Hin Leong founder O.K. Lim’s jail term cut to 13.5 years after appeal to High Court

The High Court on March 4 allowed an appeal by Lim Oon Kuin, the 84-year-old founder of failed oil trading company Hin Leong, and imposed a term of 13½ years.

This means a shaving of four years off his original sentence.

Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said the original jail term of 17½ years was “crushing” even with the usual one-third remission.

Lim, who is better known as O.K. Lim, was sentenced in November 2024 for two counts of cheating and one count of abetting forgery, in what prosecutors described as “one of the most serious cases of trade financing fraud that have ever been prosecuted in Singapore”.

After a lengthy district court trial, he was found to have duped HSBC into disbursing US$111.6 million (S$145 million) to Hin Leong based on two fabricated oil sale contracts. He was also found to have instructed a former employee to forge documents for one of the bogus contracts.

On March 4, Justice Hoo found that the district judge who sentenced Lim erred in according weight to the prosecution’s arguments that Lim’s offences had undermined public confidence in the oil trading sector. 

Justice Hoo gave him sentencing discounts on account of substantial restitution made as well as Lim’s old age.

The judge noted that the loss to HSBC for one of the cheating charges was almost halved, from US$56 million to US$29.7 million, after Lim made restitution.

She rejected Lim’s call for the court to exercise judicial mercy by imposing a one-day jail term.

During an appeal hearing in November 2025, Lim’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, had drawn an analogy between his client’s case and that of property tycoon Ong Beng Seng.

Mr Singh had argued that there is a heightened risk of his client suffering a fall in prison that may lead to his death.

Mr Singh said that while Mr Ong, 79, had very serious medical conditions, Lim was older than him and “to that extent, the link between fall and death is exacerbated”.

Judicial mercy is the discretionary power of Singapore’s courts to impose a more lenient sentence because of exceptional mitigating circumstances. The threshold for exercising this power is high.

It has so far been exercised in cases where the offender is suffering from a terminal illness, and where the offender is so ill that jail time would carry a high risk of endangering his life.

Mr Ong was fined $30,000 in August 2025 for abetting the obstruction of justice in a case linked to former transport minister S. Iswaran.

The judge who sentenced him had agreed with the prosecution and defence that judicial mercy should be exercised in his case.

Mr Ong was diagnosed in 2020 with advanced multiple myeloma, a rare and complex cancer that affects white blood cells.

On March 4, Justice Hoo said Mr Singh’s argument was “misguided”.

She noted that susceptibility to falls was only one of the several factors that the court in Mr Ong’s case had considered.

The judge said Lim’s fall risk alone did not warrant the exercise of judicial mercy, and that the Singapore Prison Service had stated that the necessary arrangements can be made for Lim to mitigate his risk of falling.

After Justice Hoo delivered her decision, Mr Singh asked for four weeks’ time to consider her judgment and for Lim to undergo a medical review.

Mr Singh said Lim suffered a contusion on the forehead and a deep cut above his eye after a fall in December 2025, adding that his client now has difficulty focusing visually, chronic back pain and sweating while eating.

Justice Hoo extended Lim’s $4 million bail and ordered him to surrender at the State Courts on April 1.

During his trial, Lim contended that he was not involved in the transactions. He claimed that since 2010 he had slowed down and delegated matters to a trusted team.

Justice Hoo noted in her judgment that this claim was “roundly contradicted” by Hin Leong staff and that the lower court was correct to reject Lim’s defence.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Lim Oon Kuin and another matter v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGHC 47

TOC editor, publisher ordered to pay $125k for defaming UOB over ‘baseless’ claims by former client