Court will not release $4.2m linked to probe

The High Court has refused to order the release of nearly US$3 million (S$4.2 million) seized by the police from a Singapore-registered company once owned by a Russian national who is now under investigation in Russia.

But in dismissing the company's application, Justice Aedit Abdullah said that if further extensions are required, the authorities should ensure there are sufficient grounds, given the time that has passed since the funds were seized in 2016.

"On the next round, one would expect, if things have not yet been brought to a conclusion, at least such information as would explain the need for further investigations, and what has happened in the meantime," Justice Aedit said on Monday.

Mr Aleksey Anatolyevich Boytsov is being probed by the Russian authorities for allegedly embezzling at least four billion Russian roubles (S$87 million) from a state-owned shipyard construction project in Vladivostok.

In 2013, he formed AB Partners in Singapore and was its sole shareholder, with US$2,935,594 in the company's account.

The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) seized the funds in September 2016 on the grounds that they were the proceeds of criminal conduct in Russia.

But the company changed hands about five months later, when Mr Boytsov sold his shares to Malaysian Ang Hock Chye for US$10,000. About a year later, in March 2018, Mr Ang transferred all the shares to Chinese businessman Liu Kaili for $1.

In May 2018, a district judge passed a second court order allowing the CAD to retain the seized funds for investigation. Six months later, the CAD submitted a third report for the seizure to be extended by another year.

In February last year, another district judge let CAD keep the funds for investigation for another year.

The company, represented by WongPartnership lawyer Russell Pereira and two others, applied to the High Court for a criminal revision to quash the order, arguing that the funds had been frozen for more than three years, based on the CAD's third report.

Deputy public prosecutors Vincent Ong and Lee Jing Yan, in opposing the move, countered that there was a reasonable basis to believe the funds are traceable proceeds of a crime, based on the three CAD reports, and there was no substantial injustice.

In dismissing the application, Justice Aedit said in the judgment grounds that "there is a possibility that the entire sum of the seized funds was from the embezzled Russian funds".

He noted, among other things, "significant doubt" why Mr Ang transferred all the shares to Mr Liu at such a "significant undervalue" of $1 and that Mr Liu was unable to explain how the company acquired the seized funds.