Accountant who failed to place $8.5m in fixed deposit ordered to pay damages to ex-employer
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 23 Jul 2026
Author: Selina Lum
Judge allows in full former employer's claim of over $119,000 in foregone interest.
An accountant, who failed to do her job and place $8.5 million in a fixed deposit, has been ordered to pay more than $119,000 in damages to her former employer for breaching her contractual duties.
Stamford Land Management, a unit of mainboard-listed hotel operator Stamford Land Corporation, had sought $119,490.14 – the amount of interest it could have earned over five months had the sum of $8.5 million been placed in a fixed deposit instead of sitting in a current account.
The company contended that the accountant Nur Aniza Mohd Shah’s breach of duties caused it to suffer losses. They said she also submitted false documents to her superior to cover up her omission.
In a written judgment issued on July 17, District Judge Tay Jingxi allowed the claim in full, saying the defendant was “at least negligent” in failing to place the sum in a fixed deposit.
She rejected Aniza’s argument that the placement of fixed deposits did not fall within her contractual scope of duties and was not stated in her job description.
The judge said that Aniza was contractually obliged by a clause of the employee handbook to obey her supervisor’s “lawful and reasonable instructions”.
Aniza was explicitly informed by her supervisor of her duties, which included placing fixed deposits, the judge noted.
“Her failure to place the sum in an FD despite this knowledge evinces a lack of the care, diligence, and effort required by the terms of her employment contract,” said the judge.
The judge said her carelessness and lack of attention deprived the company of the interest it would otherwise have earned.
She also found that Aniza had made fraudulent misrepresentations to create the false impression that the current account had a significantly lower balance and that the $8.5 million had been placed in a fixed deposit.
These actions fell afoul of the clause in the employee handbook, which prohibits employees from committing theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the company’s property.
The judge said: “By these lies, the defendant concealed her breach – her failure to place the sum in an FD – and prevented the claimant from investigating her conduct.”
Aniza worked in the company’s finance department from March 28, 2022, to April 26, 2025.
When a colleague resigned in March 2023, she was told by her supervisor to take on work previously handled by that person.
She agreed and subsequently carried out the duties, which included placing fixed deposits and preparing bank reconciliation statements.
Between December 2023 and May 2024, she failed to place $8.5 million in a fixed deposit.
Her actions were uncovered in May 2024, after a relationship manager with the bank called another accountant to ask if the company still wished to place a fixed deposit.
By then, Aniza had resigned and served out her notice period.
On May 31, 2024, the company placed the sum in a fixed deposit with another bank.
The company contended that if she had carried out her duties, it would have earned interest of at least $119,490.14 from Jan 2, 2024, to June 3, 2024, after accounting for the interest it eventually earned.
Much of the trial was spent dealing with the documents Aniza had submitted to the firm’s financial controller.
The most contested issue was whether she had falsified a bank statement which showed a balance of $8,950 for the current account as at Jan 31, 2024.
The figure “8,950” was in a different font and misaligned with the other information in the same line.
The company, represented by Victor Leong, accused her of inputting the bogus figure in place of the true account balance.
It presented a statement, downloaded directly from the bank’s portal, showing a balance of more than $8.5 million for the same date range.
Aniza, represented by Sarbrinder Singh, denied falsifying the bank statement, although she admitted that she had submitted it with other documents to a shared drive and e-mailed the link to her superior.
Under cross-examination, she claimed that she had found this statement inside the shared drive, but could not recall whether it was her or someone else who had downloaded it from the bank portal.
The judge concluded that “all signs point towards the defendant” as the culprit who had falsified the bank statement.
She said Aniza had access to the document and was the only person with an undeniable motive to falsify the account balance.
The judge added that the defendant’s explanation for how she came across this statement was “so implausible as to be untrue”.
The judge said what likely occurred was that Aniza falsified the statement after her superior pointed out that there was no bank statement to support the balance reflected in the bank reconciliation statement that she prepared.
Aniza had also argued that she was under “tremendous stress and pressure” at the time and that the employer should assume all the risk of assigning work to an inexperienced employee.
The judge said these points are legally irrelevant to excusing her breach of contract.
In response to queries from The Straits Times, the company on July 22 said through one of its lawyers, Wong Thai Yong, that a police report has been lodged regarding the falsified document.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
18