Blood Lust (16 page)

The following day, surprise was caused when
Mr Arthur Y.K. Yoke, counsel for Gui, unexpectedly announced that Gui’s elder
brother, Ngai Ting Sung, had decided to join him in claiming the 120 gold bars.
Counsel said he was also representing Ngai. Gui Liat Kok told the Court that
his brother Ngai was in charge of the family business in Hong Kong. He said
that Ngai used the family funds to buy gold from Singapore and Ngai had told him
to go to Singapore to make a claim for the gold.

Ngai said he based his claim on two
remittances of US$157,000 on 12 December 1971 and another US$35,000 on 29
December 1971 to the United Overseas Bank from Hong Kong for the purpose of
buying the gold bars. Asked by his counsel how he arranged the money to buy the
gold, Ngai said he used the money from the Hong Kong Bank Ltd in Hong Kong to
buy US dollars, and then remitted the US dollars to Singapore through Crockers,
an American Bank. Ngai said he lived in Hong Kong.

A number of witnesses were summoned to the
inquiry and a great deal of information about gold dealing and other matters
were produced. It was revealed for instance that Ngo had a first wife, Mdm Tan
Poh Chin. Mdm Goh Chang Hong was his secondary wife: he was separated from Mdm
Tan. Rose Chan Ah Loy, when asked by the DPP if she had been Ngo’s mistress,
claimed that she could also be regarded as a secondary wife. She said she had
been kept by Ngo for two or three years before his death. She said she had
known him a long time.

Inspector Oh explained how the inquiry came
into being. After the trial, he had been instructed to apply for an inquiry
into the disposal of the gold bars. He therefore swore a complaint before a
magistrate. Then he drafted a press statement calling for claimants. This was
published on 22 August 1974. The notice set 6 September 1974 as the deadline
for claimants to make their claims. Four parties then claimed the gold.

Rose Chan said she knew all about the sale
of gold to Vietnam. Sometimes, she said, she went to the hotel to collect US
currency from Vietnamese pilots. She never saw any of the gold.

Gui Liat Kok insisted that Ngo bought the
gold to send to his brother in Hong Kong.

Counsel (Mr L.A.J. Smith): You know
that gold in Hong Kong costs the same as it does in Singapore?

Gui Liat Kok: I heard there was a
profit to be made.

Counsel: I put it to you: your brother
would have suffered a loss if he imported 120 gold bars from Singapore?

Gui Liat Kok: My view is my brother
would have made money.

Counsel: I put it to you that you have
given false evidence?

Gui Liat Kok: I am telling the truth.

Counsel: You were promised a cut if you
succeeded?

Gui Liat Kok: That is not true.

Counsel: When did you know the 120 bars
were to be bought?

Gui Liat Kok: I went to Hong Kong on 24
September 1971.

Counsel: The gold was bought on 29
December 1971?

Gui Liat Kok: I knew gold prices
fluctuated. I gave my brother authority to buy.

Counsel: You knew three months ahead
that you were going to buy gold on 29 December 1971?

Gui Liat Kok: I often went to Hong Kong
and my brother informed me.

Counsel: When purchasing gold two factors
must be considered: they are, one, the price of gold, and two, the cost of
American dollars?

Gui Liat Kok: I agree.

Counsel: And the place you sell the
gold to must be prepared to pay a good price?

Gui Liat Kok: I do agree.

Counsel: You are a financial wizard to
anticipate all factors three months ahead?

Gui Liat Kok: My elder brother and my
late father were doing this kind of business for several decades.

Counsel: I am putting it to you that
you are not telling the truth?

Gui Liat Kok: I am on oath. I am
telling the truth.

Counsel: Andrew Chou told the Court
that the 120 gold bars were destined for Saigon. Do you now tell us that it was
meant for Hong Kong?

Gui Liat Kok: How it gets to Hong Kong
doesn’t matter. What is important is that my lot of gold reaches the
destination.

Counsel: You are part of a conspiracy
to claim the gold?

Gui Liat Kok: I am the owner of the
gold.

Counsel: You are making a fraudulent
claim?

Gui Liat Kok: I deny that.

Counsel: Your case is simply this: the
account is in my name, so the gold is mine?

Gui Liat Kok: Yes. I should add the
gold was bought with family funds. Therefore, the gold belongs to the family.

Counsel: Is it not a fact that you
personally have not received one single bank statement in relation to that
account?

Gui Liat Kok: That is correct.

Counsel: Is it not a fact that you did
not go to inspect this account before this inquiry—before 9 September 1974?

Gui Liat Kok: That is correct.

Counsel: Is it not a fact that even at
this stage you are not able to point to a sum of money belonging to your family
in this account?

Gui Liat Kok: That is correct.

Counsel: Is it not a fact that you
personally have not a shred of evidence to prove that this gold was bought with
your family money?

Gui Liat Kok: I believe what my brother
told me. He told me he had bought the gold with the money.

Counsel: That is the only evidence you
have?

Gui Liat Kok: Before Ngo’s death, my
elder brother told me he was going to make use of a portion of the family fund
to buy gold.

Counsel: That is all?

Gui Liat Kok: Yes.

Counsel: Did he ever tell you how much?

Gui Liat Kok: A million Hong Kong
dollars.

Counsel: Did he tell you the purpose
for using a million Hong Kong dollars to buy the gold?

Gui Liat Kok: He told me the gold would
be used as a reserve fund, because it was safer to keep gold than money.

Counsel: Did you know the gold bars
were about to be shipped to Vietnam?

Gui Liat Kok: No.

Counsel: If the gold was on its way to
Vietnam it could not possibly be your brother’s gold?

Gui Liat Kok: All I know is that my
brother told me he was buying gold. I do not know which particular lot it was.
My brother told me that the 120 gold bars for which Ngo was murdered had been
purchased by family funds.

Counsel: It is possible that your
brother assumed the gold was his when in fact it was not?

Gui Liat Kok: I suggest these questions
be put to my brother.

Counsel: Is it not a fact that anyone
can buy gold in Hong Kong?

Gui Liat Kok: Yes.

Counsel: Is it not a fact that the
price of gold in Hong Kong is slightly lower than the price of gold in
Singapore?

Gui Liat Kok: I do not know.

Counsel: Is it not apparent that if
your brother in Hong Kong wanted to buy gold for financial security he would
have bought the gold in Hong Kong?

Gui Liat Kok: I do not question my
brother about business transactions.

Counsel: Is it not a fact that gold can
only be bought in Singapore for export within four hours?

Gui Liat Kok: I do not know the
regulations.

Counsel: Is it not a fact that there is
no point in exporting gold from Singapore to Hong Kong?

Gui Liat Kok: I have no experience of
how this business is done.

Counsel: Ngo was engaged in
transferring gold from Singapore to Vietnam because there was a black market in
Vietnam. If you and your brother were interested in gold would you not sell it
in Vietnam because there is a black market there?

Gui Liat Kok: I do not believe it would
be done in that manner.

Counsel: You are not interested in the
black market?

Gui Liat Kok: No.

Counsel: The account is all about black
market?

Gui Liat Kok: I do not know how Ngo
operated my account.

Counsel: Had you suspected that Ngo was
operating on the black market you would have stopped it?

Gui Liat Kok: Yes.

Gai Tian Sung, giving evidence in Hokkien,
said he was Gui Liat Kok’s elder brother. Gai said he lived in Hong Kong and
was also known as Wee Tian Sung. He had four other brothers. They lived in
Amoy, China. He had known Ngo when he was 14 in Amoy. He was then 57. He was
basing his claim for the 120 gold bars on his remittance from Hong Kong of
US$157,000 on 28 December 1970 and a further remittance of US$35,000 on 29
December 1970 to the UOB in Singapore to buy gold. The money was remitted by
telegraphic transfer through the Hong Kong Bank Ltd. This bank would remit the
American dollars to Singapore through an American bank known as Crockers.

Why did he buy gold in Singapore rather than
in Hong Kong? Gai explained that in Hong Kong gold is 99th of a 100th per cent
pure, whereas in Singapore it is 999th of a 1000th pure. There was little
difference, he said, in price.

In reply to a question by counsel, Mr Gai
said he knew the 120 gold bars were destined for him in Hong Kong. Previous
consignments had passed through Vietnam on their way to Hong Kong. When he came
to Singapore for Ngo’s funeral, Mrs Ngo confirmed to him that the gold was to
have been sent to him in Hong Kong through Vietnam.

On 4 February 1975, the magistrate, Mr John
Lee, ruled that his Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear an inquiry into
the disposal of the gold bars and the seized money. He reached his decision
after hearing submissions from the DPP, Mr Jeffrey Chan and counsel for the
claimants. He ordered that the 120 gold bars and the $32,550 be returned to the
police for disposal in accordance with an order from the High Court.

What happened finally to the gold bars
for which three gold merchants were murdered and seven men hanged?

In July 1980, they were still in the
legal possession of the police, lodged for safekeeping in the Treasury vaults.
And there they were likely to remain ‘until such time as they are disposed of
in accordance with the law’.

And the tenth man—Augustine Ang Cheng Siong,
who told all to save his neck? He is still in jail, but will probably be
released, to live with his troubled conscience, after a few more years.

ON 9 NOVEMBER 1979, INSPECTOR OH
CHYE BEE, then aged 33, was charged in a magistrate’s court with criminal
breach of trust. He was alleged to have been entrusted with $3,550 in his
capacity as an inspector in the Singapore Police Force, on 6th March 1975. The
money had been seized in the course of the murder of Ngo, Leong and Ang. Oh,
now attached to the Organized Crime Branch, claimed trial.

Inspector Oh appeared before Senior District
Judge Michael Khoo on 5 May 1980. Special Investigator Yeo Peng Soon said that
the $3,550 was part of the $32,550 seized by the police during the
investigations into the Gold Bars: Triple Murder Case. The money was missing
when the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau studied the papers in 1979. Oh
was charged with misappropriating the money. Yeo said he discovered the loss on
25 April 1979 after he had studied the files following an interview with Oh in
connection with a corruption case.

In his statement to the Bureau, Oh said that while he
was attached to the CID’s Special Investigation Section, he was the only one
authorised to have
access to the exhibits. But
after his transfer in mid-1972, the authority, he said, was vested in other
officers in the section. Oh related how after an inquiry in November 1974
(concerning the disposal of the 120 gold bars and the $32,550 seized) was
abandoned following a magistrate’s ruling that he had no jurisdiction over the
matter, the solicitor for one of the claimants wrote to the Attorney-General’s
Chambers claiming the money. Oh said that on the instructions of Deputy Public
Prosecutor, Mr Jeffrey Chan (now a magistrate) he took the money from the SIS
and went to see Mr Chan on 6 March 1975. Oh said Mr Chan told him then that as
he was expecting further instructions, Oh should keep the money meanwhile in a
fixed deposit in Oh’s name, and that any interest be donated to the Poor Box.
Oh said that when he went to the Tanjong Pagar branch of the Chartered Bank
that day he forgot about two smaller envelopes in which the $3,550 were kept.
So he decided to deposit the balance of $29,000 which was in a large envelope
as it was already nearly closing time. He said he subsequently wrote to Mr Chan
stating that he had complied with the instructions and also forwarded a copy of
the receipt for the $29,000 deposited. In his statement, Oh said: “I held the
remaining $3,550 in my custody on my own initiative because it was a small sum.
I was then attached to Police Headquarters and I kept the money in a filing
cabinet to which only I had the key.”

Oh went on to say that Mr Chan instructed
him to release the $29,000 to the claimant’s solicitors in May 1975, but did
not tell him what to do with the $3,550 in his custody. Oh said that so far as
he could remember, he handed the $3,550 to an officer in the SIS but he could
not recall what he had done with the receipt given by the officer.