Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC 50
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2026-03-06
- Judges: Kwek Mean Luck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Green Global Trading Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: Attorney-General
- Legal Areas: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Mutual legal assistance
- Statutes Referenced: French Code, MACMA nor the general purposes of the Act, Mutual Assistance for Criminal Matters Act, Mutual Assistance for Criminal Matters Act 2000, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2000, Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934
- Cases Cited: [2012] SGHC 125, [2026] SGHC 50
- Judgment Length: 35 pages, 9,968 words
Summary
This case concerns an application by Green Global Trading Ltd ("Green Global") to cancel the registration of a foreign confiscation order obtained by the Attorney-General's Chambers ("AGC") in Singapore. The key issues are whether Green Global received sufficient notice of the foreign confiscation proceedings in France to enable it to defend them, as required under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2000 ("MACMA"), and whether enforcing the order would be contrary to the interests of justice.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Green Global is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. It is undisputed that Mr Gad Shitrit (also known as Gerard Chetrit) ("Chetrit") was the settlor and the sole beneficial owner of Green Global at the inception of the trust. One of the disputed issues is whether Chetrit remained the beneficial owner at the material time, or if Chetrit's children had become the beneficial owners.
In 2018, Chetrit was convicted of various offences and sentenced by the Correctional Court of Paris. The court issued a confiscation order which covered, among other things, the monies held in a UBS AG Singapore Branch bank account, opened in the name of Green Global ("UBS Account"). Separately, in 2019, the UBS Account was seized by the Commercial Affairs Department ("CAD") pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Code. The State Court has since ordered that the assets in the UBS Account continue to be seized for the purposes of the CAD's investigations.
Chetrit's appeal to the Paris Court of Appeal was dismissed in 2020, and his further appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed in 2022. The confiscation order is therefore final and not subject to further appeal.
In 2025, the AGC applied to register the French confiscation order in Singapore ("FCO") under the MACMA. This was granted by the High Court. Green Global then applied to cancel the registration of the FCO, arguing that it did not receive sufficient notice of the proceedings in France to enable it to defend them, and that enforcing the order would be contrary to the interests of justice.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case are:
1. Whether Green Global received "notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable the person to defend them" as required under section 30(2)(b) of the MACMA.
2. Whether enforcing the FCO would be "contrary to the interests of justice" under section 30(2)(c) of the MACMA.
In addressing the first issue, the court had to consider several sub-issues regarding the proper interpretation of section 30(2)(b), including:
a) Whether there must be valid service in order for there to be "notice".
b) Whether the "notice of the proceedings" must be specifically of the hearing date and time of the foreign confiscation hearing, or whether it suffices that there is notice of the proceedings relating to the foreign confiscation order, including any appeal.
c) Whether there can be constructive notice for the purposes of section 30(2)(b) of the MACMA.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court approached the interpretation of section 30(2)(b) of the MACMA using the three-step framework set out in the case of Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General.
First, the court considered the possible interpretations of the provision, having regard to the text of the provision as well as the context within the MACMA as a whole. The court noted that the phrase "notice" is broader than "valid service", and could potentially include both actual notice and constructive notice. The court also considered that the phrase "proceedings" could refer to the initial confiscation proceeding, or the proceedings relating to the confiscation order as a whole, including any appeal.
Second, the court examined the legislative purpose or object of the MACMA. It found that section 30(2)(b) ensures that an affected person has sufficient notice to defend against the confiscation order if they wish to do so, while section 30(2)(a) involves a more limited scope of inquiry for the court in assessing whether the order is final and not subject to further appeal.
Third, the court compared the possible interpretations of the text against the purposes or objects of the MACMA. It concluded that a broader interpretation of "notice" and "proceedings" would better align with the legislative purpose of providing affected persons with a meaningful opportunity to defend against the confiscation order.
The court then went on to analyze the specific facts of the case in light of this interpretation of section 30(2)(b). It considered whether Green Global had actual notice, constructive notice, and whether the notice it received was in sufficient time to enable it to defend the proceedings.
What Was the Outcome?
The court's judgment on this matter is still pending. The key issues to be determined are whether Green Global received sufficient notice of the proceedings in France to enable it to defend them, and whether enforcing the FCO would be contrary to the interests of justice.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant as it raises novel issues regarding the interpretation of section 30(2)(b) of the MACMA, which has not been extensively considered in previous case law. The court's analysis of the statutory language, the legislative purpose, and the application of these principles to the specific facts of the case will provide valuable guidance for future cases involving the registration of foreign confiscation orders in Singapore.
The outcome of this case will also have practical implications for affected parties seeking to challenge the registration of foreign confiscation orders in Singapore. The court's interpretation of the notice requirements under the MACMA will determine the circumstances in which such challenges can be successfully made.
More broadly, this case highlights the importance of mutual legal assistance frameworks like the MACMA in facilitating the cross-border enforcement of criminal confiscation orders. The court's analysis of the balance between protecting the rights of affected parties and enabling the effective enforcement of such orders will be of interest to practitioners and policymakers in this area.
Legislation Referenced
- French Code
- Mutual Assistance for Criminal Matters Act
- Mutual Assistance for Criminal Matters Act 2000
- Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act
- Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2000
- Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act
- Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934
Cases Cited
- [2012] SGHC 125
- [2026] SGHC 50
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHC 50 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.