Public Prosecutor v Timothy Nicholas Goldring, Geraldine Anthony Thomas and John Andrew Nordmann

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chay Yuen Fatt
• Judgment Date: 19 November 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 422
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case 10468 of 2012 & Ors
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 15 December 2014
• Hearing Date: 06 May 2013,21 October 2013,08 May 2013,22 April 2013,07 January 2014,21 January 2014,10 January 2014,20 January 2014,25 April 2013,20 August 2013,23 January 2014,02 May 2013,10 October 2013,17 July 2013,26 July 2013,29 October 2013,23 April 2013,14 October 2013,07 May 2013,17 October 2013,08 January 2014,03 October 2013,23 July 2013,21 August 2013,07 October 2013,24 July 2013,12 September 2013,10 May 2013,29 April 2013,25 July 2013,16 July 2013,24 October 2013,30 October 2013,03 May 2013,13 January 2014,28 October 2013,04 October 2013,16 October 2013,18 July 2013,02 October 2013,10 July 2013,22 October 2013,19 August 2013,13 September 2013,11 July 2013,30 April 2013,17 September 2013,30 July 2013,09 June 2014,11 September 2013,14 January 2014,29 July 2013,25 October 2013,26 April 2013,23 October 2013,31 October 2013,15 July 2013,16 September 2013,24 April 2013,09 May 2013,09 January 2014,31 July 2013,08 October 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPPs Luke Tan, Sandy Baggett, Kevin Yong and Nicholas Khoo
• Defendant Counsel: Wendell Wong, Choo Tse Yun and Benedict Eoon (M/s Drew & Napier LLC)
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 422

District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt: INTRODUCTION

These are cross-appeals.

The three accused persons Timothy Nicholas Golding (“Tim Goldring”), Geraldine Anthony Thomas (“Geraldine Nordmann”) and John Andrew Nordmann (“Andy Nordmann”) claimed trial to 18 charges of engaging in a conspiracy to cheat. 68 charges were stood down.

At the conclusion of the trial which spanned some 64 days, Geraldine Nordmann was acquitted of her charges. Tim Goldring and Andy Nordmann were convicted on their charges (with an amendment deleting the reference to Geraldine Nordmann therein).

Andy Nordmann was sentenced to a total of 8 years’ imprisonment and Tim Goldring was sentenced to a total of 7 years’ imprisonment.

Tim Goldring and Andy Nordmann have appealed against their conviction and sentence. The prosecution has appealed against the acquittal of Geraldine Nordmann and the sentences of Tim Goldring and Andy Nordmann.

THE CHARGES

The three accused persons were directors of Profitable Plots Pte Ltd (“PPPL”). Essentially, the charges alleged that they had engaged in a conspiracy to cheat the named investors in the 18 charges, by way of false representations, into delivering money to PPPL so as to invest in an investment scheme (“the Boron Scheme”) set up by them in November 2008. This scheme promised a return of 12.5% within six months, in addition to the principal invested.

The 18 charges against the three accused were similarly framed. By way of an example, the first charge against Tim Goldring for which he was convicted (with the deletion at the conclusion of trial) was as follows:

“You are charged that you, between November 2008 to August 2010, in Singapore, being a director of Profitable Plots Pte Ltd (“the company”), did engage with one John Andrew Nordmann and one Geraldine Anthony Thomas in a conspiracy to do a certain thing, namely, to cheat the custumers of an investment scheme promoted by the Company (“the Boron Scheme”), in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place, to wit, between 30 April 2009 and 3 July 2009 the Company, on your authorisation, represented to Duraiarajan s/o Duraiappan Mariyammal that money to be invested by him through an investment scheme offered by the company (“the Boron Scheme”), would be used exclusively to finance the purchase of Boron CLS Bond products that has purportedly been pre-sold to major corporations, which representation you knew to be untrue, and by such manner of deception, you dishonestly induced the said Duraiarajan s/o Duraiappan Mariyammal into delivering a total sum equivalent to US$20,000.00 to the Company to be invested in the Boron Scheme for a return of 12.5% within a maximum of 6 months, which Duraiarajan s/o Duraiappan Mariyammal would not have done if he was not so deceived, and which act was committed in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 420 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 (2008 Revised Edition).”

PROSECUTION’S CASE PPPL and its Directors

The following facts in relation to PPPL and its directors were agreed¹.

PPPL is a private limited company incorporated in Singapore on 24 February 2005. PPPL’s registered office is 11B Stanley Street, Singapore 068730.

Profitable Group Limited (“PG Dubai”) is a company incorporated in Dubai, United Arab Emirates on 12 November 2008. PG Dubai’s registered office is BDO Patel & Al Saleh, Al Futtaim Towers, Office No. 303, 3rd Floor, Al Maktoum Road, Deira, P.O. Box 1961, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

From the date of PPPL’s incorporation, various persons were appointed as PPPL’s directors, namely: Tim Goldring – appointed on 24 February 2005; Geraldine Thomas – appointed on 24 February 2005; Andrew Nordmann – appointed on 4 January 2006; James Hodgson – appointed on 4 January 2006; Hugh Elliott – appointed on 4 January 2006; Nigel John Blanchard – appointed on 4 January 2006; and Neil Simon Osborne – appointed on 6 September 2008.

Hugh Elliot resigned on 15 December 2006.

On 12 May 2009, James Hodgson ceased being a director of PPPL after he was removed as a director through an extraordinary general meeting on 12 May 2009.

On 19 February 2010, Nigel John Blanchard ceased being a director of PPPL.

As at 11 August 2010, when the Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”) raided PPPL, the company had four remaining directors, namely the three accused persons and Neil Simon Osborne.

Summary of Prosecution’s Case

The accused persons are alleged to have engaged in a conspiracy to cheat the 18 investors (amongst many other investors) named in the proceeded charges, into investing with PPPL in the Boron Scheme. The Boron Scheme was allegedly set up by the accused persons sometime in November 2008. The Boron Scheme operated until it was effectively shuttered when CAD raided PPPL. The investors were promised a return of 12.5% in addition to the principal invested, to be repaid within 6 months.

All the 18 investors were misled into believing that the Boron Scheme was able to generate a return of 12.5% within 6 months of the investment because it was a sound business model and relatively risk-free. In particular, the business model predicated on two representations (“the Representations”) made to the investors by representatives, including the directors, of PPPL.

The first representation was that their investment money would be used exclusively to purchase Boron CLS Bond Products (“Boron products” or “Boron lubricants”) (the “Exclusive Purchase Representation”).

The second representation was that the Boron lubricants purchased had been pre-sold to major corporations (the “Pre-sold Representation”).

The Representations were false and were made in order to sell the Boron Scheme to the investors who were cheated into investing in the scheme.

The Boron Scheme was supposed to operate in the following manner. Investment money is collected from Boron Scheme investors in multiples of US$1,000. The minimum investment was US$1000 (equivalent to one Boron unit). This minimum investment amount was increased subsequently to US$10,000.

The investment money is to be used exclusively to purchase Boron lubricants from the manufacturers which had already been “pre-sold” to major corporations which are the end users.

The Boron lubricants would then be delivered to these same major corporations who would in turn pay for the lubricants. From profits generated after these payments, the Boron Scheme investors would be paid their principal and a promised return of 12.5%, within 6 months of their investment.

The Representations were presented to members of the public through various means, including a PPPL-produced marketing brochure (Exhibit P10) titled “Profitable Planet Division: Strategic Energy Investment” (“Boron brochure”). The Representations were also made to the investing public through group and direct sales presentations made by representatives of PPPL. The evidence from the documents adduced in court, the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses, the admissions made by Andy Nordmann in court (the only accused person who elected to give evidence) and from the investigation statements of all three accused persons showed that the accused persons had collectively authorised, facilitated, and promoted the Representations to the public.

These Representations misled and deceived the 18 investors who were dishonestly induced into delivering property (investment money) to PPPL by investing in the Boron Scheme, which they would not have done so had they known the Representations to be false.

Evidence Of The Investors

The prosecution led the following evidence from the 18 investors named in the respective charges.

1st Charge – Duraiarajan s/o Duraiappan Mariyammal

Duraiarajan s/o Duraiappan Mariyammal (PW27) (“Durai”) was an assistant manager with an engineering company. He first heard about the Boron Scheme from a reservist camp mate who also gave him an article featuring an interview with Andy Nordmann. It was stated in the article that the Boron product “..has been pre-sold to major corporations which proves them to be “a demand driven product.””² The camp mate then introduced Durai to Jason Selvaraj (PW40), a representative of PPPL. Durai met Jason Selvaraj and was given a copy of the Boron Brochure. Jason Selvaraj conveyed the Representations to Durai using the Boron Brochure.³ At the invitation of Jason Selvaraj, Durai attended a presentation at PPPL’s office where Chandra Muniandy, another PPPL representative, explained the Boron Scheme using the powerpoint slides (“Boron slides”). Durai was told that the Boron lubricants had been pre-sold to major corporations. The investors would simply provide the money to buy the Boron lubricants to be delivered to these major corporations. There was a 90-day cycle for the companies to pay PPPL at the end of which the investors would get back their principle plus interest in 6 months.

The Boron slides also contained these Representations.⁴ Durai remembered asking what would happen if the investors’ money was used to buy the Boron lubricants but the Boron lubricants cannot be sold. He was assured that that scenario would not happen because the Boron lubricants had already been pre-sold.⁵ Durai decided to invest because of the Representations.⁶ As a result of his investment, Durai signed the various documents⁷ and gave a total sum of US$20,000 to PPPL to be invested in the Boron Scheme, as evidenced by the cheques stated in the ASOF.⁸

Durai invested in 3 lots of Boron investment units, the first investment being on 30 April 2009. He tried to surrender and cash out his investments in January 2010 but was told by Simon Dawson (PW24 - another PPPL representative) that the company had cashflow problems and cannot pay him. Durai was advised to renew his investments instead which he did...