§ discipline
‹ Browse decisions

Nor ain Bte Abu Bakar

JurisdictionSingapore
BodyDisciplinary Tribunal (Law Society of Singapore) (SG-DT)
Professionlawyer — Abu Bakar Tan Ibrahim & Partners
Date08/10/2008
OutcomeStruck off the roll with immediate effect

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SanctionStrike Off
CostsSGD 3,000
Dishonesty foundYes

The Law Society brought show-cause proceedings against three advocates and solicitors arising from their roles in enabling JAK/Jafar (a bankrupt with no valid claim) to obtain payment out of some $4.27m of estate sale proceeds that had been paid into court, by deceiving assistant registrars and judges and concealing competing claims and prior adverse rulings. The High Court found the first and third respondents had acted fraudulently/dishonestly (deceiving the court within s83(2)(b) and (j)) and struck them off the roll. The second respondent, found guilty only of grossly improper conduct and not dishonesty, was suspended for 3 years. Costs: second respondent to pay $3,000; first and third respondents jointly and severally to pay the remaining costs and disbursements of the DC and court proceedings on a standard basis for three counsel.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Deliberate deception of the court (AR Ching and Justice V K Rajah) leading to wrongful payment out of $4.27m which was dissipated and irrecoverable
  • Collusion with Jafar/JAK, a bankrupt with no valid claim to the sale proceeds, to extract estate moneys
  • Third respondent's sham retainer of Musa and Salim and acting against his own clients' interests; prior questionable dealings with Jafar showing he should have acted with caution
  • Concealment of competing claims, prior dismissed garnishee application and the fact moneys were paid into court in OS 1030/2000
  • Serious loss caused to beneficiaries of the B Estate

Mitigating factors:

  • Second respondent admitted her conduct as grossly improper, cooperated and played a lesser role
  • First respondent's pleas of inexperience and reliance on senior lawyer's advice were raised but rejected

⚠ figures not found verbatim in the source were dropped: ["unverified_suspension_months=36"]

Duties engaged

Documents

Source: https://www.lawsociety.org.sg/disciplinary-orders/