Thomas’ main question was whether clauses of this type were binding under Singapore law. On behalf on the estate, he requested me to write an opinion. However, the facts were so unusual that I felt the need to meet the ‘estate’. The point that irked me concerned the statements. How would Lena know on which day the genuine statement would be put in the letter box? Unless she knew that, how would she know when to substitute for it the bogus statement? After all, she could not peep into the letter box day after day. And the Bank’s statements could be delivered at any time between the 10th and 20th of the month, a fact well known in Singapore. Further, she had only a day or two to prepare the bogus statement. After all, how could she be certain the late Mr. Lim would not summon her at the end of the month to draw a cash cheque?
A further point that kept worrying me was the professional appearance of the bogus statements. They looked as fresh and as genuine as the any originals produced by the Bank.
In addition, there was the problem of the applicability of the terms involved. Had they ever been sent to the deceased as the branch changed hands? Was he notified of the periodic changes of the terms? Unlike younger and more dynamic lawyers, Thomas had not taken the aggressive steps needed to get at the truth. Further, he appeared to have been satisfied with the assurance that the Bank’s personnel had nothing to do with the bogus statements.
Although the record appeared clear cut, something perplexed me. All in all, the heirs had taken the loss too lightly and did their best to avoid publicity. Thus, the episode, including the charges brought against Lena and her paramour, had not been reported in detail by the Press and, to my surprise, the heirs had not made any statements in public. Worse still, Thomas did not even possess a copy of the penal proceedings taken against Lena and her paramour.