Posted opinions


Opinion Number: 493
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-03-20 10:43:30
Name/Alias:
Anna and Gary

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (Closing of the forum)

Those of us, who have participated in constructing and maintaining the website, have come to an understanding that visitors to this website have already covered and discussed all substantial issues about the lawsuit - Deutsche Bank v Chang. At this point, we decided to close the forum; however, we will leave the website open for viewing. All opinions are kept, except a few, which were apparently advertisements from commercial entities.

Thanks to so many visitors who have contributed precious and insightful opinions in the forum. In it, "Major facts", "Main points", and "Our hope", highlight the key issues of this case and the purpose of this website.

We hope that legal professionals and the general public will find the information provided in the website and the opinions in the forum very useful and valuable. We do hope that legal professionals in practice and in academia will write up their views on the present case (Deutsche Bank v Chang) and publish them in their professional and scholarly journals.

Currently, there is very exciting information concerning Dr. Chang's professional achievement. Dr. Chang's invention, Xolair, has continually been shown to be efficacious and safe for not only asthma but also for allergic rhinitis, food allergy, and many types of skin diseases. The European Union approved Xolair on March 6, 2014 for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), which is not treatable with high doses of antihistamines. CSU is a very important disease in dermatology; more patients visited dermatologists for CSU than for any other skin disease. Patients with severe CSU have very poor quality of life and many suffer severe depression.

Dr. Chang draws great satisfaction that his invention will benefit many more severe patients around the world. Dr. Chang and Prof. Lim, who have been focusing on their research, both express their deepest appreciation to all who have offered moral support and helped construct and maintain the website, and to all visitors to the website who have participated in the forum.


Opinion Number: 477
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-03-05 10:02:22
Name/Alias:
寒梅
留得青山在,不怕没材烧!

Opinion Number: 476
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-03-03 17:31:31
Name/Alias:
KT Liang & SJ Chang
二審法庭如此草率推翻一審判決,連公開審理都沒有,我為新加坡法院如此的作為感到生氣與失望!公道自在人心,一審的宣判根本無法影響最終的結果,這個結果真的不能接受. 這件事一定要讓大眾知道, 來約束只追求利益的金融銀行和人員. 當法律無法保護我們時, 對這種不公平的事情. 我們一定要勇敢表達我們的心聲, 避免有更多人受害並還給張子文教授ㄧ個公道。


Opinion Number: 474
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-03-02 19:39:36
Name/Alias:
James G.

MANY ASK ABOUT THE DEATH OF SO MANY TOP LEVEL BANKERS.

The banking system is corrupt, riddled with fraud beyond belief. The treasury has been robbed repeatedly, keeping the manufactured lack and enslavement through dependency going. This is coming down. Some bankers know too much and they have been removed, due to cooperation with global investigative authorities. Other banksters can’t live with what they have done and know the hammer is about to fall. Only 8 "suicides" have reached the press, yet the true numbers are close to 20 and this will continue…

This spring, the people will remember. They will come to realize the source of their pain and suffering, the war and disease profiteers, the genocidal psychopaths behind the veil of ignorance. Those veils and masks are coming down.


Opinion Number: 473
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-03-01 17:03:08
Name/Alias:
Gerald C.

It bewilders me that so few could rule and ruin the lives of so many; and so many let so few rule and ruin their lives.

There is no criminal prosecution for any of the top murderers and thieves. The word “Justice” only means “Just Us”.

C’mon, everybody’s gotta grow up! See what’s going on.

Opinion Number: 472
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-25 11:51:11
Name/Alias:
净舍
钱是万能的,也是万恶的,‘它’就是烦恼的源头。

Opinion Number: 471
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-24 23:57:55
Name/Alias:
Ali
After learning about this case, I think it's clear to all taxpayers in Singapore and HK that the Monetary Authority in Singapore and Hong Kong Monetary Authority serve the bank's interests.

Opinion Number: 470
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-23 09:52:53
Name/Alias:
李威武

『新加坡总理公署在杨少雄案发后曾发表声明,表示对此案非常重视。』

新加坡总理公署是否也应对Deutsche Bank vs. Dr. Chang案上诉法院推翻高等法院判决的实情,发表声明表示重视?

新加坡上诉法院首席法官Mr. Sundaresh Menom 对张教授不公正的判决,是盖不住的国耻,贻笑世人。Mr. Menom 是执行新加坡政府的政策吗?


**********************************************************************************************************
新加坡两起广受关注贪渎案宣判

2014年02月21日11:25 来源:新华网

新华网新加坡2月21日电(记者陈济朋)新加坡两起广受关注的高官贪渎案于20日分别宣判。前外交部礼宾司司长林清和因虚报海外礼宾开销的欺骗罪被判入狱15个月,反贪机构贪污调查局原助理司长杨少雄则因侵吞公款逾175万新元(约合843万人民币)获刑10年。

  现年61岁的林清和事发前任外交部礼宾司司长,他被控在2008年2月至2012年5月间,先后60次虚报在海外礼宾的开支,每次的数额介于280新 元(约合1348元人民币)至6480新元(约合3.1万元人民币)之间,总额共计8.9万新元(约合43万元人民币)。

  林清和虚报的主要是购买礼宾用途的糕点和红酒的开销。根据法庭文件,林清和在与售卖凤梨酥的点心店店主熟识之后,向对方索取空白发票自己填写。至于红酒,用的则是真发票,但虚报了数目。

  林清和对被控的60次犯罪行为认罪。法官说,被告是高级公务员,伪造收据骗取公款且是有预谋的犯罪,辜负了人们对他的信任。根据新加坡法律,高级公务员因欺骗罪被判刑,最高可判10年监禁外加罚款。
  39岁的杨少雄被定的罪名是严重失信罪。他原本面临21项控罪,其中包括8次严重失信,一项伪造文件和11项其他犯罪行为。控方最终以4项罪名提控,其余交由法官审判时一并考虑。

  根据法庭文件,杨少雄在2009年至2012年领导贪污调查局一个部门期间,侵吞了超过175万新元(约合841万元人民币)公款,并在一次公务中伪 造收据,让贪污调查局认为应该支付给一名供应商的款项实际已经支付。他把大部分侵吞的款项用于个人消费,甚至包括还赌债。

  根据新加坡法律,公务人员侵吞公款最高可判终身监禁,也可判处20年监禁外加罚款。

  当天宣判的这两起案件在新加坡都受到广泛关注。林清和作为高级公务员原本已接近退休年龄,薪水丰厚,却因贪图小利失去公职并锒铛入狱。杨少雄供职的贪污调查局威名赫赫,被视为新加坡廉政名声的制度保障。

  新加坡总理公署在杨少雄案发后曾发表声明,表示对此案非常重视。

  总理公署说,总理李显龙在事件发生之后已委任独立的委员会对贪污调查局的财务流程进行重新评估,提出加强管理的建议并已经被总理接纳。主管公务员体系的副总理张志贤也在声明中说,会采取坚决措施堵漏洞

Opinion Number: 469
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-20 10:58:18
Name/Alias:
寒心
张博士的个案会发生,只因为要开个账户提供地址证明,出示账单,让对方知道了他的财富而引起的。常听人家说‘财不可露眼’(尤其是对外人)以免招来不必要的麻烦,这话一点也不夸张。张博士是一位科学家,在他的领域里所接触的人都是有学问,讲信用的知识份子,没看到社会黑暗的一面,人性的丑恶,所以在完全没有防备之下,才会让对方有机可乘。这案子也提醒我们不可随意相信外人,向外人透露本身的财富,以免将来祸患无穷,所谓知人不知心呀!

Opinion Number: 467
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-19 10:51:48
Name/Alias:
白羊
强盗固然可怕,但他们盗取的是你当下所有;世界上有另一类文明的强盗,他们能明正言顺的把你的一生所有盗光而不怕受到法律制裁,为什么呢? 因为他们是有‘执照’的。

Opinion Number: 466
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-19 10:30:09
Name/Alias:
慈航
众生如果能远离‘貪瞋痴’这三毒,这世间将是一片净土,人生也没有所谓的烦恼,《知足常乐》才是人生所应该追求的吧!

Opinion Number: 465
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-19 10:17:12
Name/Alias:
白云
人常说法律是公平的,但是我认为法律也是人写出来的,人都是为了自己的利益而活,每天张开报纸,轻犯者重判,重犯者轻判,公正何在?有的重犯甚至逍遥法外,重获自由。。。如今这个世界上已经没有‘包青天’了,所以是谁的势力大,谁说了算,可悲啊!

Opinion Number: 464
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-19 08:45:54
Name/Alias:
RoosterCrows

INVESTMENT BANKER JUMPS TO DEATH FROM JP MORGAN'S HONG KONG HQ

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 18 February, 2014

.....

An initial police investigation showed he had recently told a colleague he was under heavy work-related stress, according to a police source involved in the investigation. The police said no suicide note was found.

The news shocked the city's financial community, as many were quickly informed of the tragedy via social media and real-time communications apps such as WeChat and WhatsApp.

The incident apparently also had some internal impact on JP Morgan's business activities in Hong Kong.


Read More: http://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/1430296/man-leaps-death-jp-morgans-headquarters-central

Opinion Number: 462
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-14 15:44:48
Name/Alias:
Johnny When
我从幼就是個哮喘病患者。我可以完全深深的感覺與體會當病患者發作時的辛苦。
张博士窮他一生以及幾乎所有的積蓄研發出那名為Xolair 的藥既是我們所有病患的曙光與希望。
我深信张博士是一位受众人尊敬的药物研究者而非新加坡上訴法院所說的是一名 "投資者 "。

Opinion Number: 461
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-14 12:11:45
Response to opinion number: 437
Name/Alias:
D. Teoh
Same feelings here. The dubious handling of this case by the Court of Appeal will forever be a disgraceful mark in the judicial history of Singapore.

Opinion Number: 460
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-13 00:58:25
Name/Alias:
Diana
It's unbelievable that in the 21 century that the Court of Appeal judges think that they have the powers of emperors.

Opinion Number: 459
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-11 08:23:57
Name/Alias:
Athena

The Goddess of Justice was distressed and did not go to the pantheon to be with other Gods and Goddesses. She summoned the Chief Justice of Singapore to the floor down the steps below her, in the shadow of her sword. She said to him, "This is not justice. You are causing great shame to my Govern. You are to be banned for 99 years." She turned her head and eyed the Archjustice on her side for one moment and walked away.

Opinion Number: 437
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-09 21:08:34
Response to opinion number: 431
Name/Alias:
Pen Su

I do not blame Singapore for having a strong pro-bank policy. But, I am terribly disturbed by the injustice and the cruel sacrifice of an innocent person. For being the CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Menom symbolizes injustice and inhumanity. It is really unfortunate for our country.

Opinion Number: 435
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-09 11:40:15
Name/Alias:
John M.

JPMorgan commodities head withdrew from CFTC a day after her appointment was disclosed: Furious Twitter Backlash Blamed

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-07/blythe-masters-withdraws-cftc-furious-twitter-backlash-blamed


Commentary:

There is no doubt that the public will be more furious if this case is disclosed to them.


Opinion Number: 433
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-08 10:22:58
Name/Alias:
Clint Eastward

The Best Non-Fiction Film: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

Story Line: Opinion 377

Story Background: Opinion 424

Opinion Number: 432
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-07 11:17:57
Response to opinion number: 431
Name/Alias:
Dato' J.
Deutsche Bank v Chang is a case between a mighty international banking giant and a person, a biomedical scientist who has through decades of hard work made remarkable contributions to medicine and who is getting old. In the judgment written by the Chief Justice of Singapore, he gave praise to the banking industry and explained that it was sometimes inevitable in the competitive marketplace that the banks had to market themselves aggressively and to present their services to customers overly compellingly. He then offered some soft, even caring advice for the banks to improve their practice.

On the contrary, the Chief Justice did not express sorrow for the little guy, whose account was totally wiped out and carried a sizable debt.

The conclusion of the Chief Justice plentifully indicates that he was biased in his decision.

Opinion Number: 431
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-07 08:26:04
Response to opinion number: 427
Name/Alias:
Hugo W.
Re: A public statement from Singapore for her strong pro-bank policy

The Chief Justice of Singapore, Mr. Sundaresh Menom, wrote the judgment (grounds of decision) for this case for the Court of Appeal. In the short Conclusion, Mr. Menom wrote:

***************************************************************

"The financial services industry in Singapore has seen remarkable growth in recent years. Banks and other financial institutions are plainly aware that they operate within a regulated legal framework. But they are equally aware that they operate in a competitive marketplace and this can at times induce them to present themselves to their clients as extremely accomplished and capable one-stop shops able to service every need of their customers. It is not at all surprising that, as happened in this case, a bank in the course of an introductory meeting should endeavor to demonstrate its ability to provide high-quality services in relation to wealth management. But banks would do well to recall that the services they do hold themselves as capable of providing may not always be accepted by the client. Cleaning up the paperwork and communicating in clear terms with customers after the initial discussions to identify with precision just what is and is not provided might well be a worthwhile exercise for banks to undertake. This could perhaps have obviated the present litigation."

***************************************************************

It is clear that the Chief Justice's statement, coupled with his total ignorance of the major misdeeds of Deutsche Bank and its manager in handling Dr. Chang's account and his most severe punishment on Dr. Chang, is a very loud public statement of Singapore's strong pro-bank policy.

Opinion Number: 430
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-06 21:16:33
Name/Alias:
Mercedes V. Bank

Bafin, Germany's financial regulator, Pushes Deutsche Bank Probe to Top of List of Banking Scandals

V.

Sundaresh Menon, the Chief Justice of Singapore, Covered Up Obvious Frauds by Deutsche Bank Manager Johnny Wan


Opinion Number: 429
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-06 17:22:26
Name/Alias:
Redundant

Ukraine: PROTESTERS ACCUSE Deutsche Bank OF CORRUPTION

“BLOOD MONEY IS THE ALLEGATION DIRECTED AT DEUTSCHE BANK…”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRRST0QDODY&feature=youtu.be


Opinion Number: 428
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-06 00:28:21
Name/Alias:
Jacky
These three stooges sit on a high stool while the rest of us (in the world) laugh at them.
You can bet that they won't sit there for long!

Opinion Number: 427
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-05 17:04:21
Name/Alias:
Sean D.

Singapore should be frank about their strong pro-bank policy and make a clear public statement about it. This way, people can decide whether to make investments in Singapore banks. If they do, they will be very careful working with their bank managers. And, if they get bad advice or ill-treated and their investment doomed, they know that it is not wise to get into lawsuits with banks. This is a candid opinion, not to hint any sarcasm.

Opinion Number: 426
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-04 18:35:23
Name/Alias:
秋乔
讀了opinion 423, 424, 425, 我看到德銀像一只吸血魔鬼(Vampire), 在晚上出來吸血 (因爲在德国是白天,而在亜洲是晚上 )它吸的是亜洲人的血。多少人被吸了血都不敢出声,因為德銀是一只很大很大的 vampire ( international bank ), 只有Dr.Chang 胆敢站出來提出訟訴。

Opinion Number: 425
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-04 15:30:19
Response to opinion number: 424
Name/Alias:
Maureen T.

The big picture as shown in Opinion 424 warrants a solemn call for a full criminal investigation into this case by the authorities such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption of Hong Kong (廉政公署 )and INTERPOL.

This is important particularly for all investors in Asia!

Opinion Number: 424
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-04 10:18:57
Response to opinion number: 423
Name/Alias:
K. Fong

RE: DEUTSCHE BANK ---- FRAUDS HERE AND THERE

Opinion #423 offers one piece of the puzzle; the picture becomes clearer every day. Deutsche Bank had lost huge amounts of money, in the range of billions of USD in the U.S. and Europe. So they managed to target naïve investors in financially less developed countries like Taiwan and China, in Asia to try to earn profits from those naïve investors to make up the huge losses elsewhere.

In this case, Deutsche Bank manager in Hong Kong targeted and lured Dr. Chang, a financially unsophisticated bioscientist residing in Taiwan, to open an account. The Deutsche Bank manager skillfully booked his account in Deutsche Bank Asia headquarter in pro-bank Singapore. After Dr. Chang had opened an account, Deutsche Bank then looted his account by a combination tricks and unethical acts and made profits of some hefty millions of USD.

When Deutsche Bank was found fraudulent in the targeting, luring, and looting activities in handling clients' accounts, like Dr. Chang's, and got sued, they worked with monetary authorities of Singapore and of Hong Kong and the court of Singapore to win the lawsuits. By those ugly combinations of fraud and corruption, Deutsche Bank managed to earn handsome profits from a large number of naïve investors in Asia to make up their huge losses in the US and in Europe.

Opinion Number: 423
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-04 08:24:29
Name/Alias:
RoosterCrows

DEUTSCHE BANK UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR SERIOUS FINANCIAL FRAUD
-------------------------------------------------------------

... Sunday, January 26. London police reported that William Broeksmit, a top executive at Deutsche Bank who had retired in 2013, had been found hanged in his home in the South Kensington section of London. The day after Broeksmit was pronounced dead, Eric Ben-Artzi, a former risk analyst turned whistleblower at Deutsche Bank, was scheduled to speak at Auburn University in Alabama on his allegations that Deutsche had hid $12 billion in losses during the financial crisis with the knowledge of senior executives. Two other whistleblowers have brought similar charges against Deutsche Bank.

Deutsche Bank is also under investigation by global regulators for potentially rigging the foreign exchange markets – an action similar to the charges it settled in 2013 over its traders’ involvement in the rigging of the interest rate benchmark, Libor.


Read more: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/02/a-rash-of-deaths-and-a-missing-reporter-%E2%80%93-with-ties-to-wall-street-investigations/

Opinion Number: 422
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-03 18:07:30
Name/Alias:
Eskay
I totally agree with opinion 410. Dr. Chang should file a complaint to Independent Commission Against Corruption of Hong Kong (廉政公署 )and request ICAC to investigate HKMA why they have all the information about Johnny Wan fabrication of bank forms and stealing funds of Dr. Chang's account and yet HKMA took no action against Johnny and Deutsche Bank?

Is HKMA a corrupted body ? Does ICAC care about Hong Kong people reputation?

Opinion Number: 417
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-02-01 10:33:09
Name/Alias:
Carl Friedrich Gauss

It’s worth repeating the following statement 3 times:

“If you put Deutsche Bank in charge of your money, you will be treated like Dr. Chang.”
“If you put Deutsche Bank in charge of your money, you will be treated like Dr. Chang.”
“If you put Deutsche Bank in charge of your money, you will be treated like Dr. Chang.”

Opinion Number: 416
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-31 23:19:08
Name/Alias:
Sam Dean

Here, I would like to report a wrestling match of historical significance in Singapore:

On one side, you had Dr. Chang, a 66-year old senior citizen from Taiwan;

On the other side of the ring, you had a robust, cohesive team, consisting of one of the formidable banking giants of the world, Deutsche Bank; a formidable, most daring baking manager of Deutsche Bank, Mr. Wan Fan Ting Johnny, who could fabricate your KYC form, steal money from your account without your knowing it, and did all other evil things if necessary; the Court of Appeal of Singapore, with the Chief Justice, His Honor Mr. Sundaresh Menom, of the great nation of Singapore leading the pack of the Judges of Appeal of the Court of Appeal; the Monetary Authority of Hong Kong (HKMA), which protected Mr. Wan like a fort; and the Monetary Authority of Singapore, acting like a deaf and dumb.

The result: Dr. Chang was crushed and nailed to the floor. The team of Deutsche Bank and Mr. Menon won.

Opinion Number: 415
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-31 19:10:07
Name/Alias:
ONL
新加坡的司法太让人没有信心了. 我的钱一定不会存在新加坡的银行或作任何的投资.

Opinion Number: 414
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-31 17:29:01
Name/Alias:
GK
DB’s manipulation of naïve investors like Dr. Chang, who has given so much to this society, is one of the most dreadful white-collar crimes reported. The penetration of the corruption here is disturbingly startling, from manipulation of KYC documents to doctoring clauses, and stealing hard-earned money from Dr. Chang’s account. I’ve always held a high regard for Singapore. So disappointed that the country’s legal system allied with a fraudulent bank. The recent “The Wolf of Wall Street” is an example to understand how bankers unethically manipulate unsuspecting investors. I hope that Dr. Chang stays strong and win against this securities fraud committed to him by DB and by the legal system.

Opinion Number: 413
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-30 09:40:01
Name/Alias:
RoosterCrows

VP OF JPMorgan INVESTMENT BANK FALLS TO HIS OWN DEATH
======================================================

“We are deeply saddened to have lost a member of the J.P. Morgan family.”
~ JPMorgan spokeswoman

Read more: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/man-killed-in-fall-from-jpmorgan-chase-building-in-london/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

Opinion Number: 412
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-29 09:06:11
Name/Alias:
RoosterCrows

FORMER TOP EXECUTIVE AT DEUTSCHE BANK FOUND HANGED AT HIS HOME
==============================================================

'He was a dear friend and colleague to many of us who benefitted from his intellect and wisdom'
~ Anshu Jain and Juergen Fitschen, co-CEOs at Deutsche Bank


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547343/Former-executive-Deutsche-Bank-hanged-Kensington-home.html#ixzz2rk9Ike8D

Opinion Number: 411
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-28 21:54:17
Name/Alias:
Jacob

In this world, most people do good for their societies, and a bunch of relatively few do harm to their societies. In my opinion, Mr. Sundaresh Menom is one of the latter. Mr. Menom, at his high position, distorted truth, covered up truth, and caused confusion among common people about their moral values.

Opinion Number: 410
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-28 13:54:35
Name/Alias:
C. K. Liu
This case is the most horrific white-collar crime and corruption against one good man that I have ever learned. This website should “go viral” to educate all investors.

It is my humble opinion that Dr. Chang should ask authorities such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption of Hong Kong 廉政公署 (Hong Kong ICAC) for a full investigation.

It is horrifying to learn that those who should be put behind bars, like Wan Tin Fang Johnny of Deutsche Bank, are still handling our money.

It is horrifying to learn that Deutsche Bank and Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) both are corrupt and joined at the hip to gang-rape investors like Dr. Chang.

Opinion Number: 409
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-27 13:18:07
Name/Alias:
R. Khoo

Re: Mr. Sundaresh Menom is a man of dubious character.

The facts about the unethical deeds and serious violations against the financial regulatory codes of Deutsche Bank and its manager Mr. Wan Fan Ting, such as the fabrication of bank forms and the stealing of funds from Dr. Chang's account, are undeniable. They are solid facts. The ruling from the Court of Appeal of Singapore was clearly prejudiced. I wonder how Mr. Sundaresh Menom can pretend being a man of decency and justness and continue to act as the Chief Justice of Singapore without feeling very embarrassed. How can he face people who have serious doubts about his character and integrity, and about his fairness in handling cases?

Well, if Mr. Menom is still comfortably sitting in that top position of the judiciary of Singapore, it is because he is not a man of integrity and does not feel shame about ruling a case with distorted grounds and with prejudice.

Opinion Number: 408
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-26 21:29:08
Name/Alias:
George and Rebecca

Investors, be aware of your Deutsche Bank managers:

1. They will enter false data in your KYC forms.
2. They will steal money from your account.
3. They will do other dreadful things behind your back.


Opinion Number: 407
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-25 23:43:22
Name/Alias:
Diana
DB stands for Dirty Bank, Destructive Bank, Devastating Bank, Devil's Bank, Dumb Bank, and Dead Bank.

Opinion Number: 406
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-24 14:14:58
Name/Alias:
小兔子
我曾形象地比喻银行怎么骗钱:本来小兔子可以买辆自行车,狮子银行开始大肆宣称,天天让小兔子买辆汽车的,只要付首付和每月的月供就可以了。于是小兔子买了辆汽车,辛勤工作地交月供。过了一段时间,小兔子首付和月供的钱其实已经够买辆摩托车了,可是金融风暴来了,小兔子付不起月供了,于是小兔子的汽车被没收了,小兔子失去了本该属于他的自行车或摩托车。

可我还是太善良,原来故事的结果是,按照当初签订合同很小角落里需要用放大镜才能找到的文字,小兔子由于恶意不交月供,欠了狮子银行一辆汽车,需要立即归还。小兔子吓呆了,向大象管家去哭诉,大象管家很同情兔子,敦促狮子银行还小兔子钱。可是狮子银行和狼国王的关系很好,狼国王宽慰狮子说,没关系,不就是是只小兔子,我来搞定,小兔子要是不还钱,我就让他吃点苦,大象是我的管家,他敢不听我的?

突然想起伊索寓言中《狼和小羊》、《动物和瘟疫》的故事,弱者永远是强者不端行为的牺牲品,对于那些下决心要做坏事人来说,任何正当的辩解都是没有用的。对于我们小兔子来说,一定要让真相大白,大家联合起来变成强者。

Opinion Number: 405
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-24 13:41:04
Name/Alias:
匿名
问题是权利在上诉法庭那儿,不在当事人手上。

Opinion Number: 404
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-24 13:39:08
Name/Alias:
匿名
尽管忽略了主要事证,违背了法律和道德,新加坡上诉法院的不公正的判决却让他自己的麻烦和损失最小。在新加坡上诉法院那儿,权衡利益,而不是公平公正,才是他们的决定的基础。

Opinion Number: 403
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-23 19:41:59
Name/Alias:
111
Never believe in anyone later

Opinion Number: 402
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-22 17:09:18
Response to opinion number: 401
Name/Alias:
Ding Dong

Topic: MAS was an even worthier ally than HKMA of Deutsche Bank

I object A. C. Ker in saying that HKMA was the most worthy ally of Deutsche Bank (Opinion #401). That is not fair! The MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) was even worthier. You see, Deutsche Bank Hong Kong is a branch of Deutsche Bank Singapore. Dr. Chang's account was booked in Deutsche Bank Singapore. The lawsuit between Deutsche Bank and Dr. Chang was handled in Singapore. The trial was in Singapore. Yet, for the entire time during the legal proceedings of the lawsuit (2009-2013), even when Justice Pillai released his judgment in December 2012 and revealed the dreadful wrong doings of Deutsche Bank and its manager Mr. Wan, the MAS kept its mouth shut, not even sounding one word about Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan. For Sure, MAS was an even worthier ally than HKMA of Deutsche Bank.

Opinion Number: 401
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-18 20:05:43
Name/Alias:
A. C. Ker

Title: HKMA was Deutsche Bank's most worthy ally

This short paper, inspired by hints from a few opinions in this forum (e.g., opinions #161, 240), presents analysis that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) was the most worthy ally of Deutsche Bank A. G. for the bank's being able to secure the final favorable ruling for this case (Deutsche Bank v Chang) from the Court of Appeal in Singapore. The probability that there was a covert, dishonorable side in the official handling of this case is proposed.

The extensive and aggressive violations by Deutsche Bank and its manager, Mr. Wan Fan Ting Johnny, of the various regulatory codes of HKMA in the management of Dr. Chang's account had already been known since December 11, 2012, when Justice Phillip Pillai released his judgment on behalf of the High Court of Singapore. Mr. Wan had been working in the Hong Kong branch of Deutsche Bank A. G. and managed Dr. Chang's account from his office in the Hong Kong branch. The Contents of the website (under the Section "DB and Mr. Wan did not comply with the legal requirement of discovery") indicated that as early as shortly after the trial of the case at the High Court in October-November 2010, Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan had already been under investigation for their misconducts in managing Dr. Chang's account by a monetary regulatory agency of another country (i.e., not Singapore). Any person with some intelligence knows that the referred monetary regulatory agency was HKMA. The investigation was in serious depth, judging from the fact that the regulatory agency had sequestered two telephone-call records that had not been produced by Deutsche Bank for the legal discovery requirement for the trial in Singapore.

Until today, HKMA has not issued any disciplinary action against Mr. Wan (according to HKMA Register, http://apps.hkma.gov.hk/cgi-bin/hkma/eng/ereg.pl). This is an important fact because the violations against the regulatory codes, which Mr. Wan had committed, were very extensive and atrocious. Such violations included, among other major faults, the palpably fictitious fabrications of bank forms, including KYC form, of Dr. Chang's account, as determined by Justice Pillai. The likely reason why HKMA did not do so before the Court of Appeal issued its judgment was because HKMA intended to avoid causing confusion while the appeal case of Deutsche Bank was still pending in Singapore. HKMA still has not done so, because it is caught in a rather embarrassing situation as Deutsche Bank has just won the appeal case for only a few months since September 2013.

The Court of Appeal of Singapore issued its judgment on this case on September 19, 2013. By that time, the notorious violations of Mr. Wan against the regulatory codes of HKMA had already been known for 10 months. One can understand the significance of this very fact by raising a hypothetical scenario: HKMA had been diligent, responsible, and serious about the codes, which they had established, and issued a disciplinary action against Mr. Wan. Under such a hypothetical scenario, would the Court of Appeal in Singapore be so bold to issue its ruling as it did?

At the time when the Court of Appeal issued its judgment on this case, Mr. Wan had already been under a warrant of arrest in Taiwan in a criminal lawsuit of fraud against him. If Mr. Wan had further been punished by a disciplinary action against him by HKMA in Hong Kong, would the Court of Appeal in Singapore be so audacious to allow leniency to Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan and forgive the horde of their wrong doings and serious violations?

It is clear that Dr. Chang did not win the final ruling from the Court of Appeal is because HKMA did not issue a disciplinary action against Mr. Wan for 10 months since the judgment from the High Court on December 11, 2012 and before the Court of Appeal made its ruling on September 19, 2013. Viewing the case from another angle, while the Court of Appeal of Singapore is a steadfast ally of Deutsche Bank, HKMA is a most worthy, "behind-the-scene" ally of Deutsche Bank.

If there were no such a website, the facts behind the case and the information about the trial would be largely buried among the piles of documents in the courts of Singapore, and Dr. Chang would have been sacrificed totally in vain. The website has provided some crucial information for viewers to engage meaningful discussion. For example, the fact that HKMA had already been investigating Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan since about the time the trial was held in October-November 2010 is a piece of important information. This fact would not have been known by legal professionals, who are interested in the case from a practical or an academic point of view, without digging into HKMA's files, which are presumably not publicly available. Furthermore, the forum in the website has gradually identified and defined a number of issues and/or questions, which have multiple important ramifications. This interesting outcome was probably not what the organizers of the website initially envisioned.

In summary, herein a case is presented where the governments of two countries, namely, the financial regulatory authority (HKMA) of Hong Kong and the judiciary (Court of Appeal) of Singapore served an international banking giant, Deutsche Bank, for the purpose of suppressing a naïve investor from a third country (Taiwan). Such a covert, corrupt side of the case is not yet definitively proven, but the facts evidently indicate that it existed with a high probability. The present paper has helped define an important issue, which warrants further investigation and research.

Opinion Number: 400
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-17 15:04:25
Response to opinion number: 398
Name/Alias:
James S.
I like to confirm Angie's opinion (Opinion #398) about Prof. Chang's plan to use the wealth he thought he had before the final decision of the lawsuit from the Appeal Court of Singapore. Being a student studying under Prof. Chang for several years, I had heard Prof. Chang talking many times about that he would use his wealth for charity work and for helping developing biomedicine and biotech, including funding the biotech companies his students would set up. Prof. Chang has been very upset about the final ruling of the lawsuit, because his plan has been crushed.

Opinion Number: 399
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-16 08:54:36
Response to opinion number: 397
Name/Alias:
April
I hope that if it is possible, the two articles published in Taiwan mentioned in Opinions #384 and #397 are posted in this website.

Opinion Number: 398
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-15 15:54:18
Name/Alias:
Angie
張教授一生專注於研究,而且研發出對人類有極大助益的Xolair,畢生心血所賺到錢,原本要用於慈善、研究等方面,沒料到卻被德意志銀行的騙子給拐走了,而且還得再次失血(付對方訴訟費用等),非常令人痛心。還有什麼辦法可以討回公道呢?

Opinion Number: 397
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-14 13:55:19
Response to opinion number: 384
Name/Alias:
Alice T.

Re: 財訊雙週刊文章“張子文慘賠十五億元的血淚告白”

財訊雙週刊 (Wealth Magazine) 第438期(2013年11月21日出版)有一篇文章討論到此訴訟案在新加坡的判決。此篇3頁文章討論到:(1)頂尖科學家栽在金融業銷售神話,(2)努力三十年,一年就不見,訴諸輿論,要討回公道,(3)值得高資產者借鏡,新加坡判決濃濃政策味。我認為這篇文章很精闢,也是一項很好的學習教材。

Opinion Number: 396
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-14 12:35:27
Name/Alias:
Mandy
我以身為隸屬台灣的銀行體系之理財專員提供幾個意見及看法
1.台灣現在在金融體系的發展越來越嚴格,一直嚴格規範台灣的理財專員,卻無法管到他國無法保障本國人
2.這是一個跨國性的案子,雖有處理上的困難,但我仍然呼籲台灣政府真的要硬起來,這個案子可能是個案例也可能是以後會一直出現的模式
3.投資當然是有賺有賠,風險自負,但還是要追根究底到底是不是沒有將風險說明清楚,或過度集中的投資建議造成如此大的虧損
**張教授是一位非常偉大的人,他的偉大並非僅止於發明了如此好的藥,他大可以在國外退休不需要回台灣,但他仍然在中研院服務,教育更多的精英,
這樣的人卻得不到政府的保障與保護,實在需要省思啊

Opinion Number: 395
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-09 23:12:15
Name/Alias:
Martin Feldman
After learning about this case through my friends, I've decided not to invest in Singapore - there's no protection for investors, only the big boys and big banks.

Opinion Number: 394
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-06 12:23:59
Name/Alias:
George R.

Topic: Deutsche Bank's CEO's remarks about ethics issues as reported by New York Times

(http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/deutsche-bank-books-3-billion-loss-in-fourth-quarter/?_r=0)


An article in New York Times dated Jan. 31, 2013 reported that Deutsche Bank had reported a huge loss for the 4th quarter of 2012. The loss included 1 billion Euros the bank set aside for legal proceedings and investigations.

The article (reporter Jack Ewing) cited remarks from Mr. Jürgen Fischen, the CEO of Deutsche Bank, which pertained to integrity issues and mandatory ethics training in the bank. The conclusion of the article:

********************************************************

In response to lapses of the past, executive bonuses have been curtailed, and employees have undergone mandatory ethics training which stresses integrity in trading and dealing with clients, Mr. Fitschen said.

"If you cannot commit yourself to those values without reservation," he said, "Deutsche Bank is not the place for you."


********************************************************

Important messages to note:

1. The decision of Justice Phillip Pillai from the High Court of Singapore, which was in favor of Dr. Chang, was released on Dec. 11, 2012 (in the 4th quarter of 2012).

2. Deutsche Bank's manager Mr. Wan's blatant violations of common ethics standards and regulatory codes became known as Justice Pillai's judgment was released.

3. Mr. Fischen's remarks recognized that there had been integrity problems in Deutsch Bank in trading and dealing with clients.


Opinion Number: 393
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-05 18:05:11
Name/Alias:
Jason G.

Topic: Lee & Lee's case note on Justice Phillip Pillai's decision at the High Court

Lee & Lee was founded by Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and Mr. Lee Kim Yew in 1955, before Mr. Lee Kuan Yew led roles in founding Singapore and served as her prime minister, building the great nation. Lee & Lee is now one of the most reputable and influential law firms in Singapore. After Justice Pillai released his judgment on the present case (Deusche Bank v Chang) on Dec. 11, 2012, Mr. Mervyn Foo and Mr. Christopher Tan of Lee & Lee wrote a 7-page case note on Feb. 6, 2013 to discuss Justice Pillai's decision. Here are two paragraphs of the introduction:

“Although the decision turned largely on the particular facts of that case (including the fact the bank's relationship manager had specifically sought out the client and was well aware that the client was not a sophisticated investor who was looking for advice to manage his new wealth), this decision is a timely reminder to financial institutions offering investment advisory services to be mindful of any representations made to existing and even prospective clients, and that all recommended investments must be suited to the client's particular profile and specific requirements.”

“Looking at this case in conjunction with the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in the case of Rubinstein v HSBC Bank Plc [1020] EWCA Civ 1184, there may well be a growing judicial inclination towards placing a greater onus on investment advisors to ensure that their recommendations are suitable for each client's specific requirements.”

In sharp deviation to the general trend and principles as laid out as above, a few of the acts Deutsche Bank and its manager Mr. Wan committed were:

(1) Mr. Wan brought DSPP brochure to his first meeting with Dr. Chang in March 2007 and introduced the product to him after learning that he was conservative and had little investment experience.
(2) Mr. Wan fabricated bank forms, including the KYC form, to profile Dr. Chang as an investor with 15 years of experience of trading financial derivative products.
(3) Mr. Wan sold to Dr. Chang large numbers of DSPP contracts on banks shares without alerting him the risks.

*** The central issue of this website:

The Chief Justice, Mr. Sundaresh Menom, and two Judges of Appeal, who signed the judgment for the Court of Appeal, did not mention and find fault in Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan's acts.



Note: Lee & Lee's case note:

http://www.google.com.tw/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leenlee.com.sg%2Fuploads%2Fmedia%2FCase_Note_-_Bank_s_Duty_of_Care_to_Advise_Prospective_Client_in_Wealth_Management.pdf&ei=B6jIUpjCHsbukgXwo4CoCQ&usg=AFQjCNHXEtrm5olYctJDFRLjUh_300bQ2Q&bvm=bv.58187178,d.dGI


Opinion Number: 392
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-05 11:08:41
Response to opinion number: 390
Name/Alias:
Wa Wa
YA! You can buy justice, but you need a bank!

Opinion Number: 391
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-05 10:44:01
Name/Alias:
Chris Brown
Opinion numbers 310 and 345 are right on the dot - we need to let the whole world know about how Deutsche Bank in alliance with so-called "financial regulators and S'pore's Chief justice" can wipe out the entire hard-earned assets of an individual investor in less than a year!!! Only through global publicity can we prevent losses by other "innocent" investors.

Opinion Number: 390
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-05 08:13:39
Name/Alias:
Boy to be caned
Thanks to Mr. Harold (opinion 389). Rarely would anyone spare me a word of encouragement. Again, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but for our new Chief Justice Mr. Menom, justice is merely a merchandise --- it is tradable.

Opinion Number: 389
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-04 21:55:00
Response to opinion number: 387
Name/Alias:
Harold L.
Boy To Be Caned (Opinion 387) is not senseless. Indeed, the grounds of decision from the Court of Appeal reveal that most material facts were ignored, and when a few selected facts were referred to, they were distorted. It appears that for Chief Justice Mr. Menom, "justice" has no definitive color and shape. It can be painted white, black, or another color and molded into one of many shapes.

Opinion Number: 388
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-04 14:11:44
Name/Alias:
Judith Chapman
Wan was really smart to book Dr Chang's account in Singapore instead of Hong Kong where he works. Why? Because the threshold for a professional investor is much lower than that in Hong Kong and he knew the financial regulators in S'pore are white elephants. So Wan can sell products deemed solely for professionals to the naive Dr Chang. But it is quite shocking that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has not taken any action against Wan and removed his banker's license even though they know that Wan had violated Banker's code of conduct by fabricating information on important banking forms. It also shows that the entire compliance department in Deutsche Bank is simply a waste of share holders money. I have sold my Deutsche Bank shares!

Opinion Number: 387
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-03 16:04:50
Name/Alias:
Boy to be caned
Everyone could see the big picture. Our Chief Justice, Mr. Menom, could also see the big picture, but most part of his picture had been covered up with thick white paint.

Opinion Number: 386
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-03 10:44:10
Name/Alias:
Reader J.J.
THIS CASE SHOWS:

1. The Biggest Mistake Dr. Chang Made Was: Opened A Deutsche Bank Account.

2. The Biggest Risk To Investors In This World May Be: Have A Deutsche Bank Account.

3. BEWARE Deutsche Bank Manager Wan Tin Fang Johnny; who is still around and can smell your money with the range of an ICBM!

Opinion Number: 385
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-02 11:25:22
Response to opinion number: 384
Name/Alias:
Allison R.

Re: Publication of easy-to-read articles about the case

It is nice to know that an article discussing this case or this website has been published in a popular magazine in Taiwan. However, for most visitors to this website, who are not subscribers of the magazine or are not residing in Taiwan, the information in Opinion #384 is not particularly useful. I wonder whether the organizers of this website can post the article here in the website (I think that they have to obtain the right to do so).

Also, for those visitors to the website, who know little about financial and legal matters, has an easy-to-read article about the case in English been published anywhere?

Opinion Number: 384
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2014-01-01 17:21:57
Name/Alias:
Eva W.

Re: 『Money錢』 月刊文章 “國際免疫學權威張子文一年虧光15億的控訴”

這篇2014年1月上架的 『Money錢』 月刊的文章作了引言 “中研院學者張子文與德意志銀行纏訟4年的官司敗訴定讞,張子文除了虧光15億元之外,還要賠償德銀損失。但敗訴官司卻隱含重重疑問,而投資人又能從中學到什麼?”我想這篇文章寫得很好,把這網站的內容作了整理,簡易說明。這是一篇很好的學習教材。

*********************************************************************

Re: An article about this "Deutsche Bank vs Chang" lawsuit in the current issue (January 2014) of『Money』Monthly published in Taiwan

I think that the article summarizes the key points of the lawsuit very succinctly. It also points out some major problems about the ruling in Singapore. It is a very educational article and readers should be able to learn a lot from it.

Opinion Number: 383
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-31 11:29:42
Name/Alias:
Nathan L.
Police state - From Wikipedia

A police state is a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

Corruption – The Deutsche Bank vs Chang Tse Wen trial in Singapore

The ruling of the High Court of Singapore based on a 20-day trial, and cross-examinations of witnesses, was completely overturned by one corrupt chief justice, Sundaresh Menon.


Opinion Number: 382
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-30 10:40:12
Response to opinion number: 378
Name/Alias:
W. Tan

Topic: The most destructive fabrication in the KYC bank forms

The fabrication on the bank forms (Opinions #378, 380) is truly unthinkable! I believe that among the numerous untruths in the bank forms, the one that caused the most malicious effect in destroying Dr. Chang's account was the set of answers to the questions in the MTC form. Among the questions in the MTC form were those about whether and how much experience Dr. Chang had had in trading financial derivative products. Among the various untruths in the form, Mr. Wan entered that Dr. Chang had had 15 years of experience trading financial derivative products and he had done so in Standard Chartered Bank. The trial records show that Dr. Chang had no experience at all in trading financial derivative products until Mr. Wan introduced to him DSPP products and he then bought DSPP products (DSPP is a complex financial derivative product containing a stock option component). Also, Dr. Chang never had an account in Standard Chartered Bank.

The approval of the MTC form by several managers permitted Mr. Wan to sell DSPP products to Dr. Chang. It also permitted the loan department to unilaterally furnish loan facilities to Dr. Chang without Dr. Chang asking for them. Mr. Wan did not alert Dr. Chang that loan facilities had been offered to his account. Deutsche Bank issued loan facility letters to Dr. Chang through regular post mails. I believe that since Dr. Chang was not an experienced investor dealing with a margin account and leveraged products, the fabrications in the MTC form and the approval of the MTC form were the most malicious in causing the collapse of Dr. Chang's account.

Opinion Number: 381
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-29 12:17:55
Name/Alias:
Thomas C.
The contents of this website show that Deutsche Bank, once Hitler’s funding machine, has been, is and probably will be only interested in one business: STEAL YOUR MONEY!

And the thugs who work for the above international crime syndicate are teamed up to expand their business and to keep their kill…

The simple picture in a myriad of scams and frauds shown by Meredith (Opinion # 377) is a perfect example of Deutsche Bank’s business and thug mentality.

It is an insult to our innate human intelligence to disregard the findings and facts thoroughly established in the High Court in a 20-day public trial. The closed-door ruling of the Appeal Court is a colossal cover-up of crimes that will be exposed.

History shows that the evil-possessed are always lazy and thought they are smarter than the human race. How poorly is the quality of the Appeal Court’s ruling?

Fat pigs think alike; the despicable Sundaresh Menon and thug Johnny Wan think that they can fly.

Opinion Number: 380
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-29 11:32:42
Response to opinion number: 378
Name/Alias:
M. Kotthoff
The way that Deutsche Bank dealt with the KYC requirement as described by Lu-Der W. is horrifying. Such handling of the KYC procedures pertaining to Dr. Chang's account violated deliberately the regulatory codes of HKMA (Hong Kong) and MAS (Singapore). It must have also violated the internal guidelines set by Deutsche Bank itself. Those felonious deeds are truly scandalous! HKMA and MAS should have issued disciplinary actions against the individuals who committed those criminal acts once they were known.

Opinion Number: 379
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-29 09:11:43
Name/Alias:
Gorden P.
I think the case was handled poorly.
Is there going to be a retrial or has the highest court already reviewed the case? I find it interesting that the Appeal Court overturned the High Court's decision and I wonder what they found differently in the appeal that overturned the original verdict. And why wasn't there a transcript prepared??? It seems that the decision made behind closed doors is skeptical, and perhaps there is a conflict of interest within the panel of judges.

Opinion Number: 378
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-29 07:25:55
Response to opinion number: 375
Name/Alias:
Lu-Der W.

Topic: The fabrication in the KYC forms

I agree that as one must dig into the Contents of the website in order to gain greater insight into the treatment and management of Dr. Chang's account in Deutsche Bank. Here I have some observations concerning the fabrications of untruths in the bank forms pertaining to Dr. Chang's account.

There is a document (Summary of fabrications of Mr. Wan on three important bank's documents) in the Documents section in the Contents of the website that summarizes the fabrications of Mr. Wan on the Client Acceptance and Profile Report (CAPRE) form, the Margin Trading Checklist (MTC) form, and the Know Your Customer (KYC) form, which were important documents pertaining to Dr. Chang's account. The fabrication was indeed very extensive, as Justice Pillai who handled the trial of the case at the High Court of Singapore characterized: "palpably fictitious".

For example, in the CAPRE form, Mr. Wan stated that he knew Dr. Chang since 2003, as he started to serve him as a customer of HSBC in Hong Kong (Mr. Wan was employed by HSBC in 2003). Mr. Wan testified in court that he met Dr. Chang for the first time on 28 December 2006 in Standard Chartered Bank in Hong Kong. Mr. Wan also admitted in court that entered the untruth in the CAPRE form. (Note: Dr. Chang never had an HSBC account.)

It is to my amazement that the three important forms, which are all part of the KYC process, were filled by Mr. Wan not in Dr. Chang's presence and not even with a telephone interview with Dr. Chang, recorded or not recorded. Dr. Chang did not know the existence of those forms, which were not counter-signed by Dr. Chang. The forms were approved by several mangers and became effective. If there were no such a lawsuit, Dr. Chang would have never seen those documents and the fabrications would have never been disclosed.

Opinion Number: 377
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-28 15:26:48
Name/Alias:
Meredith

Topic: a simple picture in a myriad of scams

Let's set aside for now the discussion on the heinous crimes Deutsche Bank and its manager Mr. Wan had committed in the management of Dr. Chang's account. Here's a simple picture:

Dr. Chang dedicated his time in scientific research in Taiwan. Mr. Wan while working in Standard Charted Bank in Hong Kong learned about that Dr. Chang had a sizable asset. Mr. Wan went to Taiwan to lure Dr. Chang to open an account with Deutsche Bank. Dr. Chang opened an account in Deutsche Bank. Mr. Wan advised Dr. Chang and helped manage his account. In one year, all of the USD 49 million in the account was lost. And a deficit of USD 1.8 million was created. Deutsche Bank wanted Dr. Chang to pay for the deficit and the attorney fees they had expensed.

The Court of Appeal of Singapore forgave Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan for their horde of crimes and ordered Dr. Chang to pay for the USD 1.8 million deficit plus interests and the attorneys' fees Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan had expensed.

Opinion Number: 376
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-27 19:07:46
Name/Alias:
Pamela S.
The Singaporean government claims that their legal system adopts from that of the United Kingdom, which is one of the oldest and the most matured and tested. Also, a large number of lawyers from UK and Australia are working in Singapore. However, to my great dismay, I have found that the handling of this case deviates substantially from the spirit and common standard of the UK system.

Opinion Number: 375
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-27 08:10:33
Response to opinion number: 351
Name/Alias:
Dieter K.

Re: The margin calls provided opportunities for theft and the thefts induced more margin calls – a vicious cycle of margin calls and thefts (Opinions #351 and 352)

The Contents of the website provide only some key facts. They do not provide analysis or implications of the facts. However, when one examines the facts in depth, one can deduce understanding of the motivations why Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan targeted and lured Dr. Chang and then rampaged his account. Here's an example.

The contents of the website says that Mr. Wan brought DSPP product information to Taipei for his first meeting with Prof. Lim and Dr. Chang as a representative for Deutsche Bank. Mr. Wan introduced the DSPP product to them after he made his PPT presentation and Prof. Lim signed the account opening forms. In Mr. Wan's trip report, he said that Prof. Lim was interested in investing in DSPP product. These pieces of information indicate that Mr. Wan was very eager to sell DSPP products to Prof. Lim and Dr. Chang, even knowing that they were inexperienced investors. Prof. Lim and Dr. Chang had never heard DSPP and invested in a financial derivative product before.

Opinions #351 and 352 alluded to the facts that the termination of DSPP contracts to resolve margin calls provided opportunities for Deutsche Bank to pocket concealed funds from Dr. Chang's account. The two opinions also suggested that the thefts actually contributed to sequential margin calls, which then created additional theft opportunities. In another word, the margin call - theft - margin call became a vicious cycle. These acts of theft became known only in the trial in 2010, about two years after they occurred. If there had not been a lawsuit, the theft acts would never be known.

These analyses provided an explanation why Mr. Wan was so eager to sell DSPP products to Dr. Chang, a naïve investor. This is because that the product could provide Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan opportunities to loot huge profits from Dr. Chang's account without Dr. Chang knowing about it.

Opinion Number: 374
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-26 23:48:44
Name/Alias:
George White
Both Justice Pillai and Menon obtained their law degrees from Harvard - I wonder what their mentors and Harvard law school professors have to say about their opposite judgements.

Opinion Number: 373
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-26 14:17:42
Name/Alias:
Kate Wang
It is very unfair that the misconduct of the large bank in this case was not penalized. Life is not fair and it is sad that usually we can do very little about it. I hope that Dr. Chang can feel better as he knows that many of us support him and the justice can be obtained not only from the court.

Opinion Number: 372
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-26 11:57:29
Response to opinion number: 366
Name/Alias:
Rupert F.

Re: The legal battle was like a children's game (Opinion 366)

A good point - the legal battle between Deutsche Bank/Wan and Dr. Chang was like a children's game. The selective submissions for discovery, the redacted papers, the disregard of established facts, the disregard of false testimonies, etc. I can't agree more. The legal battle was not a fair game.

Mr. Ang Cheng Hock and his team of Allen & Gledhill did not win the legal battle for Deutsche Bank/Wan; Mr. Muralidharan Pillai and his team of Rajah & Tann did not lose the legal battle for Dr. Chang. They were merely playing a children's game ----- in the elegant courts of Singapore.

Opinion Number: 371
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-26 11:35:59
Name/Alias:
Matthew C.
The ruling of this case by Sundaresh Menon, the chief justice of Singapore, is so shockingly disgusting. He is not worthy to carry the sandals of Judas Iscariot.

How much longer the people of this world have to continue enduring the rape and pillage of the immoral international banksters and corrupt politicians? Enough is enough! O Lord, let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Opinion Number: 370
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-25 18:33:17
Name/Alias:
痛心啊
这判决太离奇了!!!!! 太不可思议了!!!!! 我们平民不是呆子或傻子,不要骗我们!不要污名化我们的国家!恶人到台湾诱拐张教授到香港开户,凌掠他的账户,把他的帐户全部亏光还产生负债,再把他送到新加坡打官司。在新加坡,上诉法院痛痛修理他。我们实在不忍心!张教授做错什么?拜托!拜托!

Opinion Number: 369
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-25 12:55:00
Response to opinion number: 251
Name/Alias:
忠民
首席大法官 Chan Sek Keong 和 Sundaresh Menom 之间,如此极端的对比!我们这个国家变了吗?这新来的大官有他的游戏,但我们平民看了,感到心寒!

Opinion Number: 368
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-25 09:39:37
Response to opinion number: 366
Name/Alias:
Kun M.

Re: Why is Mr. Wan still employed by Deutsche Bank?

Despite his most daring and brazen offences of common moral standards and the financial regulatory codes, Mr. Wan is still employed by Deutsche Bank. This topic has been raised in several opinions. I think that there are two possible explanations why Deutsche Bank has not fired Mr. Wan:

1. Deutsche Bank's and Mr. Wan's moral standards converge. In another word, Deutsche Bank promotes, accepts, and tolerates acts such as those committed by Mr. Wan. The fact that the outrageous acts of Mr. Wan, such as the fictitious fabrication of KYC and other important bank forms pertaining to Dr. Chang's account, were approved by four or five managers supports such an assessment. After all those immoral acts brought additional profits for Deutsche Bank.

2. Deutsche Bank cannot fire Mr. Wan, even though they may have considered that Mr. Wan's acts were over the acceptable levels. This is because that firing Mr. Wan may raise questions about the merit of Deutsche Bank's appeal case in Singapore. Thus, at this time, Deutsche Bank treats Mr. Wan, albeit his notorious offences, as a very valuable asset. Parenthetically, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has also not issued a disciplinary action against Mr. Wan, for protecting the appeal case of Deutsche Bank.

I surmise that Mr. Wan will not resign, because he knows that other banks would not risk hiring him.

Opinion Number: 367
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-25 09:27:58
Name/Alias:
Justin Y.
Judas betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. When he saw Jesus was condemned, he repented, and went and hanged himself. Sundaresh Menon, the chief justice of Singapore, betrayed justice on the ruling of this case. What did Sundaresh get? Will he ever repent?

Merry Christmas!

Opinion Number: 366
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-24 16:54:04
Response to opinion number: 352
Name/Alias:
Samuel N.
For papers submitted for discovery as required for the trial, Deutsche Bank redacted (blotted out) important information on the papers. The blotted out information pertained to how much money Deutsche Bank took from Dr. Chang's account without his knowledge. Until today the information in 15 out of 17 papers remain blotted out. This is like a children's game -- the boy who plays rough can have his way. But, here we are talking about a 5-year lawsuit with teams of attorneys from the priciest law firms in town. Don't you think that something was very wrong?

Opinion Number: 365
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-24 11:35:48
Response to opinion number: 362
Name/Alias:
Fitri S.
I agree with K. Poon. Even for a developing country like where I came from, accountability and transparency are key concepts that gradually settle in and help move our societies in the direction of decreased corruption, increased sense of responsibility, and true democracy. While these changes have come relatively late and slow compared with those in our neighboring countries, I am very happy about the trend. The legal case presented in this website is already a reality and the many facts presented in the website are naked truths. I think that it is wise that we face the critical (and some emotional or frantic) comments in the forum, whether we like them or not, and try to understand what they transpire as a whole.

Opinion Number: 364
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-23 13:16:25
Name/Alias:
F. Munasir
The evidence as summarized in the Contents of the website, in black and white and backed by pertinent documents, indicates clearly that Dr. Chang was targeted, exploited, and attacked by Deutsche Bank. Furthermore, he was persecuted by "a tool of a nation", the judicial system of Singapore. It is truly chilling.

Opinion Number: 363
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-23 12:43:04
Name/Alias:
Shura Hayryan


I think that this is an example of absolutely not fair game played by the Deutsch Bank against an honest investor and the most disturbing is that the court took the wrong side. This is very unjust decision, and Dr. Chang's assets must be returned to him.

Opinion Number: 362
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-23 07:52:39
Name/Alias:
K. Poon

Topic: accountability and transparency

For those of us living in contemporary times in modern democratic countries, accountability and transparency are the rules of thumb in almost everything we do in the units of our societies, including various organizations, corporations, and governments. These fundamental principles help guide our behaviors and prevent our society members from committing major aberrant deeds. It is unthinkable that things like what happened in Deutsche Bank in the management of Dr. Chang's account actually happened. It is also unthinkable that rulings on Dr. Chang's case at the Court of Appeal in Singapore actually happened. If it were not for the transparency as shown by the installment of this website, the aberrant deeds would be unknown to the public. The transparency as it is displayed here would help to install accountability in our societies in the future.

Opinion Number: 361
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-21 12:40:18
Response to opinion number: 358
Name/Alias:
Leo Qi
Thanks to the website. We now have a glimpse of the dark side. The present case provides a proof of how an international bank like Deutsche Bank, the national financial regulatory authorities in Singapore and in Hong Kong, and the judicial system in Singapore intermingle for the profits of the banks. They will sacrifice an individual investor like Dr. Chang without a second thought.

Opinion Number: 360
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-21 07:22:28
Name/Alias:
Felicia H.
I am an attorney based in the U. S. working for an international law firm, which has several branches in Asia. I am a patient with severe asthma for more than 20 years. When I had asthma attacks (exacerbations), the sensation and exertion I went through were awful. I had often thought that I might die during one of those attacks. Since I started being treated with Xolair about four years ago, I have rarely experienced asthma attacks. I am almost like a normal person and can perform almost everything I want to, and my life quality (even including my work performance) has been greatly improved. Like millions of asthma patients, I am a lucky beneficiary of Xolair.

I am thankful from the deepest of my heart to Dr. Chang for his lifesaver invention of Xolair. I hope that the public will continue to shove enthusiastic support to Dr. Chang helping him to overcome this traumatic saga. I also hope that the governments and their judicial arms will treat him with fairness and warmth.

Opinion Number: 359
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-20 10:29:16
Name/Alias:
rong
如果法律不能保護人民~那還有甚麼可以保護人民
如果金融蟑螂危害全球金融市場卻不用付出代價~那誰還可以相信
如果一輩子奉獻科學為人類研發好的藥品卻被騙走一輩子的努力~那世界還有公理可言?
如果您心中還有一絲的正義~是否也該伸出援手貢獻一份力量
讓我們為張教授一起發聲~一起尋求正義和公理

Opinion Number: 358
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-20 09:59:30
Name/Alias:
Jack V.

We all know that the banking industry is very important for Singapore's economy. This city-state is one of the major centers in the world for money laundering (see for example the following article), among other financial services.

Dirty Money: Will Singapore Clean Up Its Act?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-singapore-banking-sector-is-a-tax-haven-that-now-faces-reform-a-930998.html.

We can also understand that the Chief Justice and the two Judges of Appeal wanted to be very lenient to Deutsche Bank and its manager Mr. Wan, who committed stunning criminal acts. But, was it necessary for the Judges to write a judgment in such a crude fashion and to sacrifice Dr. Chang, a naive investor and a scientist with remarkable contributions to medicine, in such an inhuman way?

Opinion Number: 357
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-19 10:52:50
Name/Alias:
Andrew S.
I would suggest that all attorneys in Singapore, Hong Kong or elsewhere, who represent individual investors in lawsuits against banks, read through carefully the contents of the website and the opinions in the forum. The information is eye-opening and provides to me knowledge about the things banks and their managers will do in exploiting their customers, which I have not known about. As for the ruling of the Court of Appeal, I can only describe it as being very bizarre.

Opinion Number: 356
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-18 23:37:38
Name/Alias:
David Yu
I think the act of Deutsche Bank is stealing and this case wasn't base on justice. Dr. Chang doesn't deserve losing all of his asset

Opinion Number: 355
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-13 11:46:50
Name/Alias:
張英柏
對我們大家而言,這個網站提供了第一手的資料,讓我們了解銀行如何招攬顧客和欺騙顧客來牟利,法院審理的過程以及面對大銀行欺騙行為的制裁無力!這個網站提供的資料是無價的。

Opinion Number: 354
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-12 00:27:05
Name/Alias:
Sammy liu
張子文教授是一位對全世界人類相當有供獻的醫學學者及研究員,在他的人生歲月裏為了理想與信念埋頭在生物醫學研究,而也應為他的努力與毅力發明了造福全球重度氣喘的藥物,而這些重度氣喘病患有了救命的藥而讓它們可以生活在安穩的日常生活中。而這麼殷實的學者只因誤信德銀一位違法招攬金融商品而遭台灣政府通緝的不良理專,而痛失近5仠萬美元,而更離譜是這件官司新加坡高等法院法官判決張子文勝訴,但是上訴法院居然推翻高等法院判決判決張子文敗訴,試想在台灣違法的金融商品居然可以被判勝訴,難道法律只保護財團不問是非有錢判生沒錢判死嗎?一位畢生埋頭做研究的學者如果懂得生財有道的話也不需要理專,以他的聰明才智有需要嗎?當然是被理專的惡意招攬才一步一步陷入了騙局裏。

Opinion Number: 353
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-11 13:09:56
Response to opinion number: 309
Name/Alias:
包打不平
非常同意,不但新加坡國父李光耀先生應該知道並重視这件案例,甚至總理李顯龍先生和所有的國会議員都需要認知並正视这起对廣大的一般投资人如此不公平的法律訴訟..

Opinion Number: 352
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-10 21:28:49
Response to opinion number: 351
Name/Alias:
Keith B.
I agree with those insightful opinions of J. Perkins. The probability raised by Perkins was indeed very real. The way to prove it is that those concealed amounts sequestered by Deutsche Bank for all of the 17 DSPP termination transactions, Dr. Changs account's daily status in the material period, and the margin letters issued by Deutsche Bank, all of which should have been part of the materials submitted for discovery, are disclosed. In my experience, even an account with assets in the range of several USD millions, the bank will issue a margin call letter, when the assets fall short of the threshold limit by more than USD 20,000 or 30,000. Thus, a cash loss of USD 60,000 or 120,000 is a large amount for an account in the brink of a margin call. I agree with the analysis that Deutsche Bank's acts of theft had induced a sequence of margin calls and the eventual collapse of Dr. Chang's account.

Opinion Number: 351
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-10 10:53:17
Response to opinion number: 344
Name/Alias:
J. Perkins

Re: The pocketing by Deutsche Bank of concealed funds from Dr. Chang's account

The pocketing of concealed funds from Dr. Chang's account (to be referred to as theft for simplicity) by Deutsche Bank was surely dirty and immoral. I like to point out that those acts of theft did not simply cause money loss for Dr. Chang's account. They actually induce much more fundamental problems on Dr. Chang's account. Here, I like to identify a very detrimental effect of those acts of theft on Dr. Chang's account -- they contributed to a series of margin calls. People who understand the technicality (and mathematics) of margin calls will understand what I am talking about here.

The severity of the effects of those acts of theft by Deutsche Bank on the health of Dr. Chang's account was probably under-appreciated by Dr. Chang's own attorneys and the trial judge during the trial of the case at the High Court of Singapore. The reduction of cash amount of USD 60,000 or 120,000 could very likely contribute to subsequent margin calls (I mean high probability). If Deutsche Bank had continued sequestering concealed amounts each time when Dr. Chang terminated DSPP contracts to resolve margin calls, those occurrences of cash loss would have repeatedly worsened the account asset position and triggered another margin call. Therefore, those acts of theft probably very likely had contributed to the perpetual cycles of margin calls, which eventually brought Dr. Chang's account to a stage of incurable ills and demise.

Opinion Number: 350
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-08 13:26:42
Name/Alias:
方叔
不容否认的,此案子在上诉法院的判决是很离奇。此案在司法史上将永远存在。它涉及的不公不义的的诸多牵扯,将一直被讨论。首席大法官的名誉与前途也将系于他在此案所作的判决。本人对首席大法官的前途,并不看好。

Opinion Number: 349
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-07 23:14:23
Name/Alias:
俗子
从现任新加坡首席大法官对此案的判决,可以窥见他的人格与品性。他不必假装很清高。他玩弄权势,与财阀勾结,毫无正义感。

Opinion Number: 348
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-07 22:42:49
Response to opinion number: 344
Name/Alias:
J. Stevenson
About the theft. Well, Deutsche Bank certainly felt very shameful about it, so they redacted (blotted doff) on the transaction papers the fees they paid to the third-party banks on behalf of Dr. Chang. According to the information in the website, until today, for 15 of the 17 DSPP contracts that were terminated, the amounts of payments were still unknown. In another word, the amounts Deutsche Bank pocketed from Dr. Chang's account behind his back were still unknown. How could there be fairness in the trial, if the court could not even force Deutsche Bank to surrender those numbers?

Opinion Number: 347
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-07 22:20:59
Response to opinion number: 344
Name/Alias:
Larry S.
No argument these acts of pocketing concealed profits behind Dr. Chang's back were extremely disgusting, immoral, and sinful. Can we just call this act "theft"? Deutsche Bank is an international banking giant with assets in the hundreds of billions. Yet, they stole money from an innocent investor. Their acts of theft would have been unknown, if there had not been this lawsuit case. These acts were truly disgusting, dirty, and ugly. Deutsche Bank can fashion the most glorious advertisement, trumpeting their banking services. But, in the minds of many who have seen this website, Deutsche Bank does not pass an opportunity to steal money from their clients.

Opinion Number: 346
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-07 13:12:17
Response to opinion number: 345
Name/Alias:
Kun-Fa
The Chief Justice of Singapore, who penned the judgment for the Court of Appeal for this case, might have the same mentality and the same moral standard as Mr. Wan. O! I feel like crying!

Opinion Number: 345
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-07 02:16:40
Name/Alias:
Casper

1. Dr Chang had devoted his entire life to developing drugs for the benefit of man kind - the drug that he invented, Xolair, has helped to alleviate the sufferings of many people.
2. Before and after the sale of his company to Genentech, he had donated his shares or wealth to the universities where he had studied, namely, National Tsing Hua university, Harvard, and MIT, donations to the needy, students/co-workers, and relatives. He still drives a > 10-year-old Nissan car.
3. Deutsche Bank's salesman, Johnny Wan, has been proven to be a liar in the High Court and the highly intelligent Justice Pillai had described as "an evasive and unreliable witness".
4. It is incredulous that the Appeal Court judges in S'pore chose to align with a liar and mercenary, as compared to a compassionate scientist.
5. It is crucial that this case be exposed to the entire world.

Opinion Number: 344
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-06 21:31:06
Name/Alias:
Dominic L.

Among the multitude of major faults Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan committed in the management of Dr. Chang's account, perhaps the most sinful was that they pocketed huge amounts of concealed money from Dr. Chang's account. Most investors will agree that the most painful thing in investment and in maintaining an account is receiving a notice of a margin call and taking steps to resolve a margin call. This is when an investor has to liquidate some assets at very unfavorable market conditions. Also, any account at a stage of a margin call is very shaky and has the tendency to meet another margin call at any time soon.

I can imagine that it was the most painful moments for Dr. Chang, when he met margin calls and needed to take steps to terminate his DSPP contracts. Mr. Wan secretively pocketed huge profits behind Dr. Chang's back by adding on top of the termination fee a hefty round-sum "surcharge" for each of Dr. Chang's contracts. These acts would make Dr. Chang's account even shakier and more likely to face another margin call. These filthy acts were extremely disgusting, immoral, and sinful.

Opinion Number: 343
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-06 14:14:46
Response to opinion number: 339
Name/Alias:
Michael J.
Stunning! The wrong doings of Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan are truly stunning! shocking!

Opinion Number: 342
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-06 07:30:17
Response to opinion number: 340
Name/Alias:
土人
正义应该是任何一个进步国家所坚持的基本精神。若一个国家政府高层罔顾正义,人民怎得安心?谈何幸福?

Opinion Number: 341
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-06 07:09:18
Name/Alias:
Ann
We people in Singapore generally do not criticize the authorities and choose to keep silent about those issues that we deem sensitive. Even lawyers in Singapore are scared of speaking out criticizing the authorities. We at best discuss those sensitive issues privately among our family members or our trusted friends. We request that the organizers of this website must ensure that no information about the origin (IP address) of each opinion is recorded and that there is no way for any internet hacker to obtain any information about the origin of each opinion.

Opinion Number: 340
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-05 23:59:37
Name/Alias:
HBO
這是最新上演的一齣「星洲檔案」,銀行贏了「面子」,法官贏了「銀子」,最大的輸家是新加坡政府,賠光了所有的信譽和形象。

Opinion Number: 339
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-05 14:44:21
Name/Alias:
Elizabeth W.
I am an associate working in a law firm in Hong Kong. I got an e-mail, which informed me of this website. I must say that I am flabbergasted by the scope of the wrong doings that Deutsche Bank and its manager did on the account of Dr. Chang. The extent of such wrong doings is the worst I have ever heard of and can imagine. It is no wonder that many people have sympathized with Dr. Chang and helped to spread the information about this website (I had not known about this "Deutsche Bank v Chang" case). Perhaps this website is not a proper place for lawyers to express and discuss opinions about the apparently controversial rulings of the two courts of Singapore. However, we must do so in our professional forum. Most importantly, those of us with some conscience must not allow those major facts of the case to be buried.

Opinion Number: 338
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-04 19:10:00
Response to opinion number: 324
Name/Alias:
C. Foong
新加坡人民向来以政府的清廉、公正为荣。对此案件,新加坡上诉法院的法官请不要以高位自居,认为不用回答人民的质疑。他们必须给新加坡人民一个清楚的解释:为什么完全推翻高等法院的判决?为什么一概忽略德银与温经理诸多伤天害理的重大过失?为什么穷追猛打张教授?

Opinion Number: 337
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-04 17:28:14
Name/Alias:
Rex
新加坡的法院法官是否有選擇性相信某些證據的問題,值得商榷?
對於證據的隱匿卻視若無睹。而張教授因為理財專員沒有完整的揭露其所銷售產品資訊而造成損失,卻一味的認定張教授為一位投資客!
試問一位一生專注於研究的人對於複雜的金融商品,會有詳盡的瞭解嗎?
如果理財專員故意隱匿安全性資訊,一般人已經很難得知,那張子文先生會有機會瞭解嗎?
而新加坡的法院身為國家機器,在審判上卻如此的輕率,沒有去瞭解之前一審判決的證據內容。
這樣的司法究竟是否公正,是否接受公評?
法律是在保護誰呢?

Opinion Number: 336
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-04 10:43:42
Response to opinion number: 335
Name/Alias:
Luke C.
I have identified an even larger issue here. The financial regulatory agencies in Singapore and Hong Kong do not prohibit and punish bank managers and sales people in their countries to enter other countries, such as Taiwan and China, to solicit investors as customers and to sell financial products. It is only fair that Singapore and Hong Kong impose equal or higher standards for the protection of those investors from other countries. The financial markets, as indicated by the presence of international banks and the diversity of financial products, in those other countries are not as well developed as in Singapore and Hong Kong. Therefore, the investors in those countries have less information, education, and exposure regarding the risks of financial markets and products. In the present case, Dr. Chang (a Taiwanese) had received almost no protection. His account, managed in Hong Kong and booked in Singapore, was aggressively attacked and his lawsuit in Singapore was dealt with prejudice.

Opinion Number: 335
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-04 01:09:59
Name/Alias:
Maria
I fully agree with comments of opinion 330 by Eli. A good incentive to act is that the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Hong Kong Monetary Authority and regulatory agencies in Taiwan and other countries are funded indirectly by tax-payers hard-earned dollars - Why should we be paying to upkeep certain people in these agencies when they do not seem to be doing their job?

Opinion Number: 334
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-03 15:28:35
Response to opinion number: 330
Name/Alias:
Jonathan
It is right to say that HKMA (Hong Kong Monetary Authority) has done little on this case. According to the official Registry of HKMA, the agency has not yet issued any disciplinary actions against Mr. Wan, even though he has been known since December 2012 (when the judgment from the High Court of Singapore was released) to have committed very serious violations of the regulatory codes of HKMA and other blatant unethical and fraudulent acts. Deutsche Bank cannot fire Mr. Wan and HKMA cannot issue disciplinary action against Mr. Wan, because either of these actions will make the ruling at the Court of Appeal in Singapore look dubious. The irony is that while the innocent Dr. Chang was ruthlessly victimized, Mr. Wan enjoys being the beneficiary of the obscure corroboration among the three parties, Deutsche Bank, HKMA, and the Court of Appeal in Singapore.

Opinion Number: 333
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-03 11:32:49
Response to opinion number: 299
Name/Alias:
D. Schmidt
The inference that the Chief Justice of Singapore, Mr. Sundaresh Menom, has committed an act of covering up has, objectively speaking, substantial evidence. Since an act of covering up is extremely serious, especially for the top position in a judicial system of a country. I am not a citizen of Singapore, but would think that Singapore should consider forming a special committee to investigate this cover-up issue, for the prevention from potential chaos in the judicial operation in Singapore.

Opinion Number: 332
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-02 15:53:22
Name/Alias:
C. Pang
I cannot believe that Mr. Wan and Deutsche Bank, after committing such many criminal acts and with so much conclusive evidence disclosed, could finally win the case from the Appeal Court. What’s wrong with the legal system in Singapore? Or should we ask what happened to the Chief Justice and the two Judges of Appeal who made the final decision?

I believe that in addition to Dr. Chang, there are still many other victims who suffer from similar fraud. Most of them are blocked by their language skills or financial capacity and dare not speak out, not to mention to engage in such kind of burdensome lawsuit. But many of them are in the same situation as Dr. Chang’s. They lose almost all the pensions they need for the rest of their lives. These people definitely need more support from the public when they are fighting for justice.

Opinion Number: 331
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-02 10:33:29
Response to opinion number: 330
Name/Alias:
Martin
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME FOR ME, AND THERE WAS NO ONE LEFT TO SPEAK FOR ME.

~ Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)


In our time, they, the same evil banksters with politicians bought and paid, came for the human race – and it is not too late if we all speak up.

Opinion Number: 330
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-02 09:16:12
Name/Alias:
Eli
Response to opinion #310
In response to Benjamin's opinion about the need for mass media attention--I agree there must be a global awareness about this. But it seems that many people already recognize that unethical business practices are growing rampant around the world, but despite the awareness, there seems to be little effort made to prevent further fraud. Perhaps the 2008 Great Recession reduced people's faith in banks; ask anyone and I believe few would say current banks are ethical. But the government or other interest groups, like the Hong kong regulation group mentioned previously, seems to be doing little. I think that if the official representatives are not going to initiate reform, the people will have to do it, like an uprising in ancient China to topple tyrannical regimes. What we need is the incentive.

Opinion Number: 329
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-12-01 09:26:51
Response to opinion number: 324
Name/Alias:
H. Qiu
这新加坡上诉法院的判决真是太草率、太霸道了!被牺牲的人还是一位外国人(台湾同胞),而且是一位国际知名的新药研究学者。我看这事件一时没得了的,会被持续检验讨论的!我一直以为新加坡司法蛮进步的,这真是耸人听闻,让人大开眼界呢!

Opinion Number: 328
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-30 16:30:00
Response to opinion number: 324
Name/Alias:
B. Zhou
It appeared that the evil intention of Deutsche Bank was already there even before they rampaged on Dr. Chang's account. Mr. Wan approached Dr. Chang in Taiwan and conducted all account activities with Dr. Chang from the Hong Kong branch of Deutsche Bank. However, the account was booked in Singapore and, therefore, if a legal dispute arose, it must be handled in the courts of Singapore. Deutsche Bank already knew that the legal system in Singapore would better favor them than that in Hong Kong.

Opinion Number: 327
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-30 11:01:33
Response to opinion number: 324
Name/Alias:
G. Bell
The lengthy legal proceedings and the trial at the High Court could be regarded a total waste. Or, the ruling at the Court of Appeal could be regarded a display of tyranny. In any way, the ruling of this case is highly flawed, indicating that the system is hypocritical, while posing hope for justice for the victimized, only causing much time, money, and agony. THIS WHOLE THING IS DISGUSTING!

Opinion Number: 326
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-29 17:18:15
Response to opinion number: 325
Name/Alias:
Helen L.
I concur with Cynthia K. Singapore is a nation of continual progress. In many ways we are no less advanced than the most democratic countries in the world. We must not fear about speaking out against injustice on this lovely land. I understand that this website has been set up by people in Taiwan. I support them. I also admire the spirits of freedom and the courage to speak out and discuss among people who have expressed opinions in this forum.

Opinion Number: 325
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-29 11:45:49
Response to opinion number: 324
Name/Alias:
Cynthia K.
We must not be silent. Too many are fearful to speak out, but this is what we absolutely must do. I used to demur and keep my thoughts private, when speaking might have disturbed a friend or acquaintance. I now realize that was wrong. And in these days of increasing repression on all fronts, remaining silent about what you know to be true is dangerous for all.

Opinion Number: 324
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-29 09:15:32
Response to opinion number: 321
Name/Alias:
J. Lee

I can understand why Chung of Opinion #321 was so exasperated. Chung is a colleague of Dr. Chang's and comprehends the traumatic saga Dr. Chang has gone through. Just imagine that you were in Dr. Chang's situation. Dr. Chang worked very hard for several decades and invented and developed Xolair, which is now helping hundreds of thousands of severe asthma patients worldwide. For this contribution, the shares in the Tanox Company he cofounded were worth some value.

In 2006-7, before Dr. Chang's shares turned cash, Mr. Wan targeted Dr. Chang, went from Hong Kong to Taipei to lure him to open an account with Deutsche Bank in a series of unethical acts and tricks, including using a misleading ppt presentation. In 2007-8, Mr. Wan fabricated bank forms of Dr. Chang's account, sold him dangerous financial derivative products, stole money from his account, and eventually lost all the USD 49 million Dr. Chang put in the account, and created a USD 1.8 million deficit.

Without Dr. Chang's knowledge, the account was somehow booked in Singapore and therefore the legal dispute must be handled in the courts of Singapore. In the trial at the High Court in Singapore, Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan failed to comply with the legal requirement of discovery. Mr. Wan also committed a string of perjuries in affidavits and in the witness stand and got caught lying a good number of times by the trial judge. The judge ruled on December 11, 2012 that Dr. Chang won, on the grounds of various facts and legal considerations.

Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan appealed through the Court of Appeal of Singapore, while Mr. Wan remained a manger of Deutsche Bank, even though his major misdeeds and blatant violations of the financial regulatory codes had already become known. The Chief Justice of Singapore and two Judges of Appeal cited a couple of facts in a distorted fashion and ignored all major faults, which Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan had committed and which the High Court had established, and overturned the decision of the High Court completely and ruled on September 19, 2013 that Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan won.

The conclusion of the judgment from the Court of Appeal gave some supportive advice for the bank to clean up their acts and called Dr. Chang to pay Deutsche Bank the USD 1.8 million deficits in his account plus interests and part of the legal fees Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan had spent over the past five years.

If you were in Dr. Chang's situation, will you not be exasperated?

Opinion Number: 323
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-29 02:15:46
Name/Alias:
Alfredo
I agree with Chung's opinion - I've never heard of such an unjust final judgement. It only serves to tell people not to bank with DB ('cos DB will not only ruin you but also force you to declare bankruptcy). The Appeal Court judgement also says not to invest in S'pore since you will get zero protection from the S'pore legal system.

Opinion Number: 322
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-28 19:20:16
Name/Alias:
Chung
This is the most unjustified decision I heard in my lifetime. After a bank agent misguided a client and caused him to lose all his investment, the court's final decision is to favor the crook. What type of justice this is? It is very shameful for Singapore Appeal Court to come up with this most unfaired decsion probably in the past 50 years in Asia. It is not going to make Singapore as heaven for investment. Most honest investors will rush out their investment in Singapore. Deutch Bank should bear even more responsibility. I wish all honest people will not have any deal with this bank from now on at least not on investment part. Please pass the information regarding Wan's behaviors and let him have no places to hide under the sunshine.

Opinion Number: 321
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-28 19:18:58
Name/Alias:
Chung
This is the most unjustified decision I heard in my lifetime. After a bank agent misguided a client and caused him to lose all his investment, the court's final decision is to favor the crook. What type of justice this is? It is very shameful for Singapore Appeal Court to come up with this most unfaired decsion probably in the past 50 years in Asia. It is not going to make Singapore as heaven for investment. Most honest investors will rush out their investment in Singapore. Deutch Bank should bear even more responsibility. I wish all honest people will not have any deal with this bank from now on at least not on investment part. Please pass the information regarding Wan's behaviors and let him have no places to hide under the sunshine.

Opinion Number: 320
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-28 11:40:06
Name/Alias:
WashingtonsBlog
As economists such as William Black and James Galbraith have repeatedly said, we cannot solve the economic crisis unless we throw the criminals who committed fraud in jail.

And Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has demonstrated that failure to punish white collar criminals – and instead bailing them out- creates incentives for more economic crimes and further destruction of the economy in the future…

Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz just agreed: This is a really important point to understand from the point of view of our society. The legal system is supposed to be the codification of our norms and beliefs, things that we need to make our system work. If the legal system is seen as exploitative, then confidence in our whole system starts eroding. And that’s really the problem that’s going on.

***
Source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/11/another-nobel-economist-says-we-have-to-prosecute-fraud-or-else-the-economy-wont-recover.html

Opinion Number: 319
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-27 23:39:41
Name/Alias:
jane liu
對於新加坡的法院及法官,他們如此不公的對待張教授,這樣的行為真的令人不齒,也非常心寒.
張子文教授不是所謂的"專業投資者",他是一位不懂投資,但學問淵博並對全世界人類有極大貢獻與發明的學者,全世界的人類因為他發明的藥而得就者不計其數.
今天新加坡政府這樣對待一位世人尊敬的學者,真的是非常不應該,我們實在看不下去,無法接受,我想新加坡政府欠張子文教授一個公道與道歉,真像是會說話的,紙包不住火,當越來越多人知道真像實,新加坡的國格在那?正義在那?你們怎能如此袒護財團....新加坡的清廉已瓦解.......
希望新加坡政府正視這個問題

Opinion Number: 318
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-27 23:18:47
Name/Alias:
jane liu
事實上法律好像都在保護財團,我們一般平民百姓是鬥不過的....

Opinion Number: 317
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-27 23:14:20
Name/Alias:
jane liu
事實上除了有法律的約束,否則很難杜絕這些不誠實狡猾的"理財專員"的誘騙,因為大部份的百姓無法真正了解金融商品被後所真正潛在的危機,加上大部份的"理財專員"只會告訴你賺錢的可能性,是不會主動又真實的告訴百姓們,金融商品真正的風險與危險,因為如果他告訴老百姓說,這檔金融商品有可能會全部虧光,那麼就沒人買了,不是嗎?

Opinion Number: 316
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-27 23:04:36
Name/Alias:
jane liu
所有的專業理財人員,不管要買金融產品給任何國家的人民,都應該有同樣的標準,難道東南亞的人民就不應該被保護?為何要用不同的標準?

Opinion Number: 315
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-27 22:34:27
Name/Alias:
jane liu
若非法官有意包庇違法的一方,否則以常理判斷,實在是不可能發生如此的狀況.

Opinion Number: 314
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-27 22:29:36
Name/Alias:
jane liu
應該有絕對的幫助

Opinion Number: 313
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-27 22:27:15
Name/Alias:
jane liu
其實整個判決都是偏坦銀行,而所有對張教授有利的實證都被忽略,令人難以接受

Opinion Number: 312
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-27 10:33:34
Response to opinion number: 251
Name/Alias:
L. Goo
What a dramatic contrast!

Singapore picked a new Chief Justice, who was not shy about distorting facts and covering up facts and about tormenting an innocent person for the purpose of pleasing a bank. It does not bode well for the future of Singapore.

Opinion Number: 311
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-26 21:57:33
Name/Alias:
lee
財不露白。輕易找上門的幾乎都是有目的的,即便是舊識。有些人特別狠又無良。

Opinion Number: 310
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-26 17:02:45
Name/Alias:
Benjamin Chu
I wonder if Dr.Chang ever considered gathering more public attention for this case? For instance, I would imagine sending this website to CNN, posting a thread on facebook or something similar might help. To prevent cases like this from happening in the future, we should create a global awareness that informs our fellow investors of this type of danger (which also undermines the credibility of Deutsche bank as a whole), and this can only be done by mass media.

Opinion Number: 309
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-26 15:38:23
Response to opinion number: 308
Name/Alias:
建德
這個案子在上訴法院的判决真相一定得讓 新加坡國父 李光耀 知道! 有誰能幫?


Opinion Number: 308
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-26 10:19:16
Response to opinion number: 305
Name/Alias:
淑瑛
首席大法官及两位上诉法院法官对德意志银行及其经理进行欺诈性的拐诱张教授、误导性的贩售危险金融衍生产品、在张教授户头有关重要文件虚构事实、从张教授户头里暗地里收括巨笔款额、在证人席屡次作伪证等重大过失没有丝毫谴责。相反地,他们掩盖事证、抹煞正义、伤天害理、偏袒邪恶巨商,用国家的武器摧残无辜的张教授。这种种的作为给新加坡的教师和学生做了一个最恶劣的示范。

Opinion Number: 307
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-25 18:23:44
Response to opinion number: 299
Name/Alias:
F. Wilkins
The viewpoint expressed by Point #299 is well thought. After the judgment (the grounds of decision) from the Court of Appeal was released on September 19, 2013, the reports in the media and the commentaries from several law firms accepted and elucidated the judgment from the Court of Appeal without posing any question on the major faults and violations, which Deutsche Bank and its manager Mr. Wan had committed and which had been identified by the High Court. Point #299 is right in saying that like the Court of Appeal, the media and the law firms would also disregard the findings of the High Court entirely. The intention of the Chief Justice and the two Judges of Appeal to cover up the material facts unfavorable for Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan would have been fulfilled, if there were not this website.

Opinion Number: 306
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-25 09:46:42
Response to opinion number: 305
Name/Alias:
K. Y. Lee
There will be no future for justice in Singapore if the blatant cover-up of this case by the three judges of the Appeal Court is not fully exposed and dealt with accordingly.

Opinion Number: 305
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-24 20:55:40
Name/Alias:
Ching Fen
The unjust ruling of this case is not only a matter of justice, but also a matter of education! Let’s think about the influence of the Appeal Court decision on the public of Singapore. How would teachers there teach their students when people get to know the whole story of Dr. Chang?

See? An evasive and unreliable witness and the crafty bank behind eventually won the lawsuit. A good person like Dr. Chang who devotes himself to saving people’s lives all over the world lost everything because of his financial advisor’s fraudulent means.

Ask how those high school students who visited the courtroom felt when they got to know the Appeal Court’s Grounds of Decision.

Opinion Number: 304
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-24 11:17:38
Name/Alias:
翁明
假如首席大法官和两位上诉法院法官为了要做偏袒德意志银行的判决,而犯了“掩盖事证(cover-up)”之过失,以致迫害良民,这是新加坡之奇耻大辱。

Opinion Number: 303
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-24 10:07:35
Name/Alias:
A. Harrison
In the two-court system of Singapore, one will assume that the grounds of decision (the judgment) from the Court of Appeal accept/adopt the material facts established by the High Court. When one refers to the ruling of a case by the courts of Singapore, if the case involves an appeal, one will refer to the judgment by the Court of Appeal and not to the judgment and grounds of decision by the High Court, because the decision of the Court of Appeal overrides that of the High Court. Thus, if the Judges of Appeal intentionally ignore material facts established by the High Court for the purpose of issuing a prejudiced decision, such an act is justifiably called a cover-up.

In the present case, the judgment of the Court of Appeal has an obvious "pro-bank" resolution, whether it is merely a policy or something else. The Court of Appeal's complete disregard of material facts established by the High Court was clearly intentional. One can draw a conclusion that the Chief Justice and the two Judges of Appeal committed an act of covering up.

Opinion Number: 302
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-23 21:21:51
Response to opinion number: 301
Name/Alias:
Terry G.
That Deutsche Bank pocketed USD 1.38 million from Dr. Chang's account without his knowledge was a very material fact. It was no difference from a theft. It should have been dealt with in the judgment from the Court of Appeal.

Opinion Number: 301
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-22 12:39:21
Response to opinion number: 300
Name/Alias:
J. Yang
The Court of Appeal of Singapore has become the House of Cover-Up serving the financial thugs like Johnny Wan & Deutsche Bank; it has become the house of distortion, the most disgusting place that you as a decent human being ever want to end up. What do you call this Appeal Court ruling other than a bloody Cover-Up? The three stooges of “Justice” didn’t even mention one word in their ruling about the outright theft of $1.38 million from Dr. Chang's account by these thugs.

Opinion Number: 300
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-21 16:35:58
Response to opinion number: 299
Name/Alias:
P. Gray
The evidence implicating an act of covering up by the Court of Appeal is irrefutable. It will potentially be an ugly scandal for the judicial system in Singapore, if the Chief Justice and the two Judges of Appeal are questioned about or suspected in an act of cover up.

Opinion Number: 299
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-21 14:38:06
Name/Alias:
M. Koh
Some opinions in the forum have characterized the Court of Appeal's complete disregard of the major facts (the faults Deutsch Bank and Mr. Wan committed) as an act of covering up. This is a very serious charge, which deserves a close examination. In many historical cover-up cases, the attempt to cover up is often regarded as even more reprehensible than the original misdeeds.

I have looked over the respective grounds of decisions (judgments) issued by the High Court and by the Court of Appeal and the information provided in the website. I agree that the judgment of the Court of Appeal selected to omit mentioning entirely the major faults committed by Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan. The judgment also selected to mention facts unfavorable to Dr. Chang (that Dr. Chang purchased bank shares and DSPP products in his other accounts) several times.

The major facts, which the judgment of the Appeal Court did not mention, include that (1) Dr. Chang lacked investment experience, (2) Mr. Wan targeted and lured Cr. Chang in a serious of unethical, deceitful, and illegal acts, (3) Mr. Wan made a willful misleading representation concerning the service to be provided to Dr. Chang, (4) Mr. Wan repeatedly and persistently recommend DSPP products and bank shares to Dr. Chang, (5) Deutsche Bank pocketed huge profits from Dr. Chang's account without Dr. Chang's awareness, (6) Mr. Wan fictitiously fabricated bank forms concerning to Dr. Chang's account, helping to cause the collapse of Dr. Chang's account, (7) Mr. Wan was an evasive and unreliable witness, etc. These major faults, which were established by the High Court, were too significant to be omitted, considering the nature of the lawsuit. The Court of Appeal also neglected the fact that Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan did not comply with the legal obligation of discovery.

It is not incorrect to state that the judgment of the Court of Appeal distorted or interfered with major facts. It is also not incorrect to characterize the Court of Appeal's disregard of the major facts as an act of covering up.

Opinion Number: 298
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-21 00:54:02
Name/Alias:
Maggie
I agree with opinion 294: The Appeal Court judgement is indeed brutal and inhumane!

Opinion Number: 297
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-20 11:53:43
Name/Alias:
Rachael Koon
Respond to opinion 294
Dr Chang 是一位生物研究科学家,而不是如三位大法官所指定為"投资者"。Dr Chang 窮一生研究才发明了Xolia 可以醫治嚴重性的哮喘病还有其他的嚴重性,難根治的疾病。他造福人類,值得我们的尊崇,我个人認為他应授颁发諾貝尔獎,讓全世界的华人為他而感到驕傲。我同意Dr S Fox 所說"We hope that he will not be destroyed by the brutal and inhuman treatment by the legal system in Singpore.".

Opinion Number: 295
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-19 21:57:07
Name/Alias:
J. Sharp
DEATH SENTENCE should be given to Wan Tin Fang of Deutsche Bank according to this case: >>> Vietnam banker sentenced to death for fraud --- Former finance chief and business associate to die by lethal injection for their parts in embezzlement of $25 million. <<< http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/11/vietnam-banker-sentenced-death-fraud-2013111662741522258.html … The differences of the two cases are: 1. $51 million of Dr. Chang & Prof. Lin’s money vs. $25 million of state money, and 2. the Appeal Court of Singapore is serving the corrupt Deutsche Bank vs. the Vietnamese Court is responding to the widespread public anger.

Opinion Number: 294
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-19 19:13:17
Name/Alias:
Dr. S. Fox
Prof. Chang invented Xolair, which is being used worldwide for treating patients with severe asthma untreatable with other medicines. Xolair has also been shown to be effective for various other allergic diseases, including extreme sensitivity to foods, like peanuts. In recent years, Xolair has been shown in many large-scale clinical trials to be very effective for treating various types of severe chronic urticaria, which cannot be treated with other medicines. Prof. Chang has helped relieve sufferings for hundreds of thousands of severe patients around the world. We hope that he will not be destroyed by the brutal and inhuman treatment by the legal system in Singapore.

Opinion Number: 293
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-19 09:48:23
Response to opinion number: 290
Name/Alias:
A. Khaw
The excesses of the wrong doings of Deutsche Bank and its manager Mr. Wan in handling Dr. Chang's account (established by the High Court) and the complete disregard of those wrong doings by the Appeal Court of Singapore each represents an extreme case. The combination of them represents an extremely rare case. It is truly a mind-boggling eye opener.

Opinion Number: 292
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-19 01:36:55
Name/Alias:
Tom
I agree with opinion 290 that the Court of Appeal judgement will drive investors away from Singapore - when investors are not protected by law, then they will not invest in that country.

Opinion Number: 291
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-18 18:50:33
Name/Alias:
Alicia
I don't know law much, but it seems that there's some flaw during the process. The person who really did bad things didn't take responsibility, but those who are innocent end up sentenced by a crime they didn't commit.

Opinion Number: 290
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-17 10:22:30
Name/Alias:
F. Niu
There is a saying in Chinese: "物極必反" , which can be translated to "When things go to extreme, they must rebound." The saying reflects and can be applied to the present case in multiple aspects.

The judgment from the Court of Appeal intended to protect and please the bank to an extreme; this will inevitably promote a relaxation among banks and their mangers toward observing financial regulatory guidelines, which will eventually cause problems for investors and, therefore, banks.

The judgment from the Court of Appeal delivered to Dr. Chang a penalty of extreme severity; this has provoked Dr. Chang's friends to create this website, which exposes the brutality, inhumanity, and the cover-up acts of the Chief Justice and the two Judges of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal intended to cover up to an extreme the major faults of Deutsche Bank and its manager Mr. Wan; these faults will eventually be unraveled, as the public are puzzled by the Appeal Court's complete overturn of the High Court's judgment and would seek truths and cannot tolerate such a tight cover-up.

Opinion Number: 289
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-17 00:50:38
Name/Alias:
Robert
Thanks to this website, I've decided not to seek legal aid in S'pore - it's gonna be a waste of my money and time to try and seek justice.

Opinion Number: 288
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-16 19:21:47
Name/Alias:
Grace
在新加坡執業及打官司的律師們要注意了,你們以後接客戶時要小心選邊站了。
千萬要記得像切西瓜一樣,選大邊的,尤其是像德意志銀行這種大機構,是最好的客戶,因為看起來在目前新加坡的司法體系下,不論它們犯了什麼錯,做了多麼害人的事,被抓到多少犯罪證據,幫它們辯護都能贏,真是穩賺不賠。

相反的,像張子文教授這種弱小個體戶或無辜受害者向銀行求償的案子千萬不要碰,因為不論你們多麼優秀,多麼努力,頭腦多麼清楚,證據多麼充分,到最後註定要輸!

但是,你們也不要擔心,以後在新加坡要打這種官司的機會會愈來愈少,你們的Case數量也會慢慢減少,因為以前很多受害者因為尊崇新加坡的司法公正,願意遠渡重洋從海外到新加坡申告,期待正義能夠伸張。但是當全世界看到張教授敗訴的案例後,就會對新加坡的法院感到心寒,以後受害者不會再到新加坡打官司了。

Opinion Number: 287
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-16 18:47:24
Name/Alias:
Gary
從新加坡上訴法院(Appeal Court)的審理過程及結果,再對照高等法院(High Court)的判決書以及兩造提供的事證來看,上訴法院的裁決明顯地刻意忽略了許多德意志銀行及溫先生矇騙及詐欺張博士的事實,而選擇性地站在偏袒銀行的立場解釋及宣判本案。

上訴法院三位審理本案的法官,毫無疑問地違反了公平正義的原則。然而,讓人比較納悶的,是他們本身受到了什麼誘因影響?還是受到了某方面的壓力導致他們做出了錯誤的決定?而這個決定,顯而易見的是在支持銀行及保護銀行。如果是法官個人受到關說或賄賂而作了偏袒銀行的判決,那是貪污的重罪,這對以公部門清廉度自豪的新加坡政府來說,肯定是一大打擊!但如果是政府授意要法院做這樣的判決與認定,那問題就更大了!這會讓全世界都對這個政府的印象大打折扣。

當然,支持銀行或保護銀行本身在國家政策上並沒有什麼不對,也許是為了吸引國外投資,也許是為了安定市場經濟,許多國家的政府在金融危機時為了解救人民,會出手幫大企業或大銀行紓困;但是,支持銀行及保護銀行「做壞事」就是大錯特錯,天理不容了!因為政府存在的目的就是要維持金融秩序,保護及改善人民生計,而不是照顧金融巨獸,把善良老百姓推上絕路。

當新加坡高等法院花了大量時間收集雙方證詞及證據,並抽絲剝繭地釐清事實真相後,已對本案做出審判。上訴法院即使不採納高等法院的意見,也應以客觀理性的態度,收集新事證或繼續詳加調查,怎可關起門來黑箱作業,不但草率行事,甚至顛倒是非,依據原有的資料做出完全相反的認定!

不論結果如何,他們的做法並不聰明,因為這麼明顯的背離事實與正義,人民及投資人會看在眼裡。原本的目的可能是不想得罪大銀行,安定投資環境,穩固新加坡的經濟優勢,但決策者卻忘了,銀行的衣食父母其實是人民,是廣大的老百性(投資人的集合),而銀行的「品牌」,更是建立在人民的印象和投資人的信任上。當你的做法傷害了人民權益,在公理上站不住腳時,人們對這些銀行會產生根本上的懷疑,對投資會裹足不前,甚至對金融管理機構質疑的聲浪會傾巢而出,結果是適得其反,傷害國力!

事已至此,我們無法再相信新加坡司法機構的公信力,只能靠人民的覺醒及輿論的力量來喚醒正義。請大家把這個網站傳播出去,讓大多數被矇在鼓裡的民眾看到這個血淋淋的銀行詐欺案例,並了解整個制度的黑暗及司法包庇財團的真相。請大家一起來公評論斷。

Opinion Number: 286
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-15 09:30:15
Name/Alias:
李实
由这件案子的判决(首席大法官 Mr. Sundaresh Menom 所撰写)可看出 Mr. Menom 的性格与修养。他为了要做出既定的判决,不惜掩盖事实,扭曲事证,泯灭良心。我要问:Mr. Menom 是一位诚实、正直的人吗?他一路走来,晋升高位,是否只因为他是一位玩弄权力高手?

Opinion Number: 285
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-15 08:33:20
Name/Alias:
W. Guan
新加坡上诉法院的判决非常让人失望。很多访问者的意见表示上诉法院的法官明显要支持银行。其实,上诉法院的作为远超过只是支持银行,他们表态要献媚银行、呵护银行、纵容银行。可悲的是这件案子做得太过火。上诉法院完全忽略德银与温经理的一长串重大过失,并牺牲了无辜的个人张博士(一位老年人)的权益。 这件事的确让人痛心!十分可悲!这件案子在新加坡的司法史上一定是一个污点!

Opinion Number: 284
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-14 15:53:26
Name/Alias:
H. Collins
From the content of the website, there is convincing evidence that Deutsche Bank and Wan had committed 7-8 lines of faults (including pocketing concealed funds from Dr. Chang's account). It is inexplicable and unbelievable that Deutsche Bank and Wan won the lawsuit. In almost all lawsuits, 1-2 lines of those same faults would inevitably lead to a loss.

Opinion Number: 283
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-14 01:04:46
Name/Alias:
小李子
如果上訴法庭能夠讓公衆旁聴,那么透明度提高了,三位法官就会依椐高庭証人的証詞公正地下判决了。

Opinion Number: 282
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-13 14:10:28
Name/Alias:
T. Ho
The legal grounds for the Court of Appeal in its overturning the decision of the High Court appear to be that Deutsche Bank did not assume a duty of care as to its service provided to Dr. Chang. This is itself a debatable point, taking into consideration of the unusual circumstances how Dr. Chang was elicited to entrust Mr. Wan and establish the relationship between them.

The important point, which leaves room for much future scrutiny of the ruling of the Court of Appeal, is that even the Chief Justice and the two judges of Appeal took a position that Deutsche Bank was not obliged to assume a duty of care as to the service provided to Dr. Chang, they must not ignore the facts that Deutsche Bank and its manager ransacked Dr. Chang's account and assets as they did (e.g. they persistently recommended risky financial derivative products to Dr. Chang, fictitiously fabricated bank forms pertaining to Dr. Chang's account, looted huge profits from Dr. Chang's account behind his back, etc.) and forgave the blatant violations and faults they committed.

Opinion Number: 281
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-13 00:14:28
Name/Alias:
Siow li Tse
The Appeal Court overlook the fact that Mr.Wan is an unreliable witness seemed " fishy". I have no confidence .to invest in Singapore though I am a small fish like IIkan bills.

Opinion Number: 280
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-12 17:51:28
Response to opinion number: 279
Name/Alias:
T. Wong
I believe that in the minds of most common people, the Chief Justice should serve a role model for all other judges, and registrars and other members in the judicial branch, lawyers and other professionals in legal practice, and professors and students in law schools. His covering up of important facts for the purpose of issuing a pre-determined judgment set the worst example for the entire legal profession.

Opinion Number: 279
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-12 07:47:17
Response to opinion number: 251
Name/Alias:
J. Baker
The Chief Justice Mr. Sundaresh Menom wrote the grounds of decision (judgment) for this case for the Court of Appeal. One would ask why he did not mention at all the major faults Deutsche Bank and its manager Mr. Wan committed, which were proven at the High Court.

One can conjecture that by not mentioning at all the many major faults Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan had committed, these faults would then be buried in the dark and no one would know and question about them. Those who would read or refer to the final ruling of the case, i.e. the judgment from the Court of Appeal, in the future would not know those major faults.

It is now clear that the Chief Justice intended to cover up those blatant faults committed by Deutsche Bank and Mr. Wan and wrote a judgment by ignoring entirely the facts established by the High Court.

Opinion Number: 278
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-12 01:02:38
Name/Alias:
Freddy
After learning the atrocities of Deutsche Bank, I decided to close my small account there - Deutsche Bank won't notice my small asset but if everyone were to do the same, they might!

Opinion Number: 277
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-11 11:19:27
Name/Alias:
IQ 60
The ruling of Sundaresh Menon on this case is adhama, the lowest of men, the lowest of the low. What a sick joke to the human race to put “His Honour” before his name.

Opinion Number: 276
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-11 00:22:13
Name/Alias:
Artist
即便在銀行方面有明顯疏忽的情況下, 新加坡法院的二審判決卻明顯偏向銀行的一方, 而且法院只對銀行進行口頭的糾正, 這絕對是完全不夠的. 最後這只會間接造成類似不公平不公義的事情繼續發生. 謝謝這個網站的建立, 讓許多人可以對這件事有更多的了解.

Opinion Number: 275
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-11 00:02:02
Name/Alias:
Artist
I think that it is very important to let more people know Deutsche Bank's fraud. Everyone can know the truth through the website and warm investors how unfair trial this is in Singapore.

Opinion Number: 274
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-09 09:12:24
Response to opinion number: 270
Name/Alias:
L. Fong
I have zero confidence on the judicial system of Singapore under the reign of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menom. His ruling on this case was so barbaric, arbitrary, and prejudiced. He is definitely and absolutely not trustworthy.

Opinion Number: 273
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-09 01:49:52
Name/Alias:
Karin
Nov. 05 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg’s Karin Matussek reports on Deutsche Bank Co-CEO, Juergen Fitschen, being investigated in Germany. She speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “The Pulse.” (Source: Bloomberg)

see - http://www.bloomberg.com/video/deutsche-bank-co-ceo-probed-for-possible-fraud-QVbLxVsqSkGLE~6bgbZJVw.html

Opinion Number: 272
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-09 01:20:47
Name/Alias:
S. Ramanagathan
The legal system in Singapore is incredibly hypocritical - it feigns to be a good judicial system, but in fact, caters to big banks and does not protect good, honest people like Dr Chang.

Opinion Number: 271
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus 分享至Twitter 分享至linkedin 分享至騰訊微博
Post Time: 2013-11-08 15:32:11
Name/Alias:
KS
Such decisions should lead to decrease of the value of doing business in Singapore. If they may treat you like that, there is no reason to establish
any innovative business there or keep any finances, if it could be just stolen with agreement of the judge. It's like a Wild West with DB being a gang and lawmen are corrupted or afraid. This is more expected from the Third World Country.

Opinion Number: 270
分享至Facebook 分享至Google plus