SINGAPORE: The curtain opened on Thursday (Nov 3) on a little-known but perhaps essential figure in the ongoing trial of ex-BSI wealth planner Yeo Jiawei, who has been accused of tampering with key witnesses in Singapore’s 1MDB probe.
It was ex-NTUC Income insurance broker Samuel Goh Sze-Wei who introduced Swiss bank BSI to fund manager Bridge Partners International Management. They inked a deal with 1MDB-owned Brazen Sky to invest US$2.3 billion on its behalf.
Testifying on day four of Yeo’s trial on Thursday, Mr Goh, now unemployed, said he received millions in “referral fees” – of which Yeo said Mr Goh could keep just US$150,000. He would have to hand the rest of the money to “connected and important” people – the ones who really “brought the deal together”.
“I accepted the structure as one that was normal in the course of business,” Mr Goh said.
He set up shell company Bridge Global Managers to receive the kickback, before passing it on to Bridgerock Investment and GTB Investment. Little did he know these companies were owned by Yeo and his then-boss, BSI’s former director of wealth management services Mr Kevin Michael Swampillai.
When Yeo eventually told Mr Goh the men owned these companies, “it did rouse my suspicion a bit”, Mr Goh testified. “When I inquired further with (Yeo), he said his boss, Mr Swampillai, knows about it and he was quite calm and collected about it … so that allayed my suspicions.”
Yeo then offered to split his share of the kickback equally with Mr Goh, raising his stake from US$150,000 to more than US$500,000 per year.
The arrangement lasted about two years before Brazen Sky redeemed its funds in 2015. When it became clear sometime in 2014 that the deal would end, Yeo told Mr Goh to destroy referral fee agreements and other documents linking them to the illicit transactions, Mr Goh testified.
In March 2016, Mr Goh was questioned by the CAD, who showed him certain documents relating to the illicit transactions. He said officers told him not to communicate with Yeo any longer.
He said he stopped answering Yeo’s calls, but Yeo seemingly became uneasy and showed up unannounced at Mr Goh’s house. He urged Mr Goh to purchase a secondary phone so they could maintain communications and work out a cover story to tell the CAD, Mr Goh said.
He bought a throwaway phone from a foreign construction worker, so the phone would not be traced back to him, Mr Goh said, describing the “ping” system he said was Yeo’s idea. The men would give each other a missed call each day, a signal they had not been picked up again by the CAD.
Mr Goh also talked about a meeting on Mar 27 at the Swiss Club, at which Mr Swampillai was also present. Echoing Mr Swampillai’s testimony, Mr Goh said Yeo urged them to lie to police, destroy evidence and communicate via untraceable phones in case they were being monitored by the CAD.
Defence lawyer Mr Philip Fong rubbished Mr Goh’s evidence that he mostly acted on Yeo’s instructions in relation to carrying out the illicit transactions and destroying incriminating documents.
Mr Fong also accused Mr Goh of receiving referral fees from illicit transactions involving private bank Amicorp. Mr Goh, who has not been charged in connection with the case, conceded he had, but that it was Yeo who asked him to sign those referral fee agreements.
Yeo is also accused of asking an Amicorp Group employee to destroy his laptop, in case it contained evidence of his illicit dealings with the bank. He also allegedly told the employee, Mr Jose Renato Carvalho Pinto, to tell a colleague to feign ignorance about Yeo’s dealings if he was questioned by the CAD.
More will be revealed about Yeo’s dealings with Amicorp when the trial continues on Monday. Three more prosecution witnesses, including an Amicorp employee, are expected to testify, before the case turns to the defence.
Yeo is expected to testify next week.
