Hyflux trial to proceed as founder Olivia Lum and five others will not file ‘no case to answer’ acquittal

The defence lawyers for Hyflux founder and former chief executive Olivia Lum and five others said on Oct 21 that they will not make a “no case to answer” submissionas. They added that it is more expedient for the trial to continue so that a more certain conclusion can be reached.

Published Oct 21, 2026, 01:06 PM

Updated Oct 21, 2026, 01:06 PM

Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and five others will not seek a “no case to answer” acquittal, saying the trial should continue for a quicker and clearer outcome.

The prosecution ended its case after 54 days and 22 witnesses. The case centres on Hyflux’s collapse, which left about 34,000 investors with losses of $900 million.

Lum and four former directors face charges over failing to disclose Tuaspring risks and electricity exposure. Lum could face up to seven years’ jail on one charge and two years on another.

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 P rincipal 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 unde r 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.

凯发集团创始人兼前首席执行官林瑞莲及其他五名被告的辩护律师于10月21日表示，他们不会提出“无罪抗辩”的动议。他们补充说，继续审理此案更为便捷，以便得出更确切的结论。

发布于 2026 年 10 月 21 日下午 1:06

更新于2026年10月21日下午1:06

凯发集团创始人林荣福和其他五人不会寻求“无罪释放”，他们表示审判应该继续进行，以便更快、更清楚地得出结果。

经过54天的庭审和22名证人的出庭作证，检方结束了举证。此案的核心是凯发集团的倒闭，该事件导致约3.4万名投资者损失高达9亿美元。

林俊杰及其四名前董事因未披露大泉水风险和电力泄漏而面临指控。林俊杰可能因一项指控面临最高七年监禁，因另一项指控面临最高两年监禁。

新加坡——凯发集团创始人林瑞莲和五名共同被告将不会在刑事审判中作证，因为在控方完成举证后，他们决定不提出“无罪辩护”的动议。

这样的陈述意味着辩方认为控方没有足够的证据来支持其指控，被告应该立即被宣告无罪，而无需进行辩护。

首席地方法官杜汉利认为，检方已对前首席财务官卢伟平、前独立董事张强国、郭嘉志昌、克里斯托弗·穆鲁加苏和李祖海提出了充分的证据，因此做出了上述决定。

10 月 21 日，Lum 的律师，高级律师 Davinder Singh 向州法院表示，他的当事人“经过仔细考虑，认为检方过去和将来都无法在排除合理怀疑的情况下证明对她的指控”。

他说，卢“不想浪费法庭的时间去听取最终可能无关紧要的测试的陈述”。

辛格说：“她希望直接进入法庭听取控方是否已在排除合理怀疑的情况下证明其指控成立的阶段，以便尽快做出判决。”

“鉴于以上原因，她不会提出无罪抗辩。她明白，提出此类抗辩需要提交材料和进行辩论，这将耗费时间，延误案件进展。”他补充道。

9 月 29 日，经过 54 天的审判，检方结束了举证。审判期间，检方传唤了 22 名证人，他们与这家水处理公司倒闭案有关，这是新加坡最大的企业丑闻之一。

在 2025 年 8 月开始的刑事审判中，法庭听取了 Hyflux 涉嫌未披露其将在电力市场承担重大风险的原因，以及由于难以获得银行贷款，该公司如何寻求零售和机构投资者为 Tuaspring 水力发电项目提供资金。

法庭还获悉，星展银行是 2011 年提出 Hyflux 发行优先股筹集资金想法的一方。

Hyflux 于 2020 年 11 月被置于司法管理之下，并于 2021 年解散。由于电力销售疲软，该公司倒闭，导致约 34,000 名持有永久证券和优先股的投资者血本无归，他们总共投入了 9 亿美元。

检方对六名被告提出了 11 项指控。其中包括对 Lum 和四名董事（70 岁的 Teo、69 岁的 Gay、67 岁的 Murugasu 和 70 岁的 Lee）各两项指控。

Lum 被指控在 2011 年 3 月宣布赢得 Tuaspring 项目以及随后在 2011 年 4 月发行股票时，未能披露重要信息，包括这家现已倒闭的水处理公司在电力市场的重大风险敞口。

Cho面临一项指控，即与Hyflux公司串谋，未披露有关Tuaspring的信息。

Rajah & Tann 律师事务所合伙人 Thong Chee Kun 代表 Cho 于 10 月 21 日表示，他的当事人不认为检方“提出了令人信服的证据”，并且“为了节省时间，审判继续进行更为便捷，以便得出更确定的结论和结果”。

Thong还表示，他的当事人“在刑事事务部门的调查过程中已经受到了严格的讯问”。

代表四名董事的 Shook Lin & Bok 律师事务所合伙人 Daryl Fong 表示，他的客户认为“对他们的指控的必要构成要件无法在排除合理怀疑的情况下成立，审判应该尽快进行并结束”。

三位律师均表示，他们客户的陈述已提交法庭。

此外，虽然被告不会在审判中作证，但他们会传唤一名证人，即他们的共同专家克里斯·德克尔博士。

辛格表示，他们传唤德克尔作证是因为州法院已经听取了控方专家凯文·金的证词，并且也应该“有机会听取（辩方）专家的证词，这些专家的报告已被采纳为证据”。

卢某最初面临六项指控，其中四项违反《公司法》的指控被撤销，检方继续就剩余两项指控进行起诉。

这些指控与她同意凯发集团隐瞒有关大华泉（Tuaspring）的信息有关，而根据新加坡交易所（SGX）的上市规则，这些信息本应予以披露。这些信息对于避免在凯发集团的证券市场中形成虚假交易至关重要。

其中一项指控称，她同意故意不通知新加坡交易所，Tuaspring 项目是 Hyflux 进军电力销售新业务的扩张，并且该工厂的盈利能力取决于电力销售收入，预计该收入将占其总收入的很大一部分。

这导致 Tuaspring 面临因电力价格波动而产生的市场风险。如果这项指控成立，Lum 将面临最高七年监禁、最高 25 万美元罚款，或两者并罚。

她还被指控Hyflux公司在2011年4月13日发布的2亿美元6%优先股要约信息披露文件中，未披露有关Tuaspring的信息。如果这项指控成立，她将面临最高两年监禁、最高15万美元罚款，或两者并罚。

这四位前独立董事均被指控疏忽大意，导致 Hyflux 未能按要求披露与 Tuaspring 相关的信息，并在 2011 年的要约信息声明中遗漏了重要信息。

另一名独立董事 Rajsekar Kuppuswami Mitta 于 2025 年 8 月 7 日承认在 Hyflux 于 2011 年 3 月 7 日向新加坡交易所发布的公告中存在疏忽行为。