6/26/2007

The David Rasif case - a parallel

Lawyers for the victims of Rasif, Senior Counsel Harry Elias, 'accused the store of giving Rasif "dishonest assistance" and receiving money "rightfully belonging(to the Zages) under suspicious circumstances. Alarm bells should have sounded when they received the cheques from David Rasif and Partners - Client's Account. The store should verify the legitimacy of the cheques. Should alarm bells be sounded when Richard Yong sold his properties? Should those involved in the transactions raise the alarm?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

At the time when he sold his properties, Richard Yong's case had been running for months and much publicised. David Rasif's case only surfaced after he absconded. For whom the alarm bells should have tolled?

Matilah_Singapura said...

Private Property Rights of ownership only apply to property which has been LEGITIMATELY obtained.

Therefore those who received money from the disgraced lawyer are liable to return the STOLEN property to the owner.

Oh yes, if the transaction is suspicious, the vendor ought to check out the 'credentials' of the buyer. No one is 'obliged' to sell any good to anyone. Even if a good is 'for sale' the seller can withdraw his offer to sell at anytime, for any reason.

redbean said...

the new twist. the defence lawyer of the jeweller is saying that the victim who had seen many red flags raised, should have taken actions to protect himself. if not he is equally to be blamed.

now, apply this to the singapore situation. anyone who sees a lot of red flags going up and do nothing deserves it as he is partially responsible for not doing anything about it.

so those who got cheated in the nkf case deserved it. can't blame the cheaters. you got your chance to stop the cheating but did nothing.