GREEN GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Case Details

• Citation: [2026] SGHC 50
• Case Number: Originating Application N
• Party Line: Green Global Trading Ltd v Attorney-General
• Decision Date: 06 March 2026
• Coram: Kwek Mean Luck J
• Judges: Kwek Mean Luck J
• Counsel (Applicant): Jason Lim and S Vidya (Sreenivasan Chambers LLC)
• Counsel (Respondent): Ho May Kim and Jocelyn Teo (Attorney-General’s Chambers)
• Interested Party: Administratiekantoor van Spruyt GN Company BV (Interconsult and Partners)
• Statutes Cited: Section 30 Mutual Assistance for Criminal Matters Act, s 30(2)(b) MACMA, s 6(1)(c) Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, s 6(1)(c) NZ 1934 Act
• Disposition: The court dismissed the Originating Application (OA 1049) in its entirety.

Summary

The dispute in Green Global Trading Ltd v Attorney-General [2026] SGHC 50 centered on the validity of proceedings involving a French Confiscation Order and the subsequent enforcement or recognition of related legal interests in Singapore. The applicant, Green Global Trading Ltd, sought to challenge aspects of the process, alleging prejudice to third parties (specifically the children of an individual named Chetrit) regarding the transfer of assets. The court examined whether the applicant had standing to raise these issues and whether the procedural requirements under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA) had been satisfied.

Kwek Mean Luck J dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged prejudice. The court emphasized that the applicant had been afforded sufficient notice of the proceedings and had failed to raise these concerns before the appropriate French appellate forum, the Court of Cassation. Furthermore, the court noted that the Section 32(1) Certificate indicated that avenues for restitution remained available under French law. Consequently, the High Court held that the applicant could not substitute its own arguments for those that should have been addressed by the French courts, affirming the integrity of the underlying confiscation process and dismissing the application with costs to be determined via written submissions.

Timeline of Events

1. 23 May 2018: Mr. Gad Shitrit (Chetrit) was convicted of various offences and sentenced by the Correctional Court of Paris, which issued a confiscation order covering monies in a UBS AG Singapore Branch account held by Green Global.
2. 9 September 2019: The Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) seized the UBS Account pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Code for investigation purposes.
3. 19 November 2019: The High Court granted a restraint order over the funds in the UBS Account following a request by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris.
4. 6 March 2020: The Paris Court of Appeal dismissed Chetrit’s appeal and affirmed the confiscation order issued by the Correctional Court of Paris.
5. 7 September 2022: The French Court of Cassation dismissed Chetrit’s final appeal, rendering the French confiscation order final and not subject to further appeal.
6. 3 January 2025: Green Global applied to discharge the existing restraint order in HC/SUM 120/2025, which was subsequently dismissed on 15 May 2025.
7. 26 August 2025: The High Court ordered the registration of the French confiscation order as a foreign confiscation order (FCO) in Singapore.
8. 6 March 2026: The High Court delivered its judgment in [2026] SGHC 50, addressing Green Global’s application to cancel the registration of the FCO.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

Green Global Trading Limited is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. The core of the dispute involves the beneficial ownership of the company and the assets held within its UBS AG Singapore Branch bank account. While the Attorney-General’s Chambers contends that Mr. Gad Shitrit (also known as Gerard Chetrit) remained the sole beneficial owner of the company at the material time, Green Global asserts that beneficial ownership had transferred to Chetrit’s children.

The legal conflict arose following criminal proceedings in France against Chetrit. Upon his conviction, French authorities sought the confiscation of assets linked to him, including the funds held in the name of Green Global in Singapore. This led to the seizure of the account by the Commercial Affairs Department and the subsequent imposition of a restraint order by the Singapore High Court to facilitate international mutual assistance.

Green Global challenged the registration of the French confiscation order in Singapore, arguing that it was not a party to the French criminal proceedings and did not receive proper notice to defend its interests. The applicant specifically contested whether the requirements of Section 30 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA) were met, particularly regarding the sufficiency of notice and whether the enforcement of the order would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The court was tasked with interpreting the statutory requirements for registering foreign confiscation orders, specifically whether "notice" under the MACMA necessitates formal service or if constructive notice suffices. The judgment also examined whether the corporate veil could be pierced to equate the company’s assets with those of the individual defendant, Chetrit, thereby justifying the enforcement of the foreign order against the company’s property.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The case Green Global Trading Limited v Attorney-General [2026] SGHC 50 concerns the registration of a foreign confiscation order under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA). The court addressed the following primary issues:

• Interpretation of "Notice" under s 30(2)(b) MACMA: Whether the requirement for an affected person to receive "notice of the proceedings" necessitates formal valid service, or whether actual notice of the proceedings as a whole suffices.
• Scope of "Proceedings" for Notice Purposes: Whether "notice of the proceedings" requires specific notification of the initial confiscation hearing date, or if it encompasses the entire appellate process leading to a final order.
• Binding Effect on Non-Parties: Whether a foreign confiscation order can validly bind a non-party entity, and if the statutory framework provides sufficient procedural recourse for such entities to contest the order.
• Sufficiency of Constructive Notice: Whether, in the alternative, constructive notice satisfies the statutory threshold for registration under the MACMA.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

The High Court, presided over by Kwek Mean Luck J, adopted a purposive approach to interpreting s 30(2)(b) of the MACMA. Relying on the three-step framework from Tan Cheng Bock, the court held that "notice" does not require valid service under foreign procedural rules. Instead, it requires actual notice of the proceedings as a whole, allowing the affected party to protect its position.

The court drew heavily on international jurisprudence, including Brockley Cabinet Co Ltd v Pears [1972] 20 FLR 333 and Questnet Ltd v Lane [2008] NZAR 495. These authorities established that "proceedings" refer to the action as a whole, not merely individual interlocutory steps. The court rejected the applicant's reliance on James Meikle Pty Ltd v Raymond Brian Noakes, finding it factually distinct and inconsistent with the broader weight of authority.

Regarding the facts, the court found that Green Global had actual notice by June 2021, well before the Court of Cassation rendered its final decision in 2022. The court emphasized that the statutory purpose is to ensure the party has an opportunity to defend against the order being "in force." Since the applicant had sufficient time to engage with the appellate process, the notice requirement was satisfied.

The court further rejected the argument that Green Global could not be bound as a non-party. It noted that the MACMA does not limit confiscation to the property of the convicted person. The court highlighted that the French authorities provided a pathway for restitution under Article 710 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring the applicant was not left without a remedy.

Finally, while the court found actual notice, it observed that constructive notice would likely suffice under the MACMA. It concluded that the applicant’s beneficial owner, Chetrit, had previously admitted to being the sole owner of the entity, thereby imputing knowledge of the proceedings to the applicant. Consequently, the application to set aside the registration was dismissed.

What Was the Outcome?

The High Court dismissed the application (OA 1049) brought by Green Global Trading Limited to challenge the registration of a French Confiscation Order. The Court found that the applicant failed to establish grounds for cancellation under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA), noting that the applicant had sufficient notice of the foreign proceedings and failed to raise its grievances before the French Court of Cassation.

s” on around 15 July 2019,32 the French Confiscation Order had already been made by then. It is questionable whether he was entitled 32 Paz-1 at p 71. Version No 2: 06 Mar 2026 (15:44 hrs) Green Global Trading Ltd v AG [2026] SGHC 50 33 under French law to make this transfer then, even though his appeal was still pending. In any event, there is no evidence from Chetrit or his children of the alleged prejudice suffered by Chetrit’s children. Green Global is not in the position to testify to this. Moreover, the relevance of any such prejudice would have to be addressed by the French courts. As found above, Green Global had sufficient notice of the proceedings. Green Global could have raised this issue of alleged prejudice to the Court of Cassation during Chetrit’s appeal for it to be considered by France’s final appellate court, but they did not do so. Indeed, the Section 32(1) Certificate states that such an option for filing for restitution remains open still.

The Court ordered the dismissal of the application. Parties were directed to provide written submissions on costs, not exceeding five pages, within one week of the judgment if they were unable to reach an agreement.

Why Does This Case Matter?

This case clarifies the scope of judicial review for the registration of foreign confiscation orders under the MACMA. The Court affirmed that Singapore courts should not conduct a substantive review of the merits of a foreign order, as the statutory framework is designed to facilitate international comity rather than re-litigate the underlying criminal findings.

The decision builds upon the principles of international comity and mutual recognition, distinguishing the application of the "interests of justice" test from a full merits appeal. It reinforces that factual errors in foreign appellate judgments, which do not undermine the validity of the final order, do not constitute sufficient grounds to set aside registration in Singapore.

For practitioners, this case underscores the high threshold for challenging foreign confiscation orders. Litigators must ensure that all arguments regarding prejudice or procedural irregularities are exhausted in the issuing jurisdiction, as the Singapore court will not act as a forum for collateral attacks on foreign substantive decisions. Transactional lawyers should note that purported transfers of assets made after the issuance of a foreign confiscation order are unlikely to be recognized as valid defenses against enforcement.

Practice Pointers

• Distinguish 'Notice' from 'Service': Counsel should note that s 30(2)(b) of the MACMA does not require formal service of process under foreign law; actual knowledge of the proceedings is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement.
• Focus on 'Proceedings as a Whole': When challenging registration, do not limit arguments to the lack of notice for a specific interlocutory step or hearing; the court views 'proceedings' as the entire process leading to the final order, including appellate stages.
• Exhaust Remedies in the Issuing Jurisdiction: Procedural fairness issues, such as alleged prejudice to third parties or the validity of asset transfers during pending appeals, must be ventilated before the courts of the issuing jurisdiction (e.g., the Court of Cassation in France) rather than the Singapore High Court.
• Evidential Burden for 'Notice': Parties seeking to resist registration must be prepared to provide evidence of their lack of actual notice. The court will not accept assertions of prejudice from entities (like Green Global) that lack standing to testify on behalf of the affected individuals (like Chetrit’s children).
• Strategic Use of Foreign Precedents: The court confirmed that UK, Australian, and New Zealand jurisprudence regarding similar foreign judgment enforcement statutes is highly persuasive in interpreting the MACMA, particularly regarding the definition of 'notice'.
• Maintain Clear Records of Communication: As seen in the reliance on telex messages in related case law, any evidence of actual awareness—even informal communication—can be used to defeat a claim that a party was denied the opportunity to defend their position.

Subsequent Treatment and Status

As Green Global Trading Ltd v Attorney-General [2026] SGHC 50 is a very recent decision, it has not yet been substantively cited or applied in subsequent Singapore High Court or Court of Appeal judgments. However, the decision serves as a definitive consolidation of the principles governing the registration of foreign confiscation orders under the MACMA.

The judgment effectively aligns Singapore’s approach with established Commonwealth jurisprudence (notably Brockley and Questnet), confirming that the 'notice' requirement is a functional, rather than a formalistic, test. It is expected to be the leading authority for future challenges to the registration of foreign orders where the applicant attempts to rely on technical defects in service rather than a genuine lack of opportunity to participate in the foreign proceedings.

Legislation Referenced

• Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2000, Section 30(2)(b)
• Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1959, Section 6(1)(c)
• New Zealand Administration of Justice Act 1934, Section 6(1)(c)

Cases Cited

• [2026] SGHC 50: Primary authority regarding the interpretation of MACMA provisions.
• [2017] 2 SLR 850: Cited for principles of international comity in criminal assistance.
• [2012] SGHC 125: Referenced regarding the threshold for evidence production.
• [2025] EWHC 776: Comparative analysis of foreign judgment enforcement standards.
• [2020] SGCA 45: Established the framework for statutory interpretation of procedural acts.
• [2015] 3 SLR 1122: Applied regarding the scope of judicial discretion in mutual assistance.

Source Documents

• Litt CDN PDF
• eLitigation