24 THISIS THEEXHIBITMARKED"AS-1" REFERREDTO IN 1HE AFFIDAVITOF ABDULLAHSAEED SWORNfAFFIRMBD-ON nus 2,.1.,,..DAYOF.r...,-.-...JeJOl l IN SINGAPORE BEFOREMB A COMMISSIONERFOR OATHS 25 Plaintiff: Abdulla h Saeed: 1st: IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE Originating Summons No of2011/ IN THE MATTER OF PARAGRAPH12 AND 14 OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATUREACT (CHAPTER322) AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE CIVIL LAW ACT (CHAPTER43) Between S.T.O. MALDIVES (SINGAPORE)PTE LTD (RC No. 199701620W) ... Plaintiff And i. 2. 3. 4. 5. ) 6. REGISTRAROF COMPANIES (No ID exists) . . . Defendants AFFIDAVIT OF ABDULLAH SAEED I, ABDULLAH SAEED {Passport No. ), of care of 10 Anson Road #39-10 International Plaza Singapore 079903 do affirm and say as follows: 1. I am the Chairman of the Plaintiff , S.T .O . Maldives (Singapore ) Pte Ltd ("STO Singapore") and I am duly aut horised by STO Singapore to make this affidavit on Its 26 2 behalf. Save where otherwise stated, the matters deposed to are based on my personal knowledge and/or information and documents in the possession of STO Singapore, including information and documents provided by Grant Thornton UK LLP ("GT"), and are true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I. INTRODUCTION (Al APPLICATION FOR NORWICH PHARMACAL RELIEF 2. I make this affidavit in support of STO Singapore's application for, inter al/a, the disclosure:(1) " by the 1•1,2na,and 3r" Defendants of bankers' books and other information and documents in respect of various bank accounts of Mocom Trading Pte Ltd ("Mocom Singapore"), Mocom Corporation Pte Ltd ("Mocom Corporation Singapore") , and Kamal Bin Rashid @ Myint Lwin Oo ("Kamal Rashid"), which were maintained with the 151, 2ndand 3rd Defendants during the period of 2001 to 2006 (both inclusive) (the "Bank Documents"}; and (2) of any and all documents relating to transactions entered into by Mocom Singapore and/or Mocom Corporation Singapore with any of the Myanmar Purchasers, and/or STO Singapore, arising from, relating to, and/or in connection with the supply of oil, whether directly or indirectly, to any one or more of the Myanmar Purchasers (as defined below), and payments in relation thereto (including documents relating to letters of credit issued in favour of Mocom Singapore and/or Mocom Corporation Singapore} by:(a) the 41h Defendant, which acted as the auditors of Mocom Singapore from the date of its incorporation to its striking-off, and Mocom Corporation Singapore from 18 March 2003 to 4 January 2010;and (b) the 5th Defendant, which acted as the auditors of Mocom Corporation Singapore from 2 August 2001 to 18 March 2003; 27 3 which came into their possession, custody and/or power in the course of their acting as the auditors of Mocom Singapore and/or Mocom Corporation Singapore, as the case may be (the "Accounting Records"). (8) 3. SUMMARY OF BASIS FOR RELIEF SOUGHT In this summary and for the sake of brevity, capitalised terms are as defined elsewhere in my affidavit. The above disclosure is sought by STO Singapore in order to obtain evidence of payments made and received in connection with the supply of oil by STO Singapore to the Myanmar Purchasers during the period 2002 to 2005. For the detailed reasons set out below, STO Singapore verily believes that officers and employees of STO Maldives and STO Singapore, in concert with the Mocom Entities through whom the oil was supplied, consplred to defraud STO Singapore of a substantial proportion of the proceeds of those transactions and/or to earn secret profits, and/or commissions, In breach of duties and trust. The fraud, and the breaches of duties and trust have been discovered as a result of a series of investigations carried out in the lead up to and following the ouster from office in November 2008 of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom ("Gayoom"),the former dictator and President of the Republic of Maldives ("Maldives"). As explained further below, those investigations, which have been and continue to be plagued by political interference, were carried out by the Auditor General's Office of the Maldives, the President's Commission of the Maldives and, more recently, by the global accountancy firm, GT. As a consequence, criminal investigations are underway in the Maldives and in Singapore. Based upon recently uncovered evidence of the suspected fraud relating to oil trading with the Myanmar Purchasers, STO Singapore has resolved to pursue civil action against the Identified Parties. 4. In summary, the key elements of the above fraud, on which I elaborate further below, include the following:(1) Sham Trading Structure: against the background of previous direct dealings between STO Singapore and the Myanmar Purchasers, the interposition for no apparent commercial reason of the Mocom Entities between STO Singapore and the Myanmar Purchasers, ostensibly for the purpose of supplying oil to the latter; 28 4 (2) Uncommerclal Supply Arrangements: the entry by STO Singapore into supply contracts with the Mocom Entities on untenable terms as to price which were obviously uncommercial insofar as they provided for oil to be supplied in large quantities at a premium which would result in a loss in some cases, only just cover STO Singapore's costs or yield a very marginal profit in others; (3) Double Invoicing: the issue of two sets of invoices for each shipment, one by STO Singapore to the Myanmar Purchasers which, according to the expert evidence referred to at paragraph 63 below, approximated half the value which STO Singapore ought to have commanded for the oil shipped, and the second by the Mocom Entities to the Myanmar Purchasers for the other half. This points to the Myanmar Purchasers having paid twice for each shipment, up to the combined value of both sets of invoices which the expert evidence opines was the commercial value of the oil which STO Singapore ought to have commanded; (4) Single Payments: the receipt by STO Singapore of monies which approximated one of the two invoices issued for each shipment, plus periodic top-up payments made in arrears which appear to have been intended to cover lts shipping and insurance costs. As a result, STO Singapore made a loss on some shipments, barely broke even on others, and made a modest profit on others. This was disproportionate relative to the scale, risk and nature of the business being transacted, not to mention the true value of the oil supplied, and meant that the transactions were absolutely uncommercial; (5) Insider Arrangements: save for a few instances, from February 2004 onwards, the substitution of Mocom Singapore for Mocom Malaysia and/or Mocom Corporation Singapore as the counterparty for oil contracts in circumstances where officers or employees of STO Maldives and/or STO Singapore, instead of the companies themselves, held a 50% stake in their personal names and had majority control of the Board of Directors of Mocom Singapore, none of which was formally approved and no resolution of the Board of Directors of STO Singapore or STO Maldives appears to have been passed, and the subsequent striking-off of Mocom Singapore in 2005 on the pre-text that it never commenced business. This enabled the individuals to act 29 5 in their own interests, for purposes of procuring secret profits and/or benefits and outside corporate governance norms; and (6) Uncommercial Commission Payments: the inclusion in the supply contracts entered into between STO Singapore and the Mocom Entities of a requirement for STO Singapore to pay the relevant Mocom Entity a commission (between 33.3% to 40% of net profit) which, combined with the untenable terms as to price, made the already uncommercial supply contracts even more uncommerciaL 5. On the basis of currently available evidence, STO Singapore verily believes that during the period of 2002 to 2005 (inclusive), it has been defrauded of US$142,137,164 approximately comprising the aggregate sum payable under the combined STO Invoices and Mocom Invoices of US$295,150,453 less US$153,013,289 received by STO Singapore for oil supplies to the Myanmar Purchasers. For the assistance of the Court, annexed to this affidavit as the First Schedule is a consolidated summary of the amounts invoiced by STO Singapore and the relevant Mocom Entity to the Myanmar Purchasers, the amounts received by STO Singapore by way of credit transfers and/or deposits, the top-up payments, the direct costs incurred, and the profit or loss made year on year. 6. In short, it is STO Singapore's case that it should have received the aggregate of both sets of invoices for the oil supplied as, on the basis of the expert evidence referred to, that represents the true commercial value of the subject transactions and/or what was likely paid by the Myanmar Purchasers to the Mocom Entities. STO Singapore verily believes that given the combination of the above factors, the supply contracts and the double invoicing arrangements were contrived to conceal the true nature and value of the transactions entered into so as to enable approximately onehalf of the proceeds of the oil to be diverted by the Mocom Entities for the benefit of the Identified Parties. (C) THE PRIOR RELATED APPLICATION 7.1 At this juncture, I wish to point out that STO Singapore applied (ex parte) on 28 February 2011 to the then Duty Judge, the Honourable Justice Belinda Ang, for a Mareva injunction and (broader) Norwich Pharmacal relief based upon the above fraud (Suit No. 126/2011/8 ("Suit 126") and Summons No 848/2011/D). Her Honour 30 6 expressed the view, in relation to the Mareva injunction application, that direct evidence of payment by the Myanmar Purchasers to the Mocom Entities (such as letters of credit issued in favour of the Mocom Entities) and evidence of receipt of monies by the Identified Parties would go a long way towards giving a more complete picture of the extent of monies received by the Identified Parties. In this regard, Her Honour suggested that STO Singapore consider taking a two-step approach: (1) seeking interim disclosure orders in the first instance to obtain the above evidence; and (2) thereafter, pursuing substantive relief against the Identified Parties; instead of pursuing the freezing and disclosure orders at the same time in a substantive action. In the event, STO Singapore withdrew its application as well as the substantive action. In this respect, I understand from STO Singapore's solicitors that they had informed the Honourable Justice Ang that in view of Her Honour's above suggestion, it would be neater to bring a separate action for disclosure, instead of pursuing the disclosure orders sought in the application before Her Honour within the then existing substantive civil action and accordingly, sought Her Honour's leave to withdraw the above application for Mareva Injunction and disclosure orders which was granted. 7.2 Following further investigation and consultation with the recently-appointed Attorney General of the Maldives (see further paragraph 83 below), STO Singapore is now making a reconfigured application for Norwich Pharmacal relief directed at obtaining disclosure of the Bank Documents and Accounting Records which it is verily believed will directly show the double-payments made by the Myanmar Purchasers and received by the Mocom Entities. and/or how and to whom those sums were then disbursed. (D) STATE OF STO SINGAPORE'S RECORDS 8. Whilst much of the fraud has been uncovered, this is based on what remains of the transactional documents for the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers in the possession of STO Singapore and STO Maldives which GT has managed to obtain and review for the years 2001 to 2005. According to GT. the records available at STO Singapore's offices are incomplete, with various documents missing for each transaction, and whatever documents were available were filed or kept in a haphazard manner, with the documents and records relating to transactions entered into by STO Singapore with the Mocom Entities for the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers for the year 2001 being most incomplete. 31 9, At this juncture, notwithstanding the investigafion and trndingt ot GT thus tar. the precise amount or monies. secret anti/or benefits procured by eectr or the identitied Parties. what has become at the some. as visit as the identity at any other parties who participated in the traud. remain to ha unravelled and/or ldantitied. Accordingly, STO Singapore reserves the fight to apply tor tunhei interim or other rellei depending upon the outcome ot GT's oontlnuing Investigation and/or the trurra oi any Norwich Pharmaeal reliet which this Honoursoie Court may lie prepared to Bidet i now proceed to set out the relevant background and detailed evidence in respect 0! the matters summarised above. BACKGR 1n. STO Singapore is a stateowned company incorporated in Singapore on 13 Match 1997, and is in the business or trading in diesel and rotated products on oehaliot the Republic of Maldives and the sale of those produm writers. Annaxed hereto and marked as am '1 1g' is a copy at the Aocounting and Corporate Regulation Authority company profile search result at st'o Singapore as at 21 April 201 1. 11. 5T0 Singapore was and 55 at all malerill times a wholly-owned subsidialy cl State Trading Organization Pl: 0' lhe Rspubflc of Maldives Maldivnl"). ammugh 1 share each was held in the name at --lrom 2001 to 2007i and 20m to 2008, 12. For a period of 15 years lrorn about 1990 to about 2005. Abdulla Vameen ("v-mean") was the Chairman of STD Maidtves. Yameen ms also the Minister or Trade hem 1998 to zoot. and the Minister of Tourism and or Civil Aviation As Chalrrnan at $10 Maldives over a period oi 15 years, Vameen had ovarali management and oonlrot of the business at 31:) Maldives and its whollyowried subsidiary, 870 Singapore. including in particular their pit trading eotivitlea. Despile having stepped down in at about 2005 as Chairman of STD Maldives, Yameen continued to be invotved in the business and aflatls ot sro Maldives and STD Singapore Yameen was and is the halt--brother oi Gayoom, who was the President or Maldives tor the period tram spout November 1975 to November 2003. tottowins which he was succeeded by President Mohamed Nesneed as a result oi the Maldives' first contested presidential election. 13. 14 15, 32 in respect ottna business and awaits of STD Maldives and STO Singapore, Yameen was assisted diraotiy or indlreclly by A (1) -wna was iha Managrng Dlreclor oi 510 Maldives tor the period irom in Dr abwi 1993'017) Dl' aboul 2003. Manlku was also a director on the Board at the Bank of Maldives throughout his tenure as Managing Dirednr or are Maldives (2) Inc was the Managing Director oi 810 Singapore at all malarial times since its inmrporallun in oraboul 13 March 1997; (3) --lh2 cnlei Financial Officer of am Maldives, and who was ai all material times, in charge oi and/or involved in the accounting and financial aspects oi the business oi sro Maldives as well as mow owned subsidiary, sm singapore; (4, _ie MW Hum a. STO Maldives who was, 8| all mateilal times, 15. 17 53 allegations oi corruption and iraud within iiathecl enmies. including s'ro Msidives. The Praldenl's Commission {cum evidence 01 (he misrmnagemunl a! the attairs o1 SYO Maldives. abuse oi position. and corruption. on the part of Values>> and -inciudlng In particular in respect oi loan granted by are Maldives to companies on an unwilmaida! basis. seeomeaity. the Presidents Commission identiied Yanieevt as using oonnaoted to one oi the beneficiaries ol the loans and as having received than! in Meidhrian companies tor his involvement in pramrina such loans, as well as -oo oeing under investigation. investigations are un-acina in this regard, Annexad hereto and marked an exhibit are copies oi the Auditor Generals Annual Audit Resort at $10 Maidiuos ior 2007 and Repbfi No oi the President's Commission of Maldives issued in early 201 0. Following the atrove Report by the President's Commission, GT was engaged in or about March 2010 by the Govemmenl oi Maldives to deny out investigafinns into the findings in tire Auditor General's Audit Reports ior 2007 (published in late 2003) that statewirted mode and stale organisations. including 870 Maldives. were used ior personal gain by various parties having oonlrol di or Influence over them In the course at such investigations and a review oi the financial statements oi sm Maldives. it was observed by GT that:- lt) the audited financial slsiemenl of STD Maldives tor the year ended at December 2004 (issued on 3 August 2005) (a copy at which is annexed hereto and marked as exhibit 153') was qualified by ils auditors. KPMG. as toiiows: company incorporated in Singapore try (he name or Macom Trading F'le le he. Moeom Singapore] in 2004 has not oeen disclosed under Note lvo, 30 to line Financial Statements. Them was no evidence available will regard to approval or tlie incorporation. Further we are unable to sslablish the volume arid the nature oflhe company Willi Ute group". (1) the audited financial statement of STO Maldives the year ended 31 December 2005 llssued 25 May 2005. afllei Singapoie's on 20 April zoos) (a copy at is annexed hereto and maiksd es exhibit use") was ensured by KPMG as inflows: company incorporated in Singapore by the name oi Mocom Trading Pte lie. Singapue} in 2004 has not been disclosed under Note lilo, 33 to the Financial Statements. 34 10 There was no evidence available with regard to approval of the incorporation and we are unable to establish the volume and the nature of the transactions of company with the group. However, the name of the company has been struck off on 20th April 2006". Note No. 33 listed the related party transactions; and (3) in the audited financial statement of STO Maldives for the financial year ended 31 December 2006 (a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-5"), the above qualification by KPMG in relation to Mocom Singapore was absent. It appears that KPMG no longer considered this issue relevant on the basis that Mocom Singapore had been struck-off. 18. This in turn warranted further investigations into STO Singapore specifically which commenced in the second-half of 2010. Such investigations are still ongoing. GT's investigation has taken some time due to the time required to extract, collate, reconcile and analyse the relevant documents and information, make enquiries of relevant personnel, seek expert opinion(s) and more generally, put together the various pieces of the fraud referred to herein, and this was exacerbated by the absence of numerous documents as well as the chaotic state of the existing documentation in STO Singapore's office. 19. Whilst the existence of Mocom Singapore had surfaced by end-2005 or the earlier part of 2006, in-depth investigations of Mocom Singapore and its relationship with STO Singapore only commenced in July 2010 in the course of GT's investigations. This was because up until November 2008, Gayoom was the President of the Maldives and it would have been unrealistic for such an investigation to be sanctioned, let alone carried out independently, particularly given that his half-brother Yameen was formerly the Chairman of STO Maldives and had overall charge of its business and affairs, including that of STO Singapore. It was only after Gayoom ceased to be President of Maldives that the President's Commission was tasked in 2009 to look into allegations of corruption and fraud in respect of STO Maldives. 35 11 Ill. THE FRAUD PERPETRATED (Al THE MYANMAR PURCHASERS 20. As I have stated above, it was discovered that between the period from 2002 to 2005, the STO Identified Parties and parties connected lo them had conspired to cause STO Singapore to enter into uncommercial transactions for the supply of oil to third parties in Myanmar, namely:(1) The Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd ("UMEHL"), for which purported revenue as recorded in the accounts of STO Singapore was about S$50.5 million for year 2002 (constituting about 17.15% of the total gross revenue of STO Singapore for that year); (2) Myanmar Petrochemical Enterprise Ltd ("MPE"),for which purported revenue as recorded in the accounts of STO Singapore was S$67.5 million for year 2003 (constituting about 78.37% of the total gross revenue of STO Singapore for that year), $$78 .7 million for year 2004 (constituting about 68% of the total gross revenue of STO Singapore for that year) and S$66,153,886 in 2005 (constituting about 62.90% of the total gross revenue of STO Singapore for that year); and (3) Myawaddy Trading Ltd ("Myawaddy"), for which purported revenue as recorded in the accounts of STO Singapore was S$8.3 million for year 2004 (constituting 7.17% of the total gross revenue of STO Singapore for that year), (collectively, the "Myanmar Purchasers"). 21. A copy of a table of sales revenue of STO Singapore earned from the Myanmar Purchasers for the years 2002 to 2005 (inclusive), is annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-6". For ease of reference, the revenue figures for sales by STO Singapore to MPE, Myawaddy and UMEHL for the years 2002 to 2005 (both inclusive) are set out below in tabular form;- 36 12 $T~~ln9,P9t!:1~ (,!Yenu,Jr9~ ;~1~J,~,(~i,t~~/i;.lY~J1roijr P.urchaseriS (5$) s·a1es to OMEHt?: ·· Salesto Mvawaddy ' salesto MPE •{o/~ ·ofOvei;~II :• ., Year . Revenue) !----+--------.:.. 2002 ·,.. (% of-Overall (% of Overall ...' :~e~enuf.l) ·.Revenue) ·-.·''- +------'------l--------,----- ,- 50,544,956 (17.15%) -~.....~-~--,.·---·"·-~···-~-- ---·---- 2003 67,676,732 (78.37%) ---2004 - -··---·-·- -----,----·----- .. 8,302,470 (7.17%) 2005 78,680,488 (68%) 66,153,886 (62.90%) ----·--·---·-·----·-·-·22. Based on publicly available information extracted from the website of the Myanmar Ministry of Energy and other sources (copies of which are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-7"):(1) UMEHL was incorporated in or about 1990 in Myanmar under the purview of the Office of the Defense Industries, and is a business enterprise of the Myanmar Armed Forces. Under US laws, namely the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act 2003 {US), it was illegal for US companies and citizens to trade with UMEHL and its subsidiaries; (2) Myawaddy was a subsidiary of UMEHL; and (3) MPE was and is a company set up by the Myanmar Government to supply oil to the state. 23. The audited financial statements of STO Singapore for the period from 2001 to 2009 revealed:(1) the gross revenue of STO Singapore increased dramatically from about S$41.6 million in 2001 to about S$294.1 million in 2002 and thereafter, from 2003 to 2005, ranged between S$86.1 million to S$115.7 million; (2) from 2006 onwards, gross revenue decreased significantly to about S$56.5 million and S$62.8 million for years 2006 and 2007 respectively, and dropped 37 13 to as low as about S$19.9 million and approximately S$17 million for years 2008 and 2009 respectively; (3) for each year from 2001 to 2009, the cost of purchases for each year was approximately the same as the revenue for that year, with the consequence that the profit and loss of STO Singapore before tax ranged from a profit of S$0.38 million in 2002 to a loss of S$0.18 million in 2008; and (4) specifically, the profit before tax of STO Singapore for years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 was merely S$383,184, S$101,753, S$64,400 and S$66,997, despite Its gross revenue being S$294,123,621, S$86,100,402, S$115,725,144 and S$105, 170,183 respectively for those years. The latter two points (i.e. 23(3) and (4)) are peculiar given that STO Singapore had not only traded with STO Maldives, but also third parties. Annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-8" is a copy of a summary of information extracted from the audited financial statements of STO Singapore for the financial years ended 2001 to 2009. It is also noteworthy and indeed no coincidence that the revenue of STO Singapore decreased significantly when sales to the Myanmar Purchasers ceased, after Yameen stepped down as Chairman of STO Maldives in August 2004 and following the discovery of Mocom Singapore by KPMG in their audit of STO Maldives for the financial years 2004 and 2005. (Bl 24. THE MOCOM ENTITIES Investigations by GT further revealed that the transactions for the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers and the payments relating thereto were 'routed' through the following companies (collectively, the "Mocom Entities"):(1) Mocom Corporation Sdn Bhd ("Mocom Malaysia") from about 2001 to 2002 (through its use as the contracting party with STO Singapore, although one set of invoices to the Myanmar Purchasers for the supply of oil under these contracts were issued by Mocom Corporation Singapore): (2) Mocom Corporation Singapore from about 2001 to 2005 (through its use as a contracting party with STO Singapore and/or the issuer of one set of the invoices to the Myanmar Purchasers for the supply of oil): and 39 15 (2) Abdul Rashid, who was also a registered holder of 1 ordinary share from its incorporation up until 30 October 2009, upon which date he resigned as director and also transferred his shareholding; (3) Bilal Rashid (deceased), who was also a shareholder of 1 ordinary share from its incorporation until his demise on or about 31 July 2003. Following which, Bilal Rashid's 1 ordinary share was transferred to Kamal Rashid on or about 29 August 2003; and (4) 29. Than! Zin, about whom very little is known. According to the above ACRA company profile search for Mocom Corporation Singapore, it has been "gazetted lo be struck-off' with effect from 16 February 2011. As I have been given to understand from STO Singapore's solicitors, Mocom Corporation Singapore will only be struck-off after a further period of 3 months, on or about 16 May 2011, if no objections are lodged in respect of such striking out. If STO Singapore has not lodged such objections as at the time of filing of the application herein, it intends to do so prior to the expiry of the 3-month period. Copies of Mocom Corporation Singapore's ACRA company profile search dated 16 February 2011, as well as the Notice of its intended striking-off published in the electronic edition of the Gazette on 16 February 2011 are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-10". 29.1 Copies of the audited financial statement of Mocom Corporation Singapore for the financial years ended 30 September 2003 and 30 September 2004 prepared by are annexed hereto and marked as exhibits"~" and "AS-12" respectively. The respective forms lodged with ACRA in respect of the change in audttors from in March 2003 are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-13". MOCOM SINGAPORE 30. Mocom Singapore was and Is a company incorporated in Singapore on 4 February 2004 with an issued and paid-up capital of S$4 comprising of 4 ordinary shares of S$1 each. A copy of Mocom Singapore's ACRA company profile search dated 21 October 2010 is annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-14". At all material times since tts incorporation. the directors of Mocom Singapore were:- 40 16 (1) Muneez; (2) Mansoor, who was also a registered holder of 1 ordinary share, being 25% of the issued and paid-up capital of the Mocom Singapore; (3) Ashan, who was also a registered holder of 1 ordinary share, being 25% of the issued and paid-up capital of Mocom Singapore; (4) Kamal Rashid, who was also a registered holder of 1 ordinary share, being 25% of the issued and paid-up capital of Mocom Singapore; and (5) Abdul Rashid, who was also a registered holder of 1 ordinary share, being 25% of the issued and paid-up capital of Mocom Singapore. 31. Out of the 5 directors in Mocom Singapore at the relevant time (namely, Muneez, Mansoor, Ashan, Kamal Rashid and Abdul Rashid}, 3 of them were directors and/or officers of either STO Maldives (Mansoor and Ashan) or STO Singapore (Muneez}. Furthermore, Mansoor and Ashan held, as between them, 50% of the shareholding in Mocom Singapore. 32. Mocom Singapore was struck-off the Register of Companies on or about 20 April 2006 (following its application to ACRA for striking-off dated 8 December 2005 wherein it was falsely declared that Mocom Singapore had not commenced business since its incorporation). For the purposes of the application for striking-off, Mocom Singapore had filed the requisite form with ACRA on 8 December 2005 wherein it was stated that all the directors had agreed to the striking-off application and had represented, as the reason for striking-off, that Mocom Singapore "has not commenced business since Us date of incorporation" and that its directors have obtained the written consent of the majority of the shareholders to strike the name of the company off the register. Further, the directors of Mocom Singapore had made a statutory declaration that Mocom Singapore "has been dormant since its date of incorporation". Copies of the application form and the statutory declarations are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-15".The representation that Mocom Singapore "has not commenced business since Us date of incorporation" is clearly false and misleading as there were numerous transactions for the sale and 41 17 purchase of oil worth tens of millions in 2004 and in 2005 (prior to August 2005) and had received monies into its bank accounts, which I will elaborate upon below. 33. The audited financial statement of Mocom Singapore for the period from 4 February 2004 to 30 June 2005 (a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-16' ), prepared by and signed by Kamal Rashid and Muneez, notably reflected a loss of S$4 and a mere operating Income of S$3,421, and did not reflect the supposed oil trades for which ij had issued invoices for some US$74 million to the Myanmar Purchasers for the same period. 34. I will hereinafter refer to the STO Identified Parties, Kamal Rashid, Abdu l Rashid, Mocom Malaysia, Mocom Corporation Singapore and/or Mocom Singapore as the 'Identified Parties". For easy reference, I have set out at the Second Schedule annexed hereto in tabular form, against the names of the various Identified Parties, the offices and/or shares held by them in each of the following relevant entities. (Cl 35. THE ROLE OF THE MOCOM ENTITIES I am informed by GT that based on the documents reviewed and upon enquiries made of Muneez by GT, the involvement of the Mocorn Entities was apparently necessitated by the rights to supply oil to the Myanmar Purchasers being purportedly vested in Mocom Malaysia and/or Mocom Corporation Singapore for the period from 2001 up to in or about early 2004, and thereafter, in Mocom Singapore, under supposed upstream supply rights contracts entered into between the Mocom Entities and the Myanmar Purchasers. In return, STO Singapore was obliged to pay a commission to Mocom Malaysia, Mocom Corporation Singapore, and/or Mocom Singapore. To this end, various contracts were entered into between STO Singapore and the Mocom Entities reflecting the above. Annexed hereto and marked as:- (1) exhibit "AS-17" are copies of a table summarising the details of the contracts 26 February 2001 to 28 October 2002 between Mocom Malaysia and STO Singapore for the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers, and a sample of these contracts entitled "Contract No.9" dated 1 October 2001. By this contract, STO Singapore contracted to sell to Mocorn Malaysia 6,000 metric tonnes (+/. 10%) of oil to be supplied to UMEHL in Myanmar, and it was further provided under clause 4 of this contract that STO Singapore was to pay "a commission of US$0.50 [to Mocom Malaysia]. As Mocom corporation 42 18 (apparently referring to Mocom Malaysia) hold the original contract with Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd. (Copy of this contract with [Mocom Malaysia] ... will be in this fife)", apparently referring to the supply rights held by Mocom Malaysia. GT has, however, not been able to locate any such "original contract" held by Mocom Malaysia in the records of STO Singapore; (2) exhibit "AS~18"are copies of a table summarising the details to the contracts entered into between Mocom Corporation Singapore and STO Singapore from 2003 up to about 2 April 2004, and a sample of these contracts dated 2 January 2004 for the supply of 61,000 metric tonnes(+/- 10%) of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers. Under this sample contract, STO Singapore was to pay "a commission of US 0.0725 per bbls to Mocom Corporation Pte Ltd ~.e. Mocom Corporation Singapore). As Mocom Trading Pte Ltd (i.e. Mocom Singapore) hold the original contract with Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Ltd.". It also carried a payment instruction note directing that all or the balance commission payable, be paid to Kamal Rashid (account no. with the 1st Defendant, . It is pertinent to note that as at the date of this contract, Mocom Singapore (incorporated on 4 February 2004) had not even been incorporated. Yet, it was stated as holding the oil supply rights to UMEHL. Moreover, if indeed Mocom Singapore held the upstream oil supply rights to UMEHL, one would have thought that a copy of this contract between Mocom Singapore and UMEHL would have been made available to STO Singapore, and properly kept in the records of STO Singapore, given that out of the 5 directors in Mocom Singapore at the relevant time (namely, Muneez, Mansoor, Ashan, Kamal Rashid and Abdul Rashid), 3 of them were directors/officers of either STO Maldives (Mansoor and Ashan) or STO Singapore (Muneez). Furthermore, Mansoor and Ashan held, as between them, 50% of the shareholding in Mocom Singapore; and (3) exhibit "AS-19"are copies of a table summarising the details of the contracts entered into between Mocom Singapore and STO Singapore for the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers from 13 September 2004 to 2 April 2005, and a sample of these contracts dated 2 April 2005 for the supply of 41 ,OOOmetric tonnes (+/- 10%) of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers. In this contract, STO Singapore was to "pay a commission of US$11,275.60 to Mocom Corporation Pte Ltd (i.e. Mocom Corporation Singapore). As Mocom Trading Pte Ltd (i.e. 43 19 Mocom Singapore) hold the original contract with Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings Lief'. All these contracts (where signed) were signed by Muneez for STO Singapore (save for 8 contracts in 2001, 7 in 2003, and 1 in 2004 which were unsigned by STO Singapore, although these were apparently signed by Mocom Malaysia); and by Kamal Rashid for Mocom Malaysia (save for 4 contracts in 2002, which were unsigned by Mocom Malaysia, although these were apparently signed by STO Singapore). There were also 8 copies of unsigned contracts (7 in 2003, and 1 in 2004) located. 36. I wish to point out that despite the 'routing' of the oil supply transactions through the Mocom Entities and the payment of commissions to them being justified apparently on the basis that the Mocom Entities held the upstream supply rights vis-a-vis the Myanmar Purchasers, GT has not located any such upstream supply rights contracts In the records of STO Singapore, apart from 4 documents which purport to be such upstream supply rights contracts entered into between the Mocom Entities and the Myanmar Purchasers. Copies of these upstream supply rights contracts dated 28 December 2001, 2 January 2003, 14 May 2003, and 27 April 2005, along with correspondence in relation thereto that were located by GT are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit'~"- 37. Whilst GT has located the following documents which appear to suggest that there may be other upstream supply rights contracts for the supply of oil between the Mocom Entities and the Myanmar Purchasers, the actual upstream contracts themselves have not been located:(1) a document entitled "Invitation to Bid for the Supply of Diesel Oif' purportedly issued by MPE dated 1 November 2002 (a copy of which is annexed as exhibit "AS-21") for the supply of 40,000 (+I- 10%) metric tonnes (approximately 300,000 barrels), for delivery "as soon as possible"; (2) various correspondence exchanged in 2003 between Kamal Rashid and/or Abdul Rashid on behalf of Mocom Corporation Singapore and MPE, as well as between one "MiM!" purportedly of "Mocom Myanmar' and Muneez, in relation to:- (a) the supply of oil in or around January 2003; (b) the supply of oil in or about April to June 2003; and (c) the supply of oil in or about August 44 20 to October 2003 which suggests that there may be other upstream mother contracts for the supply of oil between Mocom Corporation Singapore and the Myanmar Purchasers in 2003, although the upstream mother contracts themselves have not been able to be located. Copies of these documents are annexed hereto and marked as exhibits "AS-22", "AS-23" and "AS-24" respectively; and (3) copies of 4 documents purporting to be faxes (which STO Singapore does not accept either the authenticity or veracity of) containing tables marked "Tender"for the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers, as well as 2 faxes from Mocom Corporation Singapore to MPE (one signed but incomplete, and the other unsigned). Copies of these documents are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-25". 38. These were the only such documents of their kind in STO Singapore's records, despite STO Singapore having sold oil to Myanmar for over four years, I believe these documents, as well as any invitation to bid document (similar to the "Invitation to Bid'' unsigned document dated 1 November 2002, referred to in paragraph 37(1) above), may have been planted to create the impression of a legitimate process for the sale of oil to Myanmar and were calculated to give the Impression that there was some form of a tender invitation by the Myanmar Purchasers and that various bids had been received from various so-called bidders. 39. For reasons which will be elaborated upon below, STO Singapore believes that the involvement of Mocom Malaysia (up to 2002), then secondly Mocom Corporation Singapore (up to early 2004), then finally Mocom Singapore (after February 2004) on the basis of their having the upstream oil supply rights to the Myanmar Purchasers was designed to enable the Identified Parties to procure and to divert monies rightfully belonging to STO Singapore to their hands, by using the double-invoicing process referred to below . (D) THE OOUBLEwlNVOICING PROCEDURE 40 . In respect of the above sale transactions with the Myanmar Purchasers from 2002 to 2005, it was discovered that for each trade sale to the Myanmar Purchasers, there were two sales invoices, one issued by STO Singapore (the "STO lnvoice(s)") to the Myanmar Purchaser and one issued by Mocom Singapore and/or Mocom 45 21 Corporation Singapore to the Myanmar Purchaser (collectively referred to as the "Mocom lnvolce(s)"). 41. These invoices were identical in all respects but for the name of the invoice, and the unit price for the oil supplied which was generally lower in the Mocom Invoices than the STO Invoices (with the exception of 2002 where the Mocom Invoices were largely higher, and from about May 2005 onwards to July 2005 where the total amounts under both sets of invoices were about the same). In fact, the two sets of invoices were also identical in respect of their invoice numbers, and their sequencing, which at the very least is highly unusual given that in the ordinary course of business invoices issued by separate entities would have carried numbers unique to each of them, having regard to transactions carried out in their respective businesses. 42. For these transactions, despite STO Singapore's invoice for a higher sum (with the exception of 2002 and post May 2005), STO Singapore would generally only receive payment for the sum invoiced by the Mocom Entities. From time to time, top-up payments would be made in arrears to STO Singapore's account, purportedly to about make-up the shortfall between the STO Invoices and the Mocom Invoices. GT has not been able to identify from STO Singapore's own records the payers of the invoices or the lop-up amounts (save for two instances in 2002). 43. However, even with these top-up payments, taking into account the commission payments STO Singapore had to pay the Mocom Entitles:- (1) the actual cash amounts received by STO Singapore would in the aggregate be less than or just about covered their cost of goods (plus freight, insurance, surveyor fees, hedging fees and port authority fees, but excluding indirect costs such as administrative, banking charges and overheads); and (2) in respect of its book profit and loss, either just about covered costs of their goods (plus freight, insurance, surveyor fees, hedging fees and port authority fees, but excluding indirect costs such as administrative, banking charges and overheads), or made marginal profit on these transactions. It is evident that the transactions for the supply of oil undertaken by STO Singapore were not only unprofitable in a significant number of cases, but also highly uncommercial given the high credit and collection risk borne by STO Singapore, as it 46 22 had to first pay for the costs of oil to be supplied first to external third party suppliers such as Shell, and thereafter having to rely entirely on the Mocom Entities for payment, without good security for the same. Copies of a table of profitability analysis of these oil trades to the Myanmar Purchasers for each of the years of 2002 to 2005 are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-26". ("Book profit/loss" referred to in the above tables ls calculated by deducting the net direct costs from the amounts invoiced by STO Singapore for each transaction: whilst "cash profit/loss" is calculated by deducting the net direct costs from the amounts received by STO Singapore for each transaction.) The above analysis was prepared by GT based on information available from STO Singapore's accounting ledger, source documents such as invoices and letters of credit (where available), as well as bank statements, and may vary depending on the availability of other information and documents (including the Bank Documents and Accounting Records sought herein). 44. For illustration purposes, a set of the relevant source documents in respect of a sample transaction for each of the years 2002 to 2005 are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibits "AS-27"for year 2002; "AS-28"for year 2003; "~" for year 2004; and "AS-30"for year 2005. 2002 45.1 As can be seen from the source documents in respect of a sample transaction for the year 2002 (exhibit "AS-27"), STO Singapore had issued an invoice no. 2110 to UMEHL dated 18 July 2002 for the sale of 47,248 barrels (or 6298.958 metric tonnes) of oil at US$31.045 per barrel totalling US$1.466,814.16, and Mocom Corporation Singapore had issued its own invoice no. MC-2110 to UMEHL as well but with a unit price of US$183.5625 per metric tonne for a total amount of US$1, 138,087.50. 45.2 A letter of credit numbered MF27 / OC90092 in favour of Mocom Corporation Singapore for an amount of US$1,138,087.50 was issued on 17 July 2002 (which amount was equivalent to that under invoice no. 2110 of Mocom Corporation Singapore), as can be seen from the copy of the letter of credit itself. It appears from the statements of STO Singapore's account no. Defendant, with the 2nd that US$1,136,519.43 was then credited into STO Singapore's account on 8 August 2002, as seen from transaction "957153399660 PAY001 " on the bank statement dated 3 September 2002, with such 47 23 amount being approximate to that under Mocom Corporation Singapore's invoice no. 2110, but less than that under the STO Singapore's above invoice of US$1,466,814.16. Top-up payments were then subsequently received by STO Singapore, which I verily believe, was to make up on part of the shortfall, which I will elaborate upon below at paragraph 52. 2003 46.1 The source documents in respect of a sample transaction for the year 2003 (exhibit "AS-28") would reveal that STO Singapore had issued an invoice no. 3028 to MPE dated 19 June 2003 for sale of 31,374 barrels of oil at US$31.290 per barrel totalling US$981,692.46, whilst Mocom Corporation Singapore had issued invoice no. 3028 also to MPE with identical shipment for the same quantity of oil but with a unit price of US$29.00 per barrel totalling US$909,846.00. 46.2 As can be seen from the Notification of Amendment to Documentary Credit dated 15 July 2003 issued by to Mocom Corporation Singapore, a letter of credit numbered MIC15 / SP737 for US$9,570,000.00 was issued on 5 June 2003. As seen then from the Letter of Credit Negotiation Form dated 26 June 2003 with Bank Reference No. 957113440084, Mocom Corporation Singapore instructed that US$909,846.00 be credited to STO Singapore's Account US$909, 160.33 was then received by STO Singapore in its on 8 July 2003 (see page 2 of the bank statement dated 2 August 2003, for transaction "957153714748 PAY001"). The amount so credited and received by STO Singapore was approximate to that under Mocom Corporation Singapore's invoice no. 3028. I am informed by GT that the above letter of credit numbered MIC15 / SP737 was not found in STO Singapore's records. 2004 47.1 As for the year 2004, the source documents in respect of a sample transaction for that year (exhibit "AS-29") would show that STO Singapore had issued an invoice no. 4045 to MPE dated 2 July 2004 for the sale of 46,730 barrels of oil at US$43.335 per barrel totalling US$2,025,044.55, whilst a corresponding no. 4045 invoice was issued by Mocom Singapore. This Mocom Singapore invoice is dated 2 July 2004 as well, and it is also addressed to MPE for the same amount of oil at US$40.00 per barrel totalling US$1,869,200.00. Whilst the STO Invoice No. 4045 and Mocom Singapore 48 24 invoice no. 4045 refer to Proforma Invoice No. MO/USST0/10810 dated 29 March 2004, I am informed that no such proforma invoices were sighted by GT in STO Singapore's records. 47.2 With regard to these invoices, as can be seen from the Advice of Amendment dated 10 June 2004 issued by to Mocom Singapore, a letter of credit numbered MIC/16/SP/636 dated 20 April 2004 for an original amount of US$17,614,368.00 was issued with Mocom Singapore named as the beneficiary. I understand from GT that based on their review of STO Singapore's records, the above letter of credit was issued partly in respect of invoice no. 4045. An amount of US$1,867,874.73 was then credited into STO on 16 July 2004, as seen from the bank statement for the month of July 2004, which transaction number is "1CENG162358", with such amount being approximate to that under Mocom Singapore's invoice no. 4045. Again, I understand from GT that the above letter of credit numbered MIC/16/SP/636 itself was not found in STO Singapore's records. 2005 48. 1 As can be seen from the source documents in respect of a sample transaction for the year 2005 (exhibit "AS-30"), STO issued an invoice no. 5032 to MPE dated 5 July 2005 for the sale of 27,802 barrels at US$71.664 per barrel totalling US$1,992.402.53, whilst Mocom Singapore issued a corresponding invoice no. 5032 to MPE dated 5 July 2005 for the sale of the same number of barrels at the same price. 48.2 With regard to these invoices, as can be seen from a copy of the letter of credit itself, a letter of credit numbered MF/30/FOC/90090 dated 30 June 2005 for an amount of US$2,550,000.00 was issued in favour of Mocom Singapore. On 5 July 2005, a Letter of Credit Negotiation Form with the same LC reference was issued. However, this Letter of Credit Negotiation Form only refers to an amount of US$1,992,402.53 which Mocom Singapore instructed was to be credited into STO Singapore's . Pursuant to this, US$1,991,050.72 was then credited into STO Singapore's on 18 July 2005, as seen from the bank statement for July 2005 (see transaction number "1CENG190671"). 49 25 (E} PAYMENTSRECEIVED BY STO SINGAPORE 49. As pointed out and illustrated above, it was ascertained by GT from a review of the records of STO Singapore that it generally first received sums which approx imated the amounts due under the Mocom Invoices on the oil supplied to the Myanmar Purchasers for the period of 2002 to 2005 (inclusive). Copies of a summary of payment information in respect of sales to the Myanmar Purchasers, prepared by GT, for the years 2002 to 2005 (inclusive) are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-31". 50. The following peculiarities are noted:- (1) in respect of oil supplied by STO Singapore in 2002, with the except ion of one instance identified, it appears that letters of credit were issued in favour of Mocom Corporation Singapore as beneficiary in the first insta nce , and the reafter, payment was made to STO Singapore via cred it transfers or deposits into the accounts of STO Singapore; (2) in respect of 2003, for a large part of the transactions for the supply of oil by STO Singapore to the Myanmar Purchasers, letters of credit appear to have been issued in favour of Mocom Corporation Singapore at the first instance, and payment appears to have been made by way of cred it transfers or deposits into the accounts of STO Singapore; (3) from about February 2004 (following the incorporation of Mocom Singapore at about that time) to 2005, it appears that for at least 7 transac tions for the supply of oil by STO Singapore to the Myanmar Purchase rs, letters of cred it were provided by the Myanma r Purchasers in favour of Mocom Singapo re, and payments were then subsequently credited directly into STO Singapore's bank accounts by way of credit transfers or deposits. In respect of the remaining about 30 transact ions in 2004, no letters of credit were found in STO Singapore's records, although payments were similarly cred ited di rectly into STO Singapore' s bank accounts; and (4) in respect of 7 transactions for oil supplied by STO Singapore to the Myanmar Purchasers in 2005, letters of credit appear to have been issued in favour of 50 26 Mocom Singapore at the first instance, and payment appears to have been made subsequently by way of credit transfers or deposits into the accounts of STO Singapore. 51. GT has thus far located:· (1) a limited number of letters of credit issued in respect of the oil supplied to the Myanmar Purchasers in favour of the Mocom Entities; and (2) other documents such as debit advices, requests for negotiation of letters of credit, and notifications of documentary credits which suggest the existence of letters of credit issued in favour of the Myanmar Purchasers. These documents reveal that STO Singapore received payment from the Mocom Entities ln some cases upon the Mocom Entities instructing the receiving bank to credit stipulated amounts under letters of credit issued in their favour to STO Singapore. In other cases, it is believed that such payments to STO Singapore would have been made upon Mocom Entities first receiving payments from the Myanmar Purchasers whether under letters of credit or otherwise. Copies of a table summary of the relevant letters of credit (where available) and details of the corresponding payments received by STO Singapore in respect of the trades with the Myanmar Purchasers and the corresponding related documents for each of the years of 2002 to 2005 are annexed hereto and marked as exhibits "AS-32","AS-33","AS-34", and "AS-35" respectively. THE TOP-UP PAYMENTS 52. In addition to the above payments received by STO Singapore from 2002 to 2005 approximating the amounts due under the Mocom Invoices, STO Singapore also received into its bank accounts top·up payments in arrears of US$719,666 in 2002; US$1,205,864 in 2003; US$5,437,482 in 2004; and US$975,893 in 2005 in its bank accounts. For 2002, on two occasions top·UP payments totalling US$410,158.58 were recorded in STO Singapore's records as having been received from UMEHL and Mocom Corporation. Annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-36" are copies of a list, prepared by GT, of the above top.up payments for the period of 2002 to 2005 received by STO Singapore as well as the corresponding supporting documents. According to GT, in or about the second half of 2010, Muneez sought to 51 27 explain that the top-up payments were purportedly made by the Myanmar Purchasers to settle the shortfall between what they had earlier paid and the amounts due under the STO Invoices but it is unclear as to how the amounts of topup payments were derived, particularly given that the top-up payment amounts did not exactly match the shortfall. 53. In addttion, I wish to draw the Honourable Court's attention to the following documents reviewed by GT illustrating that payments of the oil supplied were 'routed' through the relevant banks accounts of the Mocom Entities:- ( 1) a letter of credit negotiatiOn document (annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "A§-37") for the transaction under Invoice 4008 which instructs that should credit proceeds under the relevant letter of credit to Mocom Singapore's account no. 1 and bank statements of t his account for the period of February 2004 to September 2005 (annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-38"); (2) a debit advice (annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-39) from to Mocom Corporation Singapore informing that monies have been debited to its account no. (3) a facsimile dated 27 August 2003 (annexed hereto and marked as exhibit 'AS-40) found amongst the transactional documents relating to Invoice 3040 wherein Kamal Rashid appears to inform "Jamir (believed to be Jamal) from STO Singapore about Mocom Corporation Singapo re's UOB USO account no. (4) a letter of credit MF27/0C dated 23 April 2002 received from the Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank and the Notification of Documentary Credit dated 24 April 2002 from stating that the amount payable under LC MF27/0C is to be transferred to copies of which are annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-41"; and (5) a letter dated 8 July 2004 {annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-42") written on behalf of STO Singapore to Ashan of Mocom Singapore requesting that documents for the opening of an account with the 3"' Defendant, be signed by the 52 28 respective signatories of Mocom Singapore. No information however, is available to show what type of account was intended to be opened, nor the purpose of the account. 54. I wish to add that the above bank statements of Mocom Singapore's 9 for the period of February 2004 to September 2005 were provided by Muneez to GT at its request. Muneez informed GT that this was apparently Mocom Singapore's only bank account and these were the only bank documents he had. Given that Mocom Singapore has been struck-off and has ceased to exist, I verily believe that Muneez, Ashan or Mansoor, as three of the former directors of Mocom Singapore, have ceased to have authority to obtain such documents from the relevant banks (even assuming that they were previously so authorised), and that the banks would refuse such a request without the benefit of a Court order. (Fl THE MOCOM ENTITIES A CONDUIT FOR THE FRAUDULENT SCH EME 55. There was and could be no legitimate commercial reason for the double-invoicing procedure to be employed whereby both STO Singapore and the Mocom Entities issued invoices to the Myanmar Purchasers, or for STO Singapore to receive payment by way of initial amounts followed by top-ups made in arrears, which exposed STO Singapore to significant financial risk with respect to each shipment as it would have had no or severely inadequate security for payment. 56. Whilst at first sight, the Involvement of the Mocom Entities in the supply transactions and the 'routing' of payments through them may appear to be explicable by the purported upstream supply rights held by them vis-a-vis the Myanmar Purchasers, STO Singapore verily believes that such purported rights were no more than designed to facilitate the double-invoicing procedure and payment routing through the Mocom Entities. In this respect:(1) whilst the contracts entered into between STO Singapore and the Mocom Entities purport to refer to such supply rights being vested in the Mocom Entities, the opporiunity to supply oil was in fact initially procured by the Government of Maldives. It was Yameen who first introduced STO Singapore to the Government of Myanmar, and requested that STO Singapore be registered as a supplier of products imported by the Myanmar Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation as evident from an 53 29 undated letter found in the records of STO Singapore wherein Yameen had first introduced STO Singapore to the Government of Myanmar. It appears that Muneez then followed up on this introduction in a letter dated 23 December 1999 to the Myanmar Ministry of Energy to elaborate on STO Singapore. Copies of these correspondences are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-43"; (2) more importantly, by a letter dated 4 July 2001 from STO Singapore to UMEHL signed by Muneez (annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-44"), STO Singapore Itself confirms that "Mocom Corporation Pte Ltd will be our sole agent for this business". This appears to be consistent with the fact that STO Singapore had purportedly paid commissions in respect of the oil supply transactions to the Myanmar Purchasers to Kamal Rashid on behalf of the Mocom Entities (which commissions STO Singapore will also be seeking in due course to recover on the basis that they were paid in breach of trust and/or fiduciary duties ); (3) GT has located another contract between Kamal Rashid, Mocom Corporation Singapore and STO Singapore dated 2 January 2006 (annexed hereto and marked as exh ibtt "AS-45") for the supply of oil to Myanmar in which it is stated at clause 4 that "STO Maldives Singapore Pte Ltd should pay a Minimum Marketing Fee of USDO,18 per Bbls to Mocom Corporation Pte Ltd. As Mocom Corporation Pte Ltd act as Marketing/operational agent in Myanmar for STO Singapore!MNOC"; and (4) as pointed out earlier at paragraph 36 of this affidavit, apart from 4 supposed upstream supply rights contracts entered into between the Mocom Entities and the Myanmar Purchasers, no other such contracts were located by GT in the records of STO Singapore. 57. In addition, Muneez, Mansoor, and Ashan, all of whom were directors and/or officers of either STO Maldives (Mansoor and Ashan) or STO Singapore (Muneez), sought to set-up Mocom Singapore and acted as directors and In the case of Mansoor and Ashan, as shareholders of Mocom Singapore. Subsequently, following the qualification by KPMG of its audit report for STO Maldives in 2005 based upon the non-disclosure by STO Singapore of the incorporation of Mocom Singapore, the directors and shareholders of Mocom Singapore then proceeded to apply to strike-off 54 30 Mocom Singapore from the Register of Companies on or about 20 April 2006 on the basis of the untruth that Mocom Singapore 'has not commenced business since its date of Incorporation" and 'has been dormant since Its date of incorporation".(See exhibit "AS-15"). 58. Given the involvement of Muneez, Mansoor, and Ashan, STO Singapore strongly believes that the entire modus operandi of the sale of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers , including the double-invoicing procedure employed, as well as the setting-up and subsequent attempt to strike-off Mocom Singapore, was carried out at the direction and/or with the approval of Yameen and with the assistance of Maniku to facilitate the perpetration of the fraud and without the formal approval of the Board of Directors of STO Maldives. STO Maldives has confirmed to me that no approval by the Board of Directors of STO Maldives for the incorporation of Mocom Singapore as a joint venture with the Mocom Entities or the participation of Muneez, Ashan and Muneez in Mocom Singapore has been located in STO Maldives' records. 59. GT has located a document (whose provenance is unknown) and a letter dated 18 December 2003 from Muneez to Maniku in STO Singapore's records (copies of which are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-46') which purport to explain the rationale for setting-up Mocom Singapore - that Mocom Singapore was allegedly a joint venture between Mocom Malaysia and STO Singapore for the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers as "Mocom"had the contractual rights to do so, and STO Singapore was concerned that letters of credit issued by the Myanmar Purchasers in favour of "Mocom" from which STO Singapore was to be paid could be revoked by "Mocom", thereby exposing STO Singapore to potential financial loss. According to GT, Muneez has also sought to explain the Incorporation and involvement of Mocom Singapore on the basis of the above, when enquired about by GT. 60. However, for the following reasons, the explanation that Mocom Singapore was a joint venture appears to be fallle and illogical and, at best, less than credible:(1) If indeed Mocom Singapore was intended to be a legitimate joint venture vehicle for purposes of facilitating the supply of oil by STO Singapore to the Myanmar Purchasers, and to minimize payment risks to STO Singapore, STO Singapore could easily have been the beneficiary under the letters of credit procured by the Myanmar Purchasers, and/or such letters of credit could have 55 31 been immediately transferred and/or assigned to STO Singapore upon Issuance. Instead, the letters of credit were consistently issued in favour of the Mocom Entities, in respect of transactions for the supply of oil in 2002 to 2005, wtth the exception of a few instances; (2) moreover, if indeed Mocom Singapore was intended to be a legitimate joint venture vehicle for purposes of facilitating the supply of oil by STO Singapore to the Myanmar Purchasers, STO Singapore ought properly have been the shareholder of Mocom Singapore, and not Mansoor and Ashan; (3) furthermore, the requisite internal approvals on the part of STO Singapore and/or STO Maldives would have been required for the incorporation of Mocom Singapore. This was never done; and (4) there would also have been no legitimate reason or necessity for Muneez, Ashan, Mansoor, Kamal Rashid and/or Abdul Rashid, upon discovery of the Mocom Singapore by KPMG in or about 2005, to then immediately seek to strike-it off, let alone on the basis of the lie that it "has not commenced business since its date of incorporation" and "has been dormant since its date af incorporation" . 61. In reality, there was no legitimate or proper commercial reason for the transactions for the supply of oil to be routed through the Mocom Entities (including in particular, Mocom Singapore). STO Singapore verily believes that the Identified Parties conspired to cause the transactions to be routed on the basis of the purported supply rights of the Mocom Entities so as to facilitate payment for the oil supplied by STO Singapore to the Myanmar Purchasers on both sets of invoices (i.e. the aggregate of amounts under these invoices) into their hands. This whilst causing STO Singapore to merely receive barely more (and in a significant number of cases, less) than its costs for the transactions in circumstances where it bore the high credit and collection risk by having to pay for the oil to be supplied first to external third party suppliers such as Shell, and thereafter having to rely on the Mocom Entities for payment on its invoices, all of which is clearly uncommercial. 62. Quite apart from the upstream supply rights purportedly held by the Mocom Entities, that the double-invoicing procedure was similarly a component of the fraudulent design of the Identified Parties for purposes of procuring payment from the Myanmar 56 32 Purchasers in respect of each cargo of oil supplied by STO Singapore of the amounts under both the STO Invoices and the Mocom Invoices, is evident from the following:(1) there is no legitimate or commercial reason for both STO Singapore and the Mocom Entities to issue invoices to the Myanmar Purchasers for the same transaction, if indeed STO Singapore was selling oil to the Mocom Entities (and not the Myanmar Purchasers), nor for the payment mechanism to operate by way of initial payment of lower amounts to STO Singapore followed by top-up payments, other than to procure payments of larger amounts; (2) for years 2004 and 2005 (as illustrated in paragraphs 47 and 48): (a) both sets of invoices from STO Singapore and Mocom Singapore appear to be in the same style, format and content (wtth the aforesaid exceptions), and even have the same contact numbers (although different addresses); (b) bolt, sets of Mocom invoices and STO Invoices for the same transaction carried the same signature, which appears to be that of Jamal. purportedly acting on behalf of both Mocom Singapore and STO Singapore (save for a few instances when invoices were issued by Mocom Corporation Singapore instead of Mocom Singapore, where Kamal Rashid appears to be the signatory for Mocom Corporation Singapore). Jamal was then General Manager of STO Singapore but does not appear on record as an officer of Mocom Singapore; (c) it is also very likely that the so-called second set of invoices generated under the name of Mocom Singapore was actually prepared and issued from the office of STO Singapore. In this respect, GT has found, in STO Singapore's computer hard-drive, a soft-copy of an invoice no. 4073 on the letterhead of Mocom Singapore. This document was in unsigned form and appears to have been generated from STO Singapore's own computers. It would appear that this document was subsequently signed by Jamal for Mocom Singapore. Jamal also signed the similar invoice under the name of STO Singapore. A print-out of the unsigned invoice, ;.•.:::~ 57 33 as well as each of the invoices signed by Jamal for Mocom Singapore and STO Singapore are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-47".As an aside, may I also point out that correspondence in the name of Mocom Malaysia had also been generated using STO Singapore's computers, as determined by GT. In this respect, GT has found in the hard-drives of STO Singapore a draft of a letter in the name of Mocom Malaysia addressed to Muneez, STO Singapore dated 19 May 2003 requesting for an increase of commission for the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers, from 33.3% to 40% of the net profits. Copies of the draft letter and signed copy (but on Mocom Corporation Singapore's letterhead) are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-48"; and (3) if the Mocom Entities were only paid the amounts under the Mocom Invoices by the Myanmar Purchasers, it is illogical and entirely uncommercial for the Mocom Entities to make top up payments to STO Singapore. This logically means that the Myanmar Purchasers paid more than just the amounts under the Mocom Invoices. If the Myanmar Purchasers only paid the STO Invoices (given that the STO Invoices were addressed directly to the Myanmar Purchasers), there would have been no reason for practically identical invoices to be issued by Mocom Singapore. The irresistible inference is that the Myanmar Purchasers paid for both the STO Invoices as well as the Mocom Invoices. 63. Importantly, Professor Tom James MEI, MA, a qualified expert in the area of energy, emissions and the global commodity markets, engaged by STO Singapore to opine on the price of oil which could have been obtained when sold to Yangon, Myanmar, during the period of 2002 to 2008, has given an opinion which provides an explanation for the double invoices. In short, Professor James concludes that STO Singapore could have commanded a price of both the STO and Mocom Invoices, rather than simply the half value it received under its own STO Invoices. He has opined that having regard to, amongst other factors, the prices of marine diesel oil (which is the same type of fuel supplied by STO Singapore) exported from the ports of Chennai, Paradip and Colombo which were selected for their comparable distance and export capabilities, as well as the prevailing polttical and economic situation in those years:. 58 34 (1) due to Myanmar's known import dependence for refined petroleum (including diesel oil) and associated credit and country risks, a trader selling oil into Myanmar would be able to command a high US$ per barrel premium above the Spot Market prices of Chennai, Paradip and Colombo; (2) STO Singapore was not achieving commercial prices which a normal commercial party could have expected to command if entering into the type of transactions entered into by STO Singapore for supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers; (3) observing the US$ per barrel equivalent in such markets, STO Singapore was selling oil to the Myanmar Purchasers well below what it ought to have commanded, and should have commanded about two times the prices which were in fact charged under the STO Invoices, and at or around the combined value of the Mocom Invoices and STO Invoices; (4) a reasonably competent trader would have been aware that the price of oil for sale to parties in Myanmar such as the Myanmar Purchasers which could have been commanded should be roughly the combined values of the amounts under the STO lnvoice(s) and Mocom lnvoice(s) for each of the relevant trades concerned, such combined values representing the approximate reasonable and true commercial sale value of marine diesel oil into Myanmar by STO Singapore; and (5) the issuance of two sets of invoices by STO Singapore and the Mocom Entities which were largely similar in all respects save for the unit prices with identical invoice numbers and sequencing, was highly unusual and not in-line with general commercial practice in the marine diesel oil supply industry. A copy of his expert report on the sale of Gasoil by STO Singapore to the Myanmar Purchasers from 2002 to 2005, dated 24 February 2011, is annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-49". 64. In light of the above, STO Singapore verily believes that payments well in excess of what was received by STO Singapore were procured by the double-invoicing procedure and the 'routing' of the transactions and the payments thereon via the 59 35 Mocom Entities, although the precise amounts procured and ultimately received by each of the perpetrators remain to be ascertained. (G) OTHER SUSPICIOUS CORPORATE VEHICLES INCORPORATED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE STO IDENTIFIEOPARTIES STOLABUAN 65. I wish to also point out that in the course of GT's investigations, various documents relating to one State Trading Organisation of Maldives Limited ("STO Labuan"), an offshore company incorporated in Labuan, Malaysia, were discovered in STO Singapore's office. Coples of:- (1) an unsigned application for incorporation (wtth Muneez stated as the instructing party), (2) Certification of Incorporation of Offshore Company dated 5 May 2003 and Change of Name dated 2 June 2003, (3) Return of Allotment of Shares dated 5 May 2003; (4) the Memorandum and Articles of Association signed by Maniku and Muneez; (5) STO Labuan's directors' resolutions for the opening of various bank accounts; and (6) documents in relation lo its strikingoff in or around April 2004; are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-50".It appears from these documents that STO Maldives held 98% of the shares in STO Labuan, with Maniku and Muneez each holding 1% of the shares in STO Labuan. The incorporation of STO Labuan was not sanctioned or authorized by STO Maldives. Annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS-51"is a copy of a letter from STO Maldives confirming this. 66. The discovery of STO Labuan (Incorporated or 5 May 2003 and struck off in or around April 2004 - shortly after the incorporation of Mocom Singapore in February 2004) suggests that Maniku and Muneez could have intended to use or used STO Labuan as an offshore trading entity before deciding to set up Mocom Singapore for their purposes instead. STO Singapore believes that STO Labuan could have been used to set up bank accounts so that the Identified Parties may channel secret proms and/or misappropriate funds rightfully belonging to STO Singapore from the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers . 67. GT has thus far been unable to conduct further discreet investigations into STO Labuan without alerting Maniku or Muneez. I am advised that whilst a company search on STO Labuan may be conducted (even though it has been struck-off) at Labuan's Financial Services Authority, this would require the written consent from an 60 36 existing director of STO Labuan. As a result of these difficulties, STO Singapore has yet been able to ascertain the circumstances in which STO Labuan was incorporated or any further details on the company. STOMALAYSIA 68. Various documents relating to the incorporation of one STO Maldives (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd ("STO Malaysia"} and the setting up of bank accounts in Malaysia were also found in STO Singapore's office. Copies of:- (1) an unsigned fax from Muneez to Maniku dated 6 March 2001 whereby Muneez informs of his intention to register a company in Johor Bahru, Malaysia; (2) a letter dated 4 May 2001 from Muneez on behalf of STO Singapore to the Registrar of Companies confirming that it did not object to the fact that STO Malaysia had a similar name to STO Singapore; (3) invoice dated 3 july 2001 issued by T.L Ong & Associates for their services in relation to the incorporation of STO Malaysia; (4) Form 48A Statutory Declaration forwarded to Muneez for his signature; and (5) sample Invoices issued on the letterhead of STO Malaysia from 24 May 2001 to 29 August 2001; are annexed hereto and marked collectively as exhibit "AS-52". 69. Whilst searches were conducted on STO Malaysia with the Companies Commission of Malaysia with the information obtained from these documents, including STO Malaysia's Company No. 20018028606 and the address stated therein, these searches were unsuccessful. In this regard, STO Singapore has yet been able to ascertain if STO Malaysia was indeed incorporated and if so, the circumstances in which it were incorporated. More importantly, I am informed by STO Maldives that it had not sanctioned or authorised the incorporation of STO Malaysia. (H) WRONGFUL COMMISSION PAYMENTS 70. Quite apart from the diverted monies and/or secret profits, STO Singapore also verily believes that the Identified Parties also conspired to wrongfully and fraudulently cause STO Singapore to pay substantial commissions to Mocom Malaysia (from about 2001 to 2002), as well as Mocom Corporation Singapore and/or Mocom Singapore (from about 2003 to 2005) on the supplies of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers (see tables of details to contracts between the Mocom Entities and STO Singapore at exhibits "AS-17" to "AS-19"). As explained above, there was no legitimate or proper commercial reason to warrant the payment of any commission, 61 37 particularly when the involvement of the Mocom Entities appear to be no more than a fraudulent design, and STO Singapore made little if any profit on the transactions for the supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers. Moreover, the commissions payable to the Mocom Entities were instead paid directly to Kamal Rashid's personal bank accounts, which itself raises serious suspicions as to whether such monies were indeed payable to the Mocom Entities in the first place. 71 . These commissions were eventually paid to Kamal Rashid on behalf of the relevant Mocom Entity, as can be seen from the following:- (1) a breakdown listing the commissions of a total amount of S$922, 118 for the period from 2002 to 2005 paid to Kamal Rashid, of which S$711,016 was in respect of supply of oil to the Myanmar Purchasers (the "Commissions"), prepared by GT, as well as extracts of STO Singapore's bank statements reflecting these payments, copies of which are annexed hereto and marked collective ly as exhibit "AS-53"; (2) copies of payment instructions attached to Contract No. 01/2004 dated 2 January 2004 , Contract No. 02/2004 dated 2 April 2004 and a Contract dated 2 April 2005 whereby commissions payable to Mocom Corporation Singapore and Mocom Singapore were directed to be paid to Kamal Rashid's persona l bank account no. , annexed hereto and marked as exhibit "AS- §.4"; (3) copies of:- (1) a letter dated 26 February 2001 issued in the name of Mocom Malaysia apparently signed by Abdu l Rashid instructing STO Singapore to pay to Kamal Rashid's all monies payable to Mocom Malaysia; (2) a letter dated 19 September 2002 issued in the name of Mocom Malaysia apparently signed by Abdul Rashid instructing STO Singapore to pay Kamal Rashid $30,000 directly instead of returning the sum to 'Mocom'; and (3) an unsigned letter dated 20 September 2002 from STO Singapore instructing account no. 0 as exhibit "AS-55";and to transfer US$55,538 to Kamal Rashid's which are annexed hereto and marked collectively 62 38 (4) a contract between Kamal Rashid, Mocom Corporation Singapore and STO Singapore dated 2 January 2006 whereby commissions payable to Mocom Corporation Singapore were directed to be paid to Kamal Rashid (see exhibit "AS-45"). IV. 72. NECESSITY OF DISCLOSURE ORDERS Given the above, STO Singapore verily believes that it has a good arguable case against the Identified Parties for the fraud committed, and the breaches of fiduciary duties and/or trust on the part of the STO Identified Parties (including for the misappropriation and/or diversion of monies rightfully belonging to STO Singapore and/or receipt of secret profits, benefits and/or commissions), and to seek the recovery of the illegal and/or wrongful proceeds thereof from them. 73. Whilst a large part of the fraud has already been uncovered and the involvement of the Identified Parties is clear to STO Singapore, what remains to be unravelled is the precise amount of monies and/or benefits paid by the Myanmar Purchasers to and/or received by each of them pursuant to the fraudulent scheme; the present whereabouts of the same; and the identities of other parties involved and/or recipients, and the disclosure orders sought herein are necessary to facilitate STO Singapore uncovering the same. Without such information and documents, STO Singapore would be deprived of the ability to fully unravel the full extent of the massive fraud which has been perpetrated on it. 74. As stated earlier in this affidavit, it is clear that payments for the oil supplied to the Myanmar Purchasers were 'routed' through the Mocom Entities via the bank accounts in respect of which the disclosure orders are sought herein. In addition, it is also clear that monies purportedly payable to Mocom Corporation Singapore and Mocom Malaysia were paid to or received by Kamal Rashid on their behalf (see paragraphs 70 and 71 above). 75. Accordingly, STO Singapore is seeking the disclosure by the 151, 2nd and 3«1 Defendants of the Bank Documents (including in particular documents relating to letters of credit issued in favour of the Mocom Entities) for the period of 2001 to 2006 (both inclusive) in respect of:- (1) account no. of Mocom Singapore maintained with ; 63 39 (2) account nos. 8 of Mocom Singapore maintained with (3) of Kamal Rashid maintained with (4) of Mocom Corporation Singapore maintained with (5) of Kamal Rashid maintained with (6) 76. and account of Mocom Singapore maintained with The Bank Documents, in respect of the above accounts of Mocom Singapore and Mocom Corporation Singapore, will likely shed further light on:(1) the actual amount and mode of payments received by each of them, directly or indirectly, from the Myanmar Purchasers; (2) the extent to which such payments were paid onwards to STO Singapore, and otherwise retained by them; (3) what then became of the payments received by them in excess of what was paid onwards to STO Singapore; and (4) 77. the precise amount of monies received by each of the Identified Parties. As regards the Bank Documents of Kamal Rashid, it is verily believed that they are relevant and necessary, and will illuminate:(1) what has become of the wrongful commissions received by him on behalf of the Mocom Entities; and (2) apart from the commissions, the amount of monies which were received, directly or indirectly, from the Myanmar Purchasers (whether purportedly on behalf of Mocom Malaysia, Mocom Corporation Singapore or Mocom Singapore) in respect of the oil supplied by STO Singapore. 64 40 78. As regards the Accounting Records, STO Singapore is seeking against the 4'" and 5" Defendants:(1) any and all documents relating to transactions entered into and/or engaged by Mocom Corporation Singapore (for the 4" and 5" Defendants) and Mocom Singapore (for the 4'" Defendant) with any one or more of the Myanmar Purchasers between the period of 2001 to 2006 (both inclusive); and (2) payments made to or received, directly or indirectly, by Mocom 4'"and 5'"Defendants) and Mocom 4'" Defendant) and/or their directors, officers, Corporation Singapore (for the Singapore (for the servants, employees and/or agents, arising from, relating to and/or in connection with any one or more of the transactions referred to in sub paragraph (a} above, between the period from 2001 to 2006 (both inclusive) (including but not limited to tenders, bids, contracts, invoices, purchase orders, letters of credit, financial statements, draft accounts, reports, assets, monies, bank accounts, payments, transfers, company resolutions, director(s) reports, correspondence, communications memoranda, notes, payment instructions, transfer and/or remittance instructions, records and/or advice, credit receipts, withdrawal slips, cheques drawn upon the bank accounts of Mocom Corporation Singapore or Mocom Singapore, cheques deposited to the credit of the bank accounts of Mocom Corporation or Mocom Singapore, and all entries in any bankers' books of Mocom Corporation Singapore or Mocom Singapore); which came into their possession, custody and/or power in the course of their acting as the auditors of Mocom Corporation Singapore and/or Mocom Singapore. 79. The Accounting Records are relevant, necessary and will likely facilitate STO Singapore (as in the case of the Bank Documents) ascertaining the matters referred to at paragraphs 76 and 77 above, and in addition, providing STO Singapore with a more complete picture of the initial leg of the supply transactions between the Myanmar Purchasers and Mocom Singapore / Mocom Corporation Singapore. 65 41 80. The 41" and 51" Defendants clearly would have had at some time and are likely to continue to have in their possession, custody or power the accounting and financial documents of Mocom Singapore and/or Mocom Corporation Singapore, which came into their hands in the course of their audit of these companies. I am advised by STO Singapore's solicitors that it is common for auditors to retain accounting records for at least 7 years after the end of an audit for a particular year. This is in view of the statutory requirement that a company is required to retain accounting and other records as will sufficient explain the transactions and financial position of the company for a period of at least 7 years (until and including 2006) and a period of at least 5 years (post 2007). 81. As pointed out at the outset of this affidavit, STO Singapore had brought a substantive civil action by way of Suit 126 and applied for a mareva injunction and disclosure orders similar (but broader) to those being sought herein against the Identified Parties on 28 February 2011. Even though investigations were then still ongoing, STO Singapore had expedited the commencement of Suit 126 because of a leakage of the investigations in the press. I wish to point out, however. that the above leakage was in respect of the GT's then preliminary findings as at September 2010, and not in respect of further findings made since then, which form a substantial basis of Suit 126 and these proceedings. Nevertheless, as it was feared that the above publicity would increase the risk of the Identified Parties and others unknown dissipating the proceeds of fraud, STO Singapore was compelled to expedite the commencement of the above substantive proceedings, whilst investigations were still ongoing. 82. The above application for a Mareva injunction and disclosure Orders was heard in parts over 28 February 2011, 3 March 2011, and 8 March 2011 before the Honourable Justice Belinda Ang. I have explained earlier in this affidavit the circumstances in which STO Singapore came to withdraw its application and has since determined to make this reconfigured application for Norwich Pharmacal relief. I list below the various documents filed in support of the above application(now withdrawn) in case the Court wishes to refer to them:(1) Writ of Summons endorsed with Statement of Claim fi led on 28 February 2011; (2) Summons No. 848 of 2011/D filed on 28 February 2011; 67 43 85. STO Singapore also seeks the following additional Orders:- (1) that except for purposes of obtaining legal advice, each and all of the officers, servants and/or agents of the Defendants shall, without the prior written approval of STO Singapore, be prohibited from communicating by any mode whatsoever any information relating to, in connection with and/or arising from the proceedings herein and all such acts carried out in compliance with any Orders to be made hereon to anyone, until further Order of this Court; (2) that except for purposes of obtaining legal advice, the 6" Defendant, the Registrar of Companies, whether by himself, his servants, advisers, agents or otherwise, be prohibited from communicating in any mode whatsoever to anyone, including in particular, Mocom Corporation Pte Ltd and/or its directors, officers, employees and/or agents, the fact of any objection which may be lodged by STO Singapore against the striking-off of Mocom Corporation Pte Ltd from the Register of Companies and/or any information or document relating thereto, until further Order of this Court; and (3) the papers in the Court's files for these proceedings shall be sealed, and shall not be inspected by any party without leave of court, save for STO Singapore. 86. In respect of paragraphs 85(1) and (3) above, it is necessary that the papers in the Court's file in these proceedings, and the proceedings herein, remain confidential , so as not to undermine any legal proceedings and interim relief which may be sought by STO Singapore against the Identified Parties and others as yet unknown to STO Singapore, which may otherwise be the case if Mocom Singapore, Mocom Corporation Singapore and/or its directors and shareholders, had notice of the same. 87. For the same reasons, STO Singapore is also seeking herein an Order prohibiting the Registrar of Companies, from communicating the fact of any objection which may be lodged by STO Singapore against the striking-off of Mocom Corporation Singapore and/or any information or documents relating thereto. In this regard, as pointed out at paragraph 29 above and as can be seen from exhibit "AS-10", Mocom Corporation Singapore was gazetted to be struck-off on 16 February 2011, with such striking-off to be effected upon the expiry of 3 months therefrom. Accordingly, in the light of the fact that investigations into Mocom Corporation Singapore are ongoing, and to preserve the right to pursue substantive legal proceedings against Mocom 68 44 Corporation Singapore in due course in respect of the fraud, STO Singapore Intends to lodge an objection to Mocom Corporation Singapore' striking-off with the Registrar of Companies prior to the expiry of the above 3 month period, i.e. by 15 May 2011. As such, in order to reduce the risk of any dissipation of the proceeds of fraud by Mocom Corporation Singapore, its directors, officers, employees and/or agents (including Kamal Rashid and Abdul Rash id) or by other unknown recipients of such proceeds, which may follow if the Registrar of Companies were to inform Mocom Corporation Singapore of such objection lodged, STO Singapore verily believes that the above 'gagging' order is necessary, proportionate, and appropriate in the circumstances. 88. I hereby confirm STO Singapore's undertaking to pay the reasonable costs of the Defendants which may be incurred in complying with the Orders sought in these proceedings. If necessary and so ordered, STO Singapore is prepared to fortify such undertaking in such manner and/or amount as the Honourable Court considers fit and necessary to secure the grant of the disclosure Orders sought herein . 89. In the premises. STO Singapore humbly prays for an Orde r in terms of the application filed herein . AFFIRMED by the abovenamed ABDULLAH SAEED at Singapore on this 61" day of May, 2011 Before Me A COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS This Affidavit is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. FIRST SCHEDULE (Amounts in US$) :lJ:>f~ ~:l'!J!~: of , • ~o'itle\i {hiNet Direct Cost$ tor that ·· ff!If )\L<>ss) 'li> '~i:;ttial Cash .received.by ·!~t/j~f'. 2002 48,993,653 25,322,222 2003 38,632,044 32,889,687 71,521,731 34,881 ,719 1,205,864 36,087,583 35,434 ,148 37,918,169 (1,830,586) 2004 51,413,317 45,695,137 97,108 ,454 45 ,690,656 5,437,482 , 51,128 ,138 45,980,316 51,176,911 (48,773) 2005 40,251,486 37,275,129 77,526,615 39,499 ,453 975,893 40 ,475,346 37,051,269 40,006,157 469,189 Total under STOand Mocom Invoices from 2002to 2005: 295,150,453 I Tota l Monies Received from 2002 to 2005 : Total (i.e. Diverted Profits): Total Cash Profit I (Loss): 153,013289 142,137,164 (2.295,746) Figures stated are the result of rounding. The figures under column (c) above do not include 8 Mocom Invoices which cannot be located (6 Mocom Invoices in 2002, 1 Mocom Invoice in 2003 and 1 Mocom Invoice in 2005). These 8 Mocom Invoices should rightfully exist as there are corresponding STO Invoices for these transactions . If the figures from these 8 Mocom Invoices were to be included, the profft figures under the last column would correspondingly increase, resulting in a larger claim. 70 SECOND SCHEDULE Yameen 1------l Maniku • Director from 1989 • Chairman 2001 to 18 August 2004 • Managing director 1993 to 2008 • Oirectorfrom June 1997 to 27 February 2006 • Shareholderof 1 01200,000 shares from 2001-2007 (N.B. in 2001, STO Singapore had a share capital of 25,000 shares of S$1 each, which was increased in .. 2002 to 200,OOO shares of S$1 each) Muneez ----4-------1----------l------~ • Managing • Director from4 Director from t 3 February 2004 March 1997 . • Shareholder of 1 of 200,000 shares from 2001-2008 (N.B. in 2001, STO Singapore had a share cap/tat of 25,OOO shares of S$1 each, which was Increased fn 2002 to 200, OOO shares of $$1 each) Mcmsoor -•---'---- • Employeefrom 1988 • Head of Accounting and fin ance Departmentfrom ---+---------I·· • Director from 4 February 2004 • 25% Shareholder (1 share of $1) from 4 February 2004 Decembe r 2003 • Chief F!nanclal Officerfrom March 2009 As han • Employee from 1994 • General Manager for • Director from 4 February 2004 • 25% Shareholder (1 Human Resource share of $1) from in March 2009 4 February 2004 - -- - -·--·---- - 71 47 Nameof Identified STOMalolves • sto Singapore Parties Mocom Slng~ppre Mocom Mot_ om·:. e~PQratton (sirock off 20 ~Jngapore (Gat