help of other rogue Shell employees, siphoning over 150,000 metric tonnes (mt) of gasoil valued at least USD 74,469,000 (approximately SGD 100,601,000) from Shell Eastern Petroleum Pte Ltd’s (Shell) Pulau Bukom facility between August 2014 and January 2018.

Latif was arrested on 7 January 2018.

Investigations found him receiving a total of at least about SGD 7 million in criminal benefits between 2014 to 2018, of which he spent these monies on luxury watches, foreign property, cars, amongst others.

Authorities have seized assets worth approximately SGD 7.67 million from Latif; amongst recovered are:

  • One Rolex Daytona (leather strap) watch worth SGD 28,800
  • One Frank Muller watch worth SGD 7,000
  • One Frank Muller watch worth SGD 8,000
  • 03 packs of 1,000 pcs of SGD 1,000 notes worth SGD 3 million
  • 991 pcs of 1,000 pcs of SGD 1,000 notes worth SGD 991,000
  • 400 pcs of 1,000 pcs of SGD 1,000 notes worth SGD 400,000
  • Sales balance proceeds of BMW M5 worth SGD 174,300
  • Sales balance proceeds of Mercedes Benz E43 worth SGD 276,200
  • Sales balance proceeds of Aston Martin DBS Coupe worth SGD 338,200
  • Sale proceeds from property at St Martin’s Dr worth SGD 670,000
  • Sale proceeds from property at Suites@Braddell worth SGD 557,200

Earlier coverage of developments by Manifold Times regarding the Shell MGO bunker heist can be found below:

Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Man sentenced to jail for hindering police investigations
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Bunker clerk gets jail time for helping Sentek acquire misappropriated fuel
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Bunker clerk pleads guilty to helping Sentek acquire misappropriated fuel
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-Shell employees sentenced to more than 23 years in prison each
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-Shell employees plead guilty to multiple offences
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-Shell employee receives over 16-year jail sentence
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-Intertek Surveyor sentenced to four months’ jail for corruption
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-Intertek Surveyor pleads guilty to corruption charge
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Shell Process Technician receives 195-month jail sentence
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Police seize property, cars, watches from ex-Shell Bukom Process Technician
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-Shell blending specialist jailed over USD 956,000 worth of misappropriated gasoil
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Former Intertek, Inspectorate surveyors receive fines, jail sentences
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-CCIC Singapore surveyor pleads guilty to misconduct, receiving USD 12k in bribes
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-Process Technician receives 184-month prison sentence over illicit involvement
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Syndicate member’s nephew jailed over concealment of safe containing valuables
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: 12 former surveyors from Intertek, Inspectorate, CCIC, SGS charged for corruption
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Former Shore Loading Officer receives 29-year jail sentence over total 85 charges
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-Process Technician received minimum SGD 735,000 in benefits, faces 43 charges
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Ex-Shell employee admits leading role in illicit operation
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Sentek ex-Director faces 40 fresh charges
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Two former Shell employees jailed over theft
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: High Court affirms ‘Prime South’ forfeiture to Singapore State
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Three ex-Shell employees charged with bribing surveyors
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Second ex-Shell employee pleads guilty to nine charges
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: First ex-Shell employee to plead guilty over involvement
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Director of Singapore bunkering firm released from police custody
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Oil tanker ‘Prime South’ forfeited by State Courts of Singapore
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist: Director of Singapore bunkering firm face charge at State Courts
Related: Shell Singapore oil heist: Third offender pleads guilty for gas oil theft
Related: Captain of “Prime South” jailed in Shell Pulau Bukom gas oil theft
Related: Shell Singapore oil heist: Ex-Chief Officer of Prime South jailed
Related: Singapore: Shell MGO bunker heist amount balloons to USD$142 million
Related: Shell MGO bunker heist update: Fresh charges issued at Singapore court
Related: Shell Singapore oil heist: More charges issued at court
Related: Shell Singapore oil heist: Breakdown of stolen oil cargoes
Related: Intertek Singapore employee among Shell oil heist suspects

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 8 July 2025

Continue Reading

Vessel Arrest

Malaysia: MMEA detains tanker transporting 62,000 litres of diesel off Port Klang

Vessel was operated by a 43-year-old Indonesia captain with a crew of six Indonesians; captain failed to present any documents permitting the transport of the diesel which is a controlled item.

Admin

Published

on

By

Malaysia: MMEA detains tanker carrying 62,000 litres of diesel off Port Klang

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) on Friday (4 July) said it detained a tanker carrying 62,000 litres of diesel without valid documentation off Port Klang on 3 July. 

Selangor MMEA director Maritime Captain Abdul Muhaimin Muhammad Salleh said the tanker was detained at about one nautical mile west of Tanjung Harapan at 1.30pm during a routine patrol in Selangor waters. 

Initial checks showed the tanker was operated by a 43-year-old Indonesia captain with a crew of six, aged between 21 and 51, who were also Indonesians. All of them had complete identification documents. 

However, the captain failed to present any documents permitting the transport of the diesel cargo which is a controlled item. 

With that, a detention order was issued for the tanker. Both the captain and second engineer were arrested and were brought to the marine police jetty in Pulau Indah for further investigation. 

The case will be investigated under the Control of Supplies Act 1961 for failure to provide a permit or special licences from the Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry to possess, store or transport controlled goods.  

 

Photo credit: Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
Published: 7 July, 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending