A Singapore district judge has ordered a former accountant at Stamford Land Management to pay $119,490.14 in damages for failing to place $8.5 million into a fixed deposit, a breach of contract that deprived the company of interest earnings. In a written judgment issued on July 17, District Judge Tay Jingxi found that Nur Aniza Mohd Shah was “at least negligent” in her duties and had engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations to conceal her failure.
Breach of Contract and Financial Losses
Stamford Land Management, a unit of Stamford Land Corporation, initiated the claim after discovering that $8.5 million remained in a current account instead of being moved to a higher-interest fixed deposit. According to the court judgment, the company calculated its loss based on the interest it would have earned over a five-month period between January 2, 2024, and June 3, 2024.
Nur Aniza Mohd Shah, who worked in the finance department from March 28, 2022, to April 26, 2025, argued that placing fixed deposits was outside her contractual scope of duties. Judge Tay rejected this defense, noting that the employee handbook required staff to obey “lawful and reasonable instructions” from supervisors. The court found that the accountant had been explicitly instructed to manage fixed deposits and prepare bank reconciliation statements following a colleague’s resignation in March 2023.
Did You Know? The company’s failure to secure the fixed deposit was only discovered in May 2024, after a relationship manager at the bank contacted a different accountant to inquire if the firm still intended to place the funds in a deposit.
Falsified Documents and Concealment
The trial focused heavily on whether the accountant falsified a bank statement dated January 31, 2024, to hide the missing deposit. The document submitted to the firm’s financial controller showed a balance of $8,950, a figure that appeared in a different font and was misaligned compared to other data on the statement. In contrast, the company provided a version downloaded directly from the bank’s portal, which confirmed a balance of over $8.5 million for that date.
While the accountant denied creating the document, the judge concluded that “all signs point towards the defendant,” noting she was the only person with both access to the file and a clear motive to obscure the account’s true status. Judge Tay described the accountant’s explanation for how the document appeared in the shared drive as “so implausible as to be untrue.”
Next Steps Following the Judgment
The company has confirmed that it moved the $8.5 million into a fixed deposit at a different bank on May 31, 2024. Regarding the fraudulent documents, lawyer Wong Thai Yong stated on behalf of the company that a police report has been lodged.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the accountant ordered to pay $119,490.14?
The amount represents the interest the company would have earned over five months had the accountant followed instructions to place $8.5 million in a fixed deposit instead of leaving it in a current account.
What was the accountant’s defense?
She argued that the task was not in her job description and that she was under significant work pressure, but the court ruled these arguments legally irrelevant to her breach of contract.
Was the bank statement actually falsified?
The judge concluded that the accountant falsified the document, citing the misaligned font and the fact that she had both motive and access to the file to conceal her failure to perform the deposit task.
What measures should companies take to verify the accuracy of internal financial reporting to prevent similar occurrences?
Related reading