HOW MANY SUITCASES DOES IT TAKE TO FILL S$88 MILLION?

The entire “cash” controversy from the Bloomberg defamation trial reveals something quite telling—not about the case, but about how people interpret language.

In court, when Mr Shanmugam said the property was “paid in cash,” the meaning is straightforward to anyone familiar with property transactions. it simply means no financing was used. No bank loan, no mortgage. Just full payment through standard banking channels.

It's the same in motor vehicle industry. The dealer always ask you want HP you say no, I pay cash and take out your cheque book in the good old days. Today it's digital cash.

But on social media, “cash” somehow transformed into images of suitcases, armoured trucks, and whispered insinuations of impropriety goes viral. What's so unbelievable is to see so many well-educated folks getting onto the bandwagon. Something so mundane turning into serious publicity nightmare. Just imagine when this translated down to the lesser educated folks.  

Let’s take that logic seriously for a moment.

If “cash” truly meant physical notes, then Defence Counsel should be asking:

Was it delivered in suitcases?

How many suitcases would $88 million require?

Did an armoured car arrive?

Where did the buyer obtain the currency notes from?

If from his bank, did the bank file a STR (Suspicious Transaction Report)?

Where did the bank get the currency notes from? (They requisition from MAS)

What questions did MAS ask? Did they check suspicious transaction?

Once received, did Shanmugam store it at 26 Ridout Road or deposit into his bank account?

If he deposited into his bank account,  what did the bank do?

What additional precaution did the bank do since Shanmugam is a PEP (Politically Exposed Person)?

Did the bank file a STR?

You can see where this goes.

The point is not whether these are questions of probate value in court. The point is that they only arise if one insists on a deliberately literal and context-blind reading of the word “cash.”

In reality, the legal and commercial meaning is mundane. Almost boring. “Cash buyer” simply means: no loan, no financing risk, faster completion.

What’s interesting is how quickly a common industry term gets reinterpreted into something suggestive— then used to imply wrongdoing that never existed in the first place.

The court, if anything, would likely do what courts always do: strip away the theatrics and return to ordinary meaning in context.

And in this context, “cash” doesn’t come in suitcases.

It comes via bank transfer.


Addendum (14 Apr 2026)

I received some pushback from netizens who insist on the literal meaning "cash" in this particular instance as meaning currency notes. These 2 further points I am adding here to dispel a legalistic notion on likely court interpretation and a practical reasoning.

Trade Term:
An insistent netizen drilled on and on about how the court will take on definitive meanings of words to debunk my point that in real estate transactions (and several other business transactions involving big ticket items, such as motor vehicles) the parties understood "cash" to mean "no financing". Of course in the drug business, they understand "cash" to mean suitcases of currency notes.

This is called trade terms. Courts accept trade terms or market terminology to interpret contracts. There are many well established cases on this. Here's two:

Smith vs Wilson (1832):
A contract referred to "1,000 rabbits". But in that trade,"1,000 rabbits" actually meant 1,200 rabbits (a trade unit). The court accepted the trade meaning, not the literal meaning. The principle -- Words are interpreted according to their trade meaning, not dictionary meaning, if both parties are in that trade. It means what the market intends it to mean.

Frigaliment vs BNS (1960):
A Swiss buyer (Frigaliment) contracted "chickens" from US seller. Buyer expected "young broilers/fryers", seller delivered "older stewing chickens". Buyer argued "chicken" in the trade means "young chicken" only. Seller argued "chicken" includes stewing birds.  Court checked dictionary (which is ambiguous) and trade practice. It found the practice was not universal. Seller lost. The principle: The party that claims trade practice must prove it. Should Bloomberg's lawyer claim "cash" has lateral meaning, it has to prove the real estate industry implies "cash" as currency notes, which of course they will surely loose.

The "1,000 rabbits" is a legacy trade term. There are others -- such as a baker's dozen is 13 in medieval times. If you buy a dozen loaves, you get 13. This has got to do with loss due to shrinkage, deaths, spoilage or other reasons. (I had some personal experience in this. In fresh fish delivery, what leaves the seller's premises often weighs less when restauranteurs receive them.  Reason - dehydration). In modern times, these legacy terms have mostly disappeared due to more precise measurements, and the use of common trade specification of "+ or -5%" to account for weight or quantity differences. But the principle remains for acceptance of trade terms. 

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC § 1-303) defines "usage of trade" as any practice or method of dealing regularly observed in a place, vocation, or trade, which justifies an expectation that it will be followed in a transaction. It establishes that trade usage, along with course of performance and dealing, helps interpret, supplement, or qualify contract terms. 

Currency notes in circulation:
Leaving out the coins, as at Dec 2023 there were S$63 billion currency notes in circulation. Some portion of these are not actually in circulation:
- Held by banks to serve customers (in bank vaults and ATMs): Estimated roughly 5%-14%.
- Held overseas: Estimated 10%-30%
- Held domestically but not circulating: Unknown

Singapore dollar is a hard regional currency widely recognised in SE Asia. Who are these people who hold SGD overseas:
- Frequent travelers and business folks
- Money changers all over the world
- Banks that service money changers
- SGD in circulation in Brunei.

Under the Currency Interchangeability Agreement, SGD circulates freely in Brunei. There is no known data. However, the amount of SGD in Brunei, and reversely BND circulating in Singapore, never accumulates because excesses that builds up in the central banks are repartriated annually. Singapore repartriates about BND1.5 billion annually. How much SGD is repartriated by Brunei Central Bank is unknown, probably in hundreds of millions.

Taking averages for SGD currency notes held by banks and overseas, about 28.5% of currency notes in circulation are actually held up. So of the S$63 billion in 2023, only S$41.5 billion was actually in circulation.

For the buyer to amass 20% of SGD currency notes in circulation to hand to Shanmugam is a task that even Hercules cannot accomplish.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.