top of page

Fraud in the
Singapore Supreme Court


In May 2021, I sued Nanyang Technological University in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore. I am the Plaintiff in Mohamed Mustafa Mahmoud Helmy vs. Nanyang Technological University in the General Division of the High Court, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, HC/S 413/2021.


As it happened, the company authorized to file documents into the Court electronic system, CrimsonLogic, took my money and pretended to file my documents in Court, but did not actually file my documents in Court. In the process, lawyers from Rajah & Tann who had appeared to represent the Defendant, Nanyang Technological University, whored the Rules of Court.


When alerted, reported to, and then queried, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore had only one reply: go back to CrimsonLogic. Here's the story.

Mohamed Helmy


Cairo, December 2021

P.S. Click on blue underlined text links to see Court documents, correspondence, other evidence, and explanatory text. Click on red underlined text for links to other sites.

P.P.S. Please judge for yourself.



I sued Nanyang Technological University in the General Division of the High Court, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, on 5 May 2021.


The State and Supreme Courts' of Singapore electronic filing system is called eLitigationWhen one does not have access to eLitigation, one must file documents in Court through the Singapore LawNet Service BureauThe company authorized to run this LawNet Service Bureau is called CrimsonLogic. In other words and as far as we are concerned here, LawNet Service Bureau = CrimsonLogic, and Court electronic filing system = eLitigation.


In the Court electronic filing system or eLitigation, Nanyang Technological University is sued with writ of summons HC/S 413/2021. This can be found on eLitigationFrom here on, everything else I filed into Court was not put into eLitigation by CrimsonLogic/LawNet Service Bureau.


To reiterate: henceforth, all Court documents you see here other than writ of summons HC/S 413/2021 were not actually filed into eLitigation by CrimsonLogic. 


Which of course begs the question: What is the General Division of the High Court, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, actually responding to?


In writ of summons HC/S 413/2021, I claim unlawful termination and tort of extortion. It is unlawful and not wrongful termination because Nanyang Technological University ordered me to engage in illegal activity - illegal as in against the law of Singapore, and not just against University rules and regulation. 

The University committed extortion against me, along with other tort, negligence, breach of trust and confidence, and so on; this is apparent in the farcical investigations at Nanyang Technological University, as well as forgeries they committed, for example to do with my tax declaration. More details are mentioned in my statement of the claim as well as my first affidavit. Click here to read more about the case in Court, and here to read more about criminal activity at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

In the matter of HC/S 413/2021, my prayer, or what I am asking for, is reinstatement (employment) or damages (monetary compensation).

The person working for CrimsonLogic who filed my writ of summons is called Pamela and is also known as Pam. The other person working in the Supreme Court CrimsonLogic office/LawNet Service Bureau is Erny and is known as Annie.


When filing a writ of summons into eLitigation, one must choose under which legislation (the relevant Singapore law) the case, or matter, will be judged.


A short while after I put my writ of summons in with Crimson Logic, Pam called me on the phone and told me that since there is no 'tort of extortion' in eLitigation, she would file my claim to be judged under the Employment Act only. I told her on the phone not to, went to the Supreme Court LawNet Service Bureau/CrimsonLogic office and told her in person that my claim is to be put in eLitigation under 'Civil Trial'. I later found out that she ignored my instructions and put it under 'Employment' only anyways.

Remember that my writ of summons, HC/S 413/2021, is the only document in that matter actually filed into eLitigation by CrimsonLogic.



Any lawyer licensed to practice law in Singapore is also, at the same time, an 'Officer of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore'.

Timothy Ang and Wilson Zhu at Rajah & Tann LLP Singapore, so-called Officers of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore, appeared to represent Nanyang Technological University. 'Appeared' is a key word here, because in reality (i.e. in eLitigationNanyang Technological University is unrepresented in the matter of HC/S 413/2021. 

Ang and Zhu (incidentally, the same two Officers of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore who participated in the Singapore side of the Wirecard scandal), appeared to file summons HC/SUM 2650/2021 to strike out my case.




Kevin Goh held (holds?) a managerial position in Nanyang Technological University Office of Human Resources. His bachelor Final Year Project at Nanyang Technological University was about illusion in fiction.

The Affidavit by Goh is a pile of nonsense mixed with falsities. The affidavit by Goh is forged. The point of the affidavit by Goh is not to support summons to strike out HC/SUM 2650/2021. What the affidavit by Goh promises is trial by ambush. 

A datum in the affidavit by Goh is worth highlighting here. That some kind of argument, something which might make sense, demonstration of indisputable reasons why my case should be struck off will come later from the lawyers. 


Because the Defendant (Nanyang Technological University) did not submit pleadings in the time allowed for by the Rules of Court, the Plaintiff (myself) may apply for judgement by default. In line with the Rules of Court, my application for judgement by default was submitted to Supreme Court CrimsonLogic along with Form 79A and a supporting affidavit.

Because the affidavit by Goh is a pile of nonsense mixed with falsities, I also applied to have the affidavit by Goh struck off. This means that the affidavit by Goh may not be used to give evidence, not in any case including my own HC/S 413/2021.

Because the summons by Ang and Zhu whored the Rules of Court, and because the affidavit by Goh is forged, I initially got confused. Click here to see my reply affidavit.


Basically in my affidavits, I argue that:

  • The summons by Ang and Zhu, HC/SUM 2650/2021, appears to be whoring the Rules of Court.

  • The affidavit by Goh appears to be a pile of nonsense mixed with falsities, and an abuse of the process of Court.

  • Why I can sue Nanyang Technological University for ordering me to engage in illegal activity, and for attempting to shut me up and drive me out of Singapore using illegal means.



I received worrying correspondence from Court. I met with Assistant Registrar Eunice Chan Swee En. I asked why Order 33 was mentioned in the correspondence I received from Court. She replied that 'There is no Order 33 in the matter of HC/S 413/2021'. She was lying. Read more about Order 33 and Eunice Chan Swee En in Whoring the Rules.

Before the hearing with Kenneth Wang Ye, I was reassured by Assistant Registrar Eunice Chan Swee En that 'there is no Order 33' in my case. But Order 33 reappeared in the Court's schedule for when the case was to be heard. In addition, it appeared the hearing would be heard under legislation for employment, as opposed to a hearing for a civil trial.



Click here for Correspondence with Court, including Justice Lee Seiu Kin, PJG, PBS, Justice of the Court of Appeal, Justice Steven Chong, Justice Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng, Assistant Registrar Kenneth Wang Ye (Special assistant to the Chief of Justice Sundaresh Menon), and before whom the case was to be heard in chambers (i.e. not in open Court).


The written submission sent to me by Timothy Ang and Wilson Zhu (at Rajah & Tann), and presumably filed in Court, are very irregular. Have a look for yourself at those. You may also be interested to read some of the correspondence Timothy Ang and Wilson Zhu were frantically generating with the Court and myself.



This is summed up in the pronouncement of Assistant Registrar Kenneth Wang Ye:

'Even if the Affidavit by Goh is forged,

and even if Timothy Ang and Wilson Zhu have no warrant to act

(do not represent Nanyang Technological University),

I would still strike out your case.'


Click here for my written submissions, here for Ang and Zhus's. Here to read more about The Action with Kenny and/or Whoring the Rules.

I requested grounds of decision from Court through CrimsonLogic, in line with Practice Directions. After making a payment through PayLah to Da’ahliah Samsuri (Ms), I agreed to receive notes of evidence. In reality, the document I received appears to be a grossly falsified transcript of hearing. Click here for my correspondence with Samsuri (presumably Court Secretary, perhaps for Assistant Registrar Kenneth Wang Ye, definitely Special Assistant to the Chief of Justice Sundaresh Menon). Here for Ang and Zhu's correspondence with Samsuri.



Timothy Ang and Wilson Zhu generated a forged Authentic Court Order through eLitigation, the Court's electronic filing system run by CrimsonLogic. One can tell it is forged by following the instructions available with an Authentic Court Order, namely to scan the QR code and then enter the Case Number when prompted. Click here to try for yourself.

One day, I went to Oversea Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) where I have my bank account. I went to OCBC that day to receive my renewed credit/bank card. When I went to the ATM machine outside the OCBC in Somerset basement, I discovered that all the money in my bank account was taken. Clcik here for the Singapore Judiciary's decision that OCBC may take all the money in your bank account based on a forged Authentic Court Order.


Timothy Ang and Wilson Zhu generated a forged Authentic Court Order through eLitigation, the Court's electronic filing system run by CrimsonLogic. And so upon a forged garnishee order to show causeOCBC took all the money in my bank account.

By then I was jaded with the apparently theatrically absurd that is the Supreme Court of the Republic of Singapore. Nevertheless, I gave it one more visit to see the Duty Registrar Reuben Ong Zhihao, who had coincidentally and/or accidentally instructed me to appear for a hearing in the same instant, with notice.

Click here for the Singapore Judiciary's decision that a bank may not scan the QR code of an Authentic Court Order before taking all the money in your bank account. Or...


Click here to go to Court documents and other crap.

bottom of page