Connect with us

Legal

Helmsman on Inter-Pacific Petroleum legal battle: When ignorance meets fraud

Lester Ho, Associate Director of law firm Helmsman shared his timely key takeaways on the recent case of Goh Jin Hian against defunct Singapore bunker supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum.

Admin

Published

1 year ago

on

Lester Ho Helmsman

Lester Ho, Associate Director of multi-disciplinary law firm Helmsman LLC shared his timely key takeaways on the recent case of Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum when the Appellate Division of the High Court in Singapore overturned the High Court’s finding that Mr Goh’s breach had caused IPP to incur the losses:

The collapse of a company often prompts a search for blame, especially where the downfall stems from deliberate misconduct such as fraud that appears avoidable in hindsight. Unsurprisingly, a company’s directors are frequently perceived as the root of the problem and become prime suspects in the inevitable witch hunt for accountability. The recent case of Goh Jin Hian v Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] SGHC(A) 7 is a timely reminder of a director’s duties as well as the legal risks in the event of breach.

The downfall of Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (“IPP”) is well-documented. The Maritime Port Authority of Singapore suspended IPP’s bunker craft operator licence after discovering that the mass flow meter of a bunker tanker chartered by IPP had been tampered with. Concerns raised by IPP’s banks in relation to its business led its non-executive director, Mr Goh Jin Hian, to discover that it was heavily indebted to the banks. It was also discovered that the facilities had been used on sham sale and purchase transactions.

IPP was subsequently placed in compulsory liquidation, and Mr Goh was sued for breach of his director’s duties. It was alleged that the sham transactions could have been prevented had Mr Goh discharged his duties and that he was therefore responsible for IPP’s losses. At first instance, the High Court found that Mr Goh had breached his duty of care and ordered him to compensate IPP for approximately US$146 million in losses (Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Goh Jin Hian [2024] SGHC 178). Among other things, the High Court found that Mr Goh was in breach because he was entirely ignorant of IPP’s cargo trading business.

The Appellate Division of the High Court upheld the finding that Mr Goh had breached his duty for having been unaware of IPP’s cargo trading business. However, it overturned the High Court’s finding that Mr Goh’s breach had caused IPP to incur the losses. The Appellate Division found that IPP failed to prove that Mr Goh would have uncovered the sham transactions even if he had discharged his duty. Accordingly, Mr Goh was absolved of his liability to compensate IPP.

There are two broad takeaways from the decision.

The first takeaway is that every director, both executive and non-executive, is held to a minimum standard of care. This standard requires directors to take reasonable steps to put themselves in a position where they can guide and monitor the management of the company. Put simply, ignorance of a company’s business is no defence, even for non-executive directors that are not involved in everyday operations. Accordingly, although Mr Goh was a non-executive director, the fact that he was unaware that IPP was carrying on the business of cargo trading meant that he was in breach of his duties.

It may be surprising that a director could be entirely unaware of an important part of a company’s business. But the reality is that modern day companies have become commercial behemoths with complex and layered operations that makes it all too easy for directors (especially non-executive directors) to delegate oversight over critical business decisions and lose visibility of what their companies do. It is therefore important for directors, regardless of their formal titles, to ensure that there is a robust chain of reporting and command such that they have sufficient knowledge of the company’s operations to discharge their duties.

The second is that, while the law imposes high standards on directors, it does not demand unrealistic standards. As noted, the Appellate Division accepted that Mr Goh had breached his duties for having been unaware of IPP’s cargo trading business. However, it was not persuaded that, even if Mr Goh had discharged his duties and had been properly informed of IPP’s activities, the sham transactions could have been prevented. IPP was affected by what the Appellate Division considered a “deep-seated fraud” that had gone undetected even by IPP’s auditors. In the circumstances, it was far from clear that Mr Goh could have prevented the loss even if he had discharged his duty.

However, just because the law does not expect directors to be superhuman does mean that directors can afford to be complacent. Directors would still do well to take reasonable and diligent steps to ensure that they have a good grasp of the company’s operations and engage competent professionals (e.g., auditors) to help surface risks that they may otherwise miss. In a sense, Mr Goh avoided liability not because his breach was minor, but because the extent of the fraud perpetrated meant that the gravity of his breach cannot be said to have caused the loss. In other words, a less sophisticated or extensive fraud might have yielded a drastically different outcome – directors should take heed.

A timeline organised list of events preceding the current development of Inter-Pacific Petroleum has been recorded by Manifold Times below:

Related: Singapore: Ex-Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum wins appeal against former company
Related: Singapore: Ex-Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum appeals High Court decision
Related: Singapore: Former auditors of Inter-Pacific Petroleum undergo private oral examination at court
Related: Singapore: Civil trial between Inter-Pacific Petroleum and Dr Goh Jin Hian begins
Related: Former Singapore Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum sued for USD 156 million
Related: Inter-Pacific Petroleum creditors authorised to fund lawsuit against former Director
Related: New Silkroutes under investigation over possible breach of Securities and Futures Act
Related: Judicial Managers considering to take former Singapore Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum to court
Related: Singapore: Inter-Pacific Group receives winding up order from High Court
Related: Singapore: Inter-Pacific Group files for winding up application at High Court
Related: MPA revokes Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd bunker supplier licence
Related: Co-heads of Trade and Commodities Finance for Asia-Pacific leave SocGen
Related: Inter-Pacific Group, Inter-Pacific Petroleum to hold creditors’ meet
Related: NewOcean detains Singapore-flagged bunker tanker “Pacific Energy 28”
Related: SocGen lawsuit against NewOcean Petroleum dropped, party to counterclaim
Related: MPA revokes Inter-Pacific Petroleum bunker craft operator licence
Related: Magnets on MFMs: Trial starts for former bunker clerk of “Consort Justice
Related: First suspect charged over MFM tampering in landmark case
Related: With nearly $180 million of debt, IPP proposes interim judicial management
Related: Inter-Pacific Group, Inter-Pacific Petroleum under judicial management
Related: Magnets on MFMs: “Consort Justice” crew pleads ‘not guilty’ to tampering charge
Related: IPP responds to temporary suspension of bunker craft operator licence
Related: MPA temporarily suspends IPP bunker craft operator licence
Related: Singapore: Bunker Cargo officer, crew face charges over alleged MFM tampering

 

Photo credit: Helmsman
Published: 13 June, 2025

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Vessel Arrest

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

Other than the vessels, MMEA also seized a cargo of oil, bringing the total value of the seizure to MYR 260 million (USD 61.9 million).
Admin

Published

2 days ago

on

September 3, 2026

By

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) detained tugboat and dredger suspected of conducting an unauthorised ship-to-ship (STS) transfer in Malaysian waters.

The two Malaysian-registered vessels were detained at around 3.20am on Wednesday by an MMEA patrol boat after the agency received public information about two suspicious vessels seen operating alongside each other about 1.4 nautical miles northwest of Tanjung Buai.

MMEA Tanjung Sedili Zone Acting Director Maritime Commander Mohd Najib Sam said further inspection found that the tugboat was operated by five crew members, including its skipper, comprising Malaysian and Indonesian nationals aged between 26 and 58.

The dredger was operated by 13 crew members, including its skipper, all Malaysian nationals aged between 22 and 51.

“Further inspection also found a quantity of oil cargo believed to be without any documents relating to ownership and delivery,” Najib said.

Both vessels and the oil cargo have been seized for further investigation. The total value of the seizure, including the two vessels and the oil cargo, is estimated at MYR 260 million (USD 64 million).

The case is being investigated under Section 491B(1)(K) of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (MSO) 1952 for allegedly conducting ship-to-ship activities without authorisation from the Malaysian Director of Marine.

The vessels are also being investigated under Section 491B(1)(L) of the MSO 1952 for allegedly anchoring without permission, as well as under the Customs Act 1967 in connection with the oil cargo suspected of lacking the required documentation.

 

Photo credit: Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
Published: 3 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Claim

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

Partner V Bala says bunker disputes depend heavily on evidence gathered in the first 48 hours, making disciplined preservation, accurate reporting and early expert involvement critical to protecting a claim or defence.
Admin

Published

3 days ago

on

September 2, 2026

By

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

V Bala, a partner in Rajah & Tann Singapore’s Shipping & International Trade practice group, has highlighted the critical importance of preserving evidence in the first 48 hours of a bunker incident, outlining best practices for ship managers to protect potential claims and defences:

A vessel somewhere in the Indian Ocean reports abnormal fuel behaviour. Sludge is forming. Filters are clogging. Consumption looks wrong. Within hours, owners, charterers, managers, suppliers and insurers are exchanging messages. Everyone asks the same question: is there a claim? It is reasonable. It is also often premature. The better question is: what evidence will still exist in 48 hours to explain what happened?

For all the technical sophistication around modern bunker disputes, many are decided less by expert reports than by the first two days after trouble appears. The tribunal may sit years later. The factual foundation is usually laid before the vessel reaches its next port.

Bunker claims are commonly treated as technical contests about fuel specifications, ISO standards and competing laboratory results. They are that. But experienced litigators quickly notice a simpler pattern: the strongest cases are rarely built by the cleverest lawyers. They are built by the best recordkeepers.

The Vanishing Evidence Problem 

Unlike a collision, fire or grounding, bad bunkers leave few obvious visual traces. The evidence is scattered across tanks, samples, engine records, maintenance logs, performance data and electronic communications. Much of it can deteriorate, disappear or become contaminated with surprising speed.

A discarded sample cannot be recreated. A cleaned filter may tell a different story from one preserved immediately after failure. Electronic records overwritten in routine operations may never be recovered usefully. Crew change. Memories fade. The difficulty is that bunker incidents rarely feel like casualties when they first arise. They look like operational nuisances.

The Pressure to Move On 

A ship manager’s first duty is to keep the vessel trading. Engineers solve the immediate problem. Technical managers assess options. Owners watch delay. Charterers want assurance. The commercial pressure to restore normality is intense. It is also the moment when evidential mistakes are most easily made.

Fuel is blended before investigations are complete. Samples are mishandled. Machinery is repaired before it is properly photographed. Internal messages fill with theories. By the time experts arrive, the most useful evidence may already have changed.

The Danger of Instant Certainty 

Modern communication has made this harder. A concern raised in the engine room can reach executives across continents within minutes. The advantages are obvious. So are the risks.

The earliest explanations are often the least reliable. When machinery problems arise shortly after bunkering, the fuel is naturally blamed because it is the most visible recent change. Sometimes that is right. Sometimes it is not.

Yet once a theory enters circulation, it acquires momentum. Months later, early WhatsApp messages or emails written under pressure may be attached to witness statements, analysed by experts and scrutinised by lawyers. A passing operational remark can begin to look like a settled conclusion.

The Documentary Ship 

Shipping remains a documentary business. Despite digitalisation, disputes still turn on engine logs, maintenance reports, fuel transfer records, sounding measurements and superintendent correspondence.

What matters is not merely whether those records exist, but what story they tell together. Tribunals value contemporaneous documents because they were created before positions hardened. They are the closest thing to a real-time account.

Ship Managers at the Centre 

Ship managers sit at the centre of the network: owners, financiers, charterers, bunker suppliers, insurers and regulators. In bunker matters, their role now goes beyond technical operation. It includes preserving enough information to understand what happened if the matter becomes a claim.

What the Best Operators Do Differently 

If bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours, what do the best operators do differently? They treat fuel incidents as evidential events as well as operational ones. While engineers restore function, someone asks: if this becomes a dispute, what will we wish we had preserved today?

They resist instant certainty. Communications distinguish facts from theories. There is a difference between recording that power loss followed consumption from a particular tank and declaring that the supplier delivered bad fuel.

They know samples are useful only if identity, seals, labels and custody can be proved. They keep samples alongside the full operational record: delivery documents, tank soundings, transfer history, engine logs, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and ship-to-shore messages.

They preserve physical evidence before routine work alters it. Filters, residues and affected components may contain information that disappears once cleaned or discarded. Photographs should capture the condition found, not just the condition after repair.

Finally, they bring the right expertise to the problem early. They also involve the right people early: surveyors, laboratories, technical experts, insurers and lawyers. A surveyor or technical expert can help identify what should be sampled, photographed, retained and recorded before the evidence changes. Lawyers and insurers can help ensure that notifications are made, communications remain measured and contractual deadlines are not overlooked. The point is not to turn every operational problem into litigation. It is to avoid discovering, months later, that the ingredients of a sound claim or defence were lost during the first voyage after the incident.

The first 48-hour discipline 

PRESERVE Segregate the suspect fuel where practicable. Secure representative samples, seals, labels and a documented chain of custody. Retain affected filters, residues and components before cleaning or disposal.
RECORD Capture tank soundings, transfer history, consumption sequence, engine parameters, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and photographs. Preserve original electronic records and contemporaneous logs.
COMMUNICATE Report observed facts, not untested conclusions. Keep a disciplined chronology of what happened, when it happened, who was informed and what action was taken.
NOTIFY Check contractual notice provisions and inform the relevant owner, charterer, supplier, manager, insurer or P&I club promptly. Delay can damage both evidence and rights.
DEPLOY Involve the appropriate surveyor, laboratory, technical expert and legal team before the condition of the evidence changes, not after positions have hardened.

The lesson is simple. In bunker disputes, the law often comes late. The evidence comes early. The party that preserves it calmly, completely and without premature blame gives itself the best chance of winning the argument when the dispute finally arrives.

 

Photo credit: Rajah & Tann Singapore
Published: 2 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Notices of intended dividend issued for Hua An Shipping and related firms

Creditors will need to produce proofs of debt to liquidators of Hua An Shipping, Hua Guang Shipping, Nan Hai Maritime, Nan Sia Maritime and Nan Zhou Maritime by 11 September.
Admin

Published

5 days ago

on

August 31, 2026

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

Notices of intended dividend for Hua An Shipping Pte Ltd, Hua Guang Shipping Pte Ltd, Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd, Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd and Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd were published on the Government Gazette on Friday (28 August). 

The following are the details of the notice of Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd:

Name of Company : Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No. : 200610919Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / : 200610922R Registration No.
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Hai Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. /Registration No. : 200814299M
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private, Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Sia Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No.  / Registration No.  : 200814320Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Zhou Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No.: 200814295H
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer

Published: 31 August, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending