Hong Hung Thiam cannot hinder any further disclosures under the...

Hong Hung Thiam cannot hinder any further disclosures under the rule of the court, or face sentencing, xstate have stated that both Hong Hung Thiam and Tanzil Hidayat have been resisting all court processes to disclose their assets.

Tanzil Hidayat now faces the same committal proceedings that Hong Hung Thiam faced, whereby Xstate is processing an affidavit to the court that will ask the court to rule on the actions of the undischarged bankrupt, Tanzil Hidayat, as being contempt of court and he will equally, in the near future, have a court ruling on his actions , which could be straight custodial sentencing. and also be told to comply with the court into the future and fully answer the questions the court has asked him or face further fines and custodial sentences for each time he fails to do so. So he is fully in his rights to remain an undischarged bankrupt, but he is not in his rights to refuse to disclose his current assets from the court.

it may appear as a slow process, but its been anything but that, the Australian processes were imho at record pace, and the singapore processes have been frustrated by outright refusals to cooperate according to xstates announcements. but these committal processes prevent that from continuing indefinitely.

with Hong Hung Thiam, xstate can decide now to pursue him further through the EJD processes or call it quits and just issue a bankruptcy notice on him and just allow his assets to be liquidated. xstate would be an proportional creditor to all creditors and receive payment of a dividend after the assets are all sold. its less desirable than just going solo after assets, but it also allows property in dual names (spouse) to be liquidated immediately. If Hong Hung Thiam has no desire to cooperate then that process is all that xstate has before it.

i view the announcement positively, it projects the courts desire to stop the nonsensical behaviors and shows the court has had enough of it. so things will continue to change on the that front.

you cannot criticize xstate for not following through with all of this, it is incumbent on them to both have pursued the damages claim, and for the current proceeding to enforce the court ruling on the damages resulting from the binding agreements