[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: Karl Liew, son of former Changi Airport Group Chairman Liew Mun Leong, has been investigated for possible crimes, including perjury, Minister of Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Parliament on Wednesday (November 4) .
“Karl has been investigated as to whether he committed any crime, including perjury,” Shanmugam said in his ministerial statement on the case of former Indonesian servant Parti Liyani.
READ: Parti Liyani seeks compensation order for robbery trial, says she suffered losses of around S $ 71,000
“The investigations have been completed. A statement based on the investigations will be announced tonight. “
Perjury in this case is giving false evidence to the court.
Ms. Parti had been convicted in March last year by a trial court of stealing S $ 34,000 from Mr. Liew and his family, but the conviction was overturned by the High Court on September 4.
At Judge Chan Seng Onn’s trial, the judge outlined various problems with the conviction findings and how the case was handled.
In particular, the High Court highlighted the evidence Karl presented and said it was unreliable, Shanmugam said, adding that the court gave it little weight.
INCONSISTENCIES
The Superior Court found problems with Karl’s testimony regarding various items allegedly belonging to him. These items were in the second count that was given to Ms. Parti.
For example, the High Court said it did not clearly identify some pieces of clothing, such as a black dress, as if it were in its possession, and it had difficulties with other items, such as a red blouse.
“The Supreme Court found Karl’s claim that he was wearing women’s shirts suspicious,” Shanmugam said.
When Karl Liew testified that a Gucci wallet and a Braun Buffel wallet belonged to him and were gifts from his family, none of his family members remembered giving him those wallets, Shanmugam said.
READ: Chief Justice grants investigation into Parti Liyani’s misconduct complaint against prosecutors
“The Superior Court did not believe his evidence and thought he was being false,” he said.
The High Court did not believe his evidence that a Helix watch was a gift from his father, Shanmugam said, adding that Liew has denied having such an item.
“Karl agreed that a pink knife that he had previously said he bought before 2002 was probably made after that date,” Shanmugam said.
“The Superior Court said this affected the credibility of Karl and his property claim.”
Mr Shanmugam said that the High Court also did not believe Karl’s evidence that he had purchased a Habitat sheet in the UK, noting that the Court said that Karl had “fabricated his testimony”.
“The sheet had the same pattern as a duvet cover that had an IKEA label on it,” Shanmugam said. “Karl’s wife, Heather, also testified that she had never seen the sheet from her room put on her bed.”
“CAVALIER ATTITUDE”
In the wake of this case, Mr. Shanmugam said that the Attorney General’s Office has decided that from now on it will “seriously consider” whether there should be further investigations or proceedings on serious crimes identified in the findings issued in the course of legal proceedings.
The minister said Karl has given statements on whether the items highlighted by the High Court had been in his possession, and his explanations for his “inconsistencies” regarding these items during the trial.
READ: Chairman of Changi Airport Group suspected the maid of stealing for years, but tolerated her behavior
Shamugam said Karl gave “inconsistent answers” in some areas and, in some cases, the testimony of one of the Liews was contradicted or “at odds” with the evidence of another family member.
“There are many aspects of Karl’s conduct and evidence … that are very unsatisfactory, that generate skepticism, based on what he said at trial,” he said. “He did not appear to be a credible witness.”
Mr. Shanmugam noted that there was some debate about the value of some of the items, and said that an expert witness had stated that some of the watches were fake or of no value.
“This testimony was not directly contradicted,” he said.
Shanmugam said the defense also included some articles on dumpster diving, suggesting that expensive items like branded bags are disposed of in the garbage in Singapore.
“The argument is that Ms. Liyani could have found, for example, the Prada handbag and the jewelry that (Mr. Liew’s daughter) May says were hers, in the trash,” he added.
When filing a police report, Shanmugam said that making claims on items should be taken seriously.
“It doesn’t have to be a complete account, but it should be done with careful consideration,” he said.
“Looking at the evidence, the impression one has is that there seems to have been an arrogant attitude on the part of the Liews, in the way that some elements were identified as belonging to them and in the way that values were assigned to some elements . “
