Hyflux trial to proceed; Olivia Lum, 5 others not asking for ‘no case to answer’ acquittal on charges

SINGAPORE – Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and five co-defendants will not testify in their criminal trial, having decided against making a “no case to answer” acquittal submission after the prosecution closed its case.

Such a submission means the defence believes that the prosecution has insufficient evidence to support its case, and that the accused should be acquitted immediately without calling for a defence.

Their decision comes as Principal District Judge Toh Han Li found that the prosecution had presented a sufficient case against Lum, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng, and four former independent directors Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai.

Lum’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, told the State Court on Oct 21 that his client, “having given the matter careful consideration, believes that the prosecution has not and will not be able to prove charges against her beyond reasonable doubt.”

He said that Lum “does not want to waste the court’s time on having to hear submissions on a test which ultimately may not matter.”

“She would like to go straight to the point where the court will hear submissions on whether the prosecution has proved their case against her beyond a reasonable doubt so that the case is decided as soon as possible,” Singh said.

“For these reasons, she will not make a submission of no case to answer. She is aware that such a submission will involve the filing and making of arguments and that will take time and delay matters” he added.

On Sept 29, the prosecution wrapped up their case after 54 days of trial, during which 22 witnesses were called in relation to the collapse of the water treatment firm, one of Singapore’s largest corporate scandals.

During the criminal trial that began in August 2025, the court heard why Hyflux allegedly did not disclose that it would have significant exposure to the electricity market and how it had looked to retail and institutional investors to fund Tuaspring water and power project because it had trouble getting bank loans.

The court also heard that DBS was the party that floated the idea of Hyflux issuing preference shares to raise funds in 2011.

Hyflux was placed under judicial management in November 2020 and wound up in 2021. Its collapse due to weak electricity sales left about 34,000 investors of perpetual securities and preference shares – who had sunk in a combined $900 million – with nothing.

The prosecution proceeded on 11 charges against the six defendants. These included two charges each against Lum and the four directors – Teo, 70; Gay, 69; Murugasu, 67; and Lee, 70.

Lum is accused of failing to disclose material information, including the now defunct water treatment firm’s significant exposure in the electricity market, in its announcement of the Tuaspring project win in March 2011 and subsequent share issue in April 2011.

Cho faces one charge of conniving in Hyflux’s omission to disclose the information about Tuaspring.

Rajah & Tann partner Thong Chee Kun, who represents Cho, said on Oct 21 that his client does not concede that the prosecution “has advanced a convincing case,” and that “in the interests of time, it is far more expedient for the trial to simply carry on so that a more certain conclusion and outcome can be reached.”

Thong also said his client had already been “subject to rigorous questioning in the course of the Criminal Affairs Department’s investigation”.

Daryl Fong, a partner in Shook Lin & Bok, who represents the four directors, said his clients believe that “the necessary ingredients of the charges against them cannot be made out beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial should proceed as expedititiously as possible to its conclusion.”

All three lawyers said their clients’ statements are before the court.

In addition, while the defendants will not be testifying in the trial, they will call one witness, Dr Chris Decker, who is their joint expert.

Singh said they are calling Decker to testify because the State Court has already heard the testimony of the prosecution’s expert Kevin Gin, and it should also have the “opportunity to hear the (defence’s) expert whose reports have been admitted into the evidence.”

Of the six charges Lum initially faced, four under the Companies Act were stood down. The prosecution proceeded on the two remaining charges.

Those charges relate to her consenting to Hyflux’s omission of information relating to Tuaspring, when disclosure was required under Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules. This information was necessary to avoid the establishment of a false market in Hyflux’s securities.

According to one charge, she consented to intentionally failing to notify SGX that the Tuaspring project was Hyflux’s expansion into the new business of selling electricity, and that the plant’s profitability was contingent on electricity sales revenue, which was projected to make up a significant proportion of its overall revenue.

This had implications for Tuaspring’s resulting exposure to market risks arising from the volatility of electricity prices. If convicted of this charge, Lum faces up to seven years’ jail, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

She was also charged over Hyflux’s omission to disclose the information about Tuaspring in the offer information statement issued on April 13, 2011 for $200 million 6% preference shares. If convicted of this charge, she faces up to two years’ jail, a maximum fine of $150,000, or both.

The four former independent directors were each charged with neglect relating to Hyflux’s failure to disclose information relating to Tuaspring as required, and omitting material information in the 2011 offer information statement.

One other independent director, Rajsekar Kuppuswami Mitta, pleaded guilty on Aug 7, 2025, to a charge of neglect in relation to the March 7, 2011, announcement by Hyflux to SGX.