After talking with few people, I found out that some do not understand CAD's postion when investigating frauds or scams, especially when the public wish to know whether a company is engaging in some scams or fraudalent activities.
Some merely heard it from their company management that they have been cleared in the investigations, some regard CAD expressed intention to start investigations but after which there is no news as stoppage of investigations, and many other rumours circulating CAD investigations
Here is an interview with CAD Chief (copied from CAD website) regarding how forthcoming CAD is when there are ongoing investigations...
Reports by
Wong Wei Kong (Business Times 14 July 2003)
[SINGAPORE] Two years may seem too long to complete a probe into a share
trading offence, but that could just be the time needed to do the job properly.And saying as little as possible is important when investigations are taking place.
Not quite what some investors want to hear, but that's how the work has got to be done, says the chief of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), Singapore's white-collar crime-busting unit, in a rare media interview.
'It does put us on the spot,' says CAD director Tan Siong Thye of criticism that the agency has been too slow in its securities investigations and tardy in making disclosures. 'But there are no short cuts. It is important that we are professional and objective.'
'It is not that we are uncooperative. It is not that we are aloof. It is because it is not possible or desirable to inform the public of every turn in events.'
And investors shouldn't blame the agency when they lose money in situations where there were CAD probes into listed companies. 'It's caveat emptor. You shouldn't look to CAD for your investment decisions,' Mr Tan says.
He points out that the CAD is as keen as anyone to complete an investigation as quickly as possible. Turnaround time, after all, is a key measurement of the unit's efficiency. In fact, the time-line given to CAD officers to complete a probe is three to nine months, which CAD now wants to shorten further.
Eight-five per cent of cases already meet the current target. But there are always cases that are more complex, like the Links Islands share price manipulation case, which require a longer time to complete.
Puzzle time
'It's like building jigsaw puzzles,' Mr Tan says. 'Jigsaw puzzles come in different forms. Some have 500 pieces, with simple pictures. Others have 20-30,000 pieces, with patterns that are not so straightforward. Obviously, the amount of time needed to do a 20,000-piece puzzle and a 500-piece set won't be the same. And investigations are even more difficult than puzzles. With puzzles, you know exactly how many pieces there are. In investigations, the challenge is to find the pieces.'
Mr Tan cites cases where CAD managed to conclude its investigations quickly. The prosecution of UOB Asia for making misleading statements in the IPO of eWorldof Sports and Hua Kok Realty was completed within three months.
CAD also investigated the false posting on Share investor.com of a takeover of Venture Manufacturing in 2001 - the first such case here. The culprit was prosecuted within 10 days after the offence was reported.
'Our officers are very conscious of the time-line. We watch over it like a hawk,' Mr Tan says. However, it is recognised that complex cases, like those relating to share manipulation, price rigging and false trading, take more time to investigate, which is consistent with the experience in other developed markets.
As for disclosure, the demands of the job means CAD has to try to go about its investigations as quietly as possible. It does run counter to the market's demand for full and timely disclosures, but Mr Tan makes no apologies for that.
'Our core business is to enforce the law. To enforce the law, we must make sure our efforts are not jeopardised,' he says. 'We need the element of surprise.'
He points out that premature disclosure of an investigation may compromise the
probe when evidence is hidden or destroyed. More importantly, not all investigations result in findings of wrongdoing.
A premature announcement may then unfairly affect the reputation of the person or company under investigation. Which is why the CAD is reluctant to make a comment even when its officers have visited a listed company, because further investigations may prove the initial allegations baseless.
But what if there is unfounded market talk of a probe which sends a company's stock tumbling? Should CAD then deny the rumour and clarify the situation?
'Things are not as simple as black and white. Yes, we are not investigating the company at the moment. But what happens when after saying that, there is a complaint against the company? The market will be even more confused if we investigate after we said we were not investigating.' In any case, the onus to disclose should fall on listed companies, not CAD, because they are obliged to disclose all material information under listing rules, Mr Tan points out.
He says CAD's position on disclosure is consistent with that in other jurisdictions, where investigations are also undertaken on a confidential basis. Public statements are made only when the case is prosecuted or subjected to penalties, or when demanded by public interest.
'When public interest requires us to make an announcement, we will make
an announcement, but without compromising investigations,' Mr Tan says.
But he makes it clear that public interest is not synonymous with investor interest. 'There is a difference between public interest and investor interest. Investor interest is much narrower. Public interest includes a situation which will significantly affect confidence in the integrity of the market if it is allowed to continue.'
And ultimately, CAD believes it serves the public interest best if it is able to do its job properly and professionally, Mr Tan says. 'If we are diligent in our duties, that is a long-term benefit. Justice is done to the investor, the complainant and the accused.'