SINGAPORE - Singaporean businessman David Yong was on Aug 8 handed two new charges over falsifying accounts in relation to a promissory note arrangement involving Evergreen Group Holdings.
The 37-year-old chief executive of Evergreen Group Holdings, whose full name is Yong Khung Lin, is accused of having the intention to defraud by abetting his employee Jolene Low Mong Han to falsify papers belonging to Evergreen GH, formerly known as Evergreen Assets Management.
Evergreen GH is one of the entities under Evergreen Group Holdings.
The new charges state that on or about Dec 16, 2021, Yong had allegedly instigated Low to falsify two tax invoices from Evergreen Assets Management for purported sales of furniture to two separate entities.
One invoice was dated May 13, 2021, made out to Evergreen Venture Capital. The other was dated Oct 22, 2021, for purported sales of furniture and interior design services to Tay Ai Chern Pearlrie.
The fresh charges come five days after Yong was charged on Aug 3 with falsification of accounts. On or about Dec 16, 2021, he had allegedly instigated Low to falsify a tax invoice from Evergreen Assets Management dated Sept 1, 2021, for purported bulk sales of household fittings and appliances to a person named Roy Teo.
If convicted, Yong could be fined or jailed for up to 10 years, or both, under Section 477A of the Penal Code.
By signing up, I accept SPH Media's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy as amended from time to time.
Yong, who was featured in Netflix series Super Rich In Korea, is in remand at the Central Police Division after police arrested him on Aug 1.
He was denied bail on Aug 8 after the prosecution argued that bail should not be granted due to ongoing investigations. The additional charges indicate that further evidence was obtained during Yong’s first period of remand, said the prosecution.
The prosecution said the investigations are complex, as the Evergreen group of companies headed by Yong involves numerous corporate entities both in Singapore and overseas, and many people.
Yong is “at present a real flight risk notwithstanding his roots in Singapore”, the prosecution added.
The court heard how the Commercial Affairs Department’s (CAD) investigations uncovered that Yong is in possession of a Cambodian identity card and passport belonging to one Duong Dara, bearing the same photograph and birth date of Yong.
However, the whereabouts of these Cambodian identification documents are currently unknown, the prosecution said, noting that the existence of the documents was established by investigations and not revealed by Yong.
That gives rise to the inference that there is a possibility Yong “is hiding his possession of these documents and that he may attempt to use them to flee if not further remanded”.
Yong’s lawyer Sunil Sudheesan of law firm Quahe Woo & Palmer argued that bail could be granted on stringent conditions under which Yong reports daily to CAD for the purpose of helping with investigations. Yong could also be tagged, which would allow the police to track his whereabouts.
Yong, who was dressed in a red shirt and appeared in court via video link, said he had renounced his Cambodian citizenship in early June and was willing to follow all the conditions for his bail to be granted.
District Judge James Elisha Lee granted the prosecution’s request to remand Yong for seven more days. His case will be heard again on Aug 15.
With bail denied, Mr Sudheesan made several requests for an in-person meeting with Yong on Aug 8 or 9, ranging from an hour of unrestricted access to a five-minute meeting in the presence of an investigating officer.
Mr Sudheesan earlier raised concerns about Yong’s mental health, citing a 2021 report from Raffles Hospital indicating that Yong had post-traumatic stress disorder. The lawyer emphasised the need to discuss procedural issues and inform Yong about his rights, and questioned how such meetings could impede police investigations.
The prosecution argued that the right to counsel is not immediate and should be exercised within a reasonable timeframe. Yong is a practising lawyer and would know his rights, the prosecution added, highlighting the case’s complexity and the early stage of investigations that required CAD to focus on following leads and gathering evidence.
The prosecution assured the court that Yong would be granted access to his lawyer a day or two before the next court mention.
District Judge Lee denied Mr Sudheesan’s requests to meet Yong, accepting the prosecution’s submissions.
Yong told the court on Aug 8 that he is “in a very bad mental state”.
He mentioned seeing a doctor at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) on Aug 3, and asked to see a specialist at Raffles Hospital.
In response, the prosecution said a memo from the IMH doctor did not specifically recommend a specialist and Yong has not raised any other medical complaints since Aug 3, adding that any medical condition raised would be addressed as soon as possible.
On Aug 3, the police said CAD was investigating the business activities of Evergreen Group Holdings for alleged fraud.
They noted that various companies under Evergreen Group Holdings, including Evergreen Grp Holdings, Evergreen GH and Everventures, were raising funds through the issuance of promissory notes that promised an annual interest of 10 per cent.
The investigations came about because of suspicions that investor funds were misused, and that these promissory notes might have been issued in contravention of the Securities and Futures Act, which regulates activities and institutions in the securities and futures industry.
In addition to Yong, Evergreen Group Holdings chief operating officer Desmond Sim, 37, was also arrested on Aug 1 in connection with the case. Mr Sim has been released on bail.
As at Aug 3, records from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority listed Yong as the sole shareholder of Evergreen GH, which was incorporated in 2018. He ceased being a director of the firm in December 2023.
On Jan 27, 2023, Evergreen GH was placed on the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Investor Alert List to warn consumers that the company was not regulated or licensed to provide financial services in Singapore.