2013 Penny stock crash: Suspected by Soh as an informant, witness Wong attended poolside meeting with ‘a lot of fear’
In April 2014, six months after the three penny stocks crashed in October 2013, one of the many brokers hauled up for questioning by the police for the stock-manipulation case was AmFraser broker Wong Xue Yu. In the lead-up to the 2013 penny stock crash, Wong was one of many brokers who had helped alleged masterminds John Soh Chee Wen and Quah Su- Ling manipulate shares of Blumont Group, Asiasons Capital (later renamed Attilan before being delisted) and LionGold Corp using a network of trading accounts under the names of nominees, friends and relatives.
Of the 189 charges Soh has been accused of, most are related to the manipulation of stock prices. However, he also faces several charges of witness-tampering too — one of whom was Wong.
On April 3, 2014, Wong gave two statements to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). In the first, he lied that trading instructions were given by the account holders and not by Soh and Quah. Wong explained he had lied because he was afraid his family would face reprisals given Soh’s perceived strong political ties in Malaysia. He also did not want to jeopardise his chances of recovering from Soh some $22 million in trading losses. “Third, it was the first time that I was being investigated and I was flustered and unable to think clearly,” says Wong.
However, in his second statement recorded on the same day, Wong admitted he was trading as instructed by Soh and Quah. Among the evidence seized by the police was an email from Wong to Soh where he listed the available trading limits in each of the accounts he had used to make the trades.
On April 4 and April 10 of 2014, Wong stood by what he had said in the second statement given on April 3, 2014. He even listed down accounts handled by him that were not in CAD’s original list. The additional accounts included those under the names of Soh’s two sons, Han Yuen and Han Chuen, as well as Soh’s brother, Key Chai.
‘That side looking for you’
After Wong made the first three CAD statements, Gabriel Gan, another broker who helped Soh trade, left Wong a message: “That side is looking for you and ask you to get back to them.” Wong knew immediately “that side” referred to Soh and Quah.
Subsequently, UOB banker Tracy Ooi Aye Phake, who introduced Wong to Soh and Quah, asked Wong if market rumours that Wong had told on “Towkay” and “Zha Bor” — nicknames for Soh and Quah respectively — were true.
“I was quite flustered when I heard this and I denied ratting Soh and Quah out. While I did not know how the market rumours had started, I was worried that Soh and Quah might have found out what I had told CAD during the interviews,” says Wong.
Ooi, whom Wong referred to as “elder sister”, offered to fix a meeting with Soh so as to reassure the latter the rumours were not true. Initially, Wong was not ready to meet Soh. However, he changed his mind after he was constantly chased by AmFraser to make good the losses. “I knew that I would not be able to repay the losses without their help,” says Wong.
On the day of the meeting, Kuan Ah Ming, a known Soh associate, drove Wong and Ooi to the venue at Park Hotel. Wong, “with a
lot of fear”, waited for Soh by the hotel pool while Ooi and Kuan sat a few tables away. “I was scared that I would give myself away in terms of what I had told the authorities about Soh and Quah’s role in the trades. I was fearful that there would be reprisals against my family and I would not be able to recover any more losses from Soh. I decided to be vague in my responses to Soh’s questions to avoid giving myself away,” says Wong in his conditioned statement.
According to Wong, Soh asked several times if Wong had indeed said it was Quah and him giving the trading instructions. This was repeatedly denied by Wong. Done with the questioning, Soh told him not to worry. “I think John Soh might not have fully believed me but he was trying to play the ‘good guy’,” says Wong.
According to Wong, Soh told him to go back to CAD and amend his statements, something Wong did not know could be done. “I asked Soh whether I would get in trouble for giving false statements if I made amendments. He said it was ok as I could say that I panicked and was worried,” says Wong, who agreed to change his statement yet again as he did not want to “rock the boat”.
Soh further told Wong he roughly knew what CAD would ask and instructed Wong on how to reply. “He said that CAD did not have any concrete evidence against him and he told me not to worry. He said we should all stand together. I understood this to mean that we should all take a similar stance when questioned by the authorities,” says Wong, who also took the opportunity to ask Soh to settle the losses. According to Wong, Soh said, “Okay, okay, next few days I will call you and arrange something for you.” The meeting lasted for about half an hour.
‘Stand united, toe the line’
At the next CAD interview on April 24, 2014, Wong said he wanted to review and amend all three previous statements made. “I tried to be vague in my amended answers such that while I made the answers less incriminating of Soh and Quah, I did not absolve them completely,” says Wong.
Wong then updated Soh, who said “good”. Soh then added it would be better if Wong met up with him before or after every interview Wong had with CAD. This was so that he could understand what had transpired during the interviews and brief Wong on what to say. “Thereafter, I would let Soh know each time I had an interview scheduled,” says Wong.
Between April 28, 2014, and Dec 10, 2016, which was three weeks after Soh was arrested, Wong was interviewed by CAD another 17 times. As Soh had requested, the two men met up after each interview for Wong to give his updates. “I was willing to meet Soh because I saw it as an opportunity for me to chase Soh for the losses,” says Wong.
According to Wong, during those meetings, Soh would often ask if CAD had narrowed their questioning to particular phone numbers used by Soh and Quah to call to make trades. “Soh always reminded me to maintain that the account holders placed the trades themselves apart from his sons, brother and brother-inlaw’s account, for whom he could explain why he was placing the trades,” says Wong.
Throughout this period, Wong realised Soh had a good grasp of the various aspects of CAD’s investigations. Apart from what Soh had told him, Wong could also see for himself too. For example, Wong noticed a stack of papers on Soh’s table, with a top sheet that looked similar to the format of the statements Wong had given at CAD.
“I felt scared when I saw this document. Although I could not be sure what those documents were, I thought it was someone’s statement. I was worried that Soh might somehow be able to access my statements, possibly through his political connections. When Soh saw me looking at the folder, he quickly covered it with a book or some documents. I did not dare ask him what that document was,” says Wong.
In another instance, Soh told Wong CAD might show him a spreadsheet that kept track of the profits and losses in the nominee accounts controlled by Soh and Quah. That spreadsheet was maintained by Goh Hin Calm, who was initially charged along with Soh and Quah. Since then, Goh, described by the prosecution as a “treasurer” to the operation, has pleaded guilty and is now a prosecution witness although he has yet to take the stand.
According to Wong, Soh told him not to panic upon seeing the detailed spreadsheet as Goh had a ready explanation: that Soh was doing his associates a favour by helping them keep tabs on their profits and losses from the trades.
Soh mentioned on several occasions that the authorities had “nothing against him” and that everyone should “stand united and toe the line”. However, he did tell Wong that another broker Ken Tai had already agreed to testify on behalf of the prosecution. However, Soh said Wong should not be worried as Tai was a “discounted witness” whose words would have no bearing on the case.
According to Wong, he had met Tai on Oct 6, 2013. Just days after the crash, Tai asked Wong at LionGold’s office what his losses amounted to. Wong replied it was “around $10–$20 million”. Tai, according to Wong, said this amount was “nothing” compared to those in the “core group” who would be meeting later that day. “I do not know why Tai saw a need to tell me this. I think Tai was just being arrogant and he wanted to show me that he was an important person,” says Wong.
Soh also said repeatedly he had many loyal supporters, often bringing up two names: Gan, the former DMG broker who passed the message to Wong, and Henry, presumably former PhillipCapital broker Henry Tjoa. Soh told Wong he would not forget his loyal supporters and would reward them when he had “made his comeback”. On many occasions when Soh met Wong, he would hand over what he called “allowances” ranging between $1,000 and $2,000.
Up until Soh’s arrest on Nov 24, 2016, Wong was still meeting up with Soh regularly although he did not reveal this to CAD. All the while, he was hoping Soh would help make good the losses. “In the statements taken from me up till Dec 19, 2016, I tried to be as vague as possible and I tried to reduce Soh and Quah’s involvement in the trades that CAD was asking me about. I did this on the basis of Soh’s instructions. I tried to find some sort of balance between giving truthful statements and to toe the line as Soh had told me to,” says Wong.