AT THE COURTS
Lawyer charged with committing forgery while in police force
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
A lawyer, charged yesterday with multiple counts of forgery, was an officer from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) when he allegedly committed the offences.
Willjude Vimalraj Raymond Suras' alleged forgeries concerned 38 documents across 21 investigation papers. They are said to involve concluded criminal proceedings, coroner's matters and criminal cases which did not give rise to prosecution.
Willjude, now 31, resigned from the force on April 20, 2019, before the completion of police investigation into the alleged forgeries, and became a lawyer after that.
A search on the Ministry of Law's website reveals that he is a legal counsel at Advance Law.
He was handed 38 forgery charges yesterday, and is accused of committing the offences in 2018 and 2019. He is also accused of one count of intentionally giving false evidence during a judicial proceeding on Dec 22, 2020.
He is said to have made a false statement in his affidavit for admission to the Singapore Bar, that he was not the subject of any pending investigations here.
In an unrelated case, a policeman, 38, was charged yesterday with multiple counts of forgery.
Kenny Cheong Chyuan Lih's alleged acts of forgery led to eight reopened coroner's inquiries.
Each man was offered bail of $15,000 and their cases have been adjourned to Aug 2.
In a joint statement, the SPF and Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) said the alleged acts of forgery by the two men came to light following internal investigations by the police. The agencies said: "After the discovery of discrepancies in some of the documents, all the cases investigated by (Cheong and Willjude) were thoroughly reviewed by SPF and (AGC), to uncover any other purported wrongdoings."
AGC also reviewed all the criminal cases linked to them that did not give rise to prosecution.
In one case, it determined that the decision to take no further action against an individual was not supported by objective evidence.
It then directed for a stern warning to be given to the person whose particulars were not disclosed in the joint statement. Details about the case he or she was linked to were also not revealed.


