Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG: Amendment of Reply, Sham Documents & Backdating Allegations
In Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Kan Ting Chiu, granted Beckkett Pte Ltd's application to amend its amended reply to the defence of PT Dianlia Setyamukti. The amendments concerned financial arrangements, including allegations of sham and backdated documents, related to the purchase of pledged shares from Deutsche Bank AG. The court found that any delay in the application was not substantial and did not prejudice the second defendant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application to amend the plaintiff's amended reply to the defence of the second defendant was allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Amendment of reply allowed regarding sham documents and backdating allegations in Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG case.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deutsche Bank AG | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Beckkett Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Allowed | Won | |
| PT Dianlia Setyamukti | Defendant | Corporation | Application Granted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kan Ting Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Beckkett Pte Ltd applied to amend its reply to PT Dianlia Setyamukti's defence.
- The amendments concerned financial arrangements for PT Dianlia Setyamukti to purchase pledged shares from Deutsche Bank AG.
- The amendments alleged sham documents and backdating.
- The plaintiff's suspicion arose after inspecting original documents on 19 July 2006.
- The second defendant accepted that the documents were backdated.
- The application was made on the 32nd day of trial.
5. Formal Citations
- Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and Another, Suit 326/2004, SUM 3795/2006, [2006] SGHC 243
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit 326/2004 filed | |
| Second defendant's solicitors indicated they will file a supplementary list of documents | |
| Agreement to file supplementary list of documents | |
| Plaintiff received copies of documents | |
| Decree dated 3 July 2002 issued | |
| Second defendant filed additional affidavits of three witnesses | |
| Second defendant filed its 4th Supplementary List of Documents | |
| Circular of the Jakarta Post Office dated 10 July 2002 stated that the said stamps would be distributed from 10 July 2002 | |
| Plaintiff inspected some of the original documents disclosed | |
| Counsel for the plaintiff was advised by an Indonesian lawyer that the new stamps were highly unlikely to be in circulation in January and March 2002 | |
| Counsel for the plaintiff commenced the cross-examination of the second defendant’s witness Sandiaga Uno | |
| Sandiaga Uno was specifically cross-examined on the backdating of the documents | |
| Plaintiff received confirmation in the form of a copy of a Circular of the Jakarta Post Office dated 10 July 2002 which stated that the said stamps would be distributed from 10 July 2002 | |
| Application was made to amend its amended reply to the defence of the second defendant | |
| Mr Ling Ping Shuen Arthur filed an affidavit in support of the application | |
| Mr Ling Ping Shuen Arthur filed a second affidavit | |
| Application was granted | |
| Ng Soon Kai dated affidavit | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court allowed the amendment, finding that the delay was not substantial and did not prejudice the defendant.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Delay in application
- Prejudice to defendant
- Vagueness of amendments
8. Remedies Sought
- Amendment of pleadings
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Amendment
- Backdating
- Sham documents
- Pleadings
- Financial arrangements
15.2 Keywords
- Amendment
- Backdating
- Sham documents
- Singapore High Court
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sham Contract | 90 |
| Sham Agreements | 90 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 80 |
| Commercial Disputes | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Company Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Litigation