SINGAPORE – The chief editor and publisher of The Online Citizen (TOC) have been ordered by the High Court to pay $125,000 in damages to UOB for defamation.

UOB had filed a suit on April 3, 2025, against Mr Terry Xu, who is based in Taiwan, and Miao Yi Infotech, a company in Taiwan that publishes TOC.

The defamation centred on the bank’s dealings with its customer, Yang Kee Logistics, and the firm’s former chief executive, Mr Koh Kien Chon, who is also known as Ken.

TOC had published a series of articles and social media posts in March 2025 which alleged that

UOB had coerced Yang Kee into making various transactions

that ultimately caused the firm’s downfall.

UOB had sought $150,000 in damages for the “false and baseless” allegations, saying that it intended to donate to charity whatever it can recover from the defendants.

Mr Xu and Miao Yi chose not to participate in the court proceedings.

The amount of $125,000 awarded is understood to be the highest reported award of general damages to a corporate claimant for defamation in Singapore.

The only other case in Singapore involving a corporate claimant of equivalent standing was one in 1994 where OCBC was awarded $50,000.

In written grounds issued on March 4, Assistant Registrar Vikram Rajaram said the defamatory publications “struck at the core attributes essential to a banking institution’s reputation and were disseminated widely through online platforms”.

On March 27, 2025, TOC published an article on its website with the headline “Ex-CEO accuses UOB of coercion, threats, and S$500M corporate raid”.

Three posts were also made on TOC’s Facebook page, each containing a link to the article.

In the article, Mr Koh outlined a series of transactions allegedly forced on his company, including buying convertible bonds with an “exorbitant” 27 per cent annual interest rate.

Mr Koh claimed that UOB executives threatened to withdraw essential financial facilities if he did not go along with the transactions.

He also alleged that UOB had improperly leaked information about confidential acquisition talks between Yang Kee and French logistics giant Geodis.

Mr Koh accused UOB of sabotaging this offer by issuing a default letter, a move that effectively blocked any potential rescue, and of undermining negotiations for another potential rescue deal.

The next day, despite being sent a letter of demand from UOB’s lawyers, TOC published another article and a related Facebook post.

This article stated that while Yang Kee had financial issues, the purported “real story” was how UOB’s actions pushed the firm into collapse.

It was followed by two more articles on March 29, 2025. The articles stated, among other things, that TOC was the only media outlet to bring this matter to light.

On April 1 that year, UOB said it would

commence legal action against Mr Koh

after he failed to retract his baseless allegations and apologise for his defamatory remarks despite its request for him to do so.

The bank added that it would also be taking legal action against TOC and Mr Xu.

UOB obtained default judgment against Mr Xu and Miao Yi on Oct 1, 2025, after they failed to respond to the lawsuit.

In assessing the quantum of damages, the assistant registrar found that the defamation “was of a high degree of severity”.

He noted that the allegations directly impact the core attributes of a bank, such as financial propriety, loyalty to customers, and legal and ethical compliance.

The presence of adverse comments from the public on the articles and the posts also showed that the allegations made caused damage to the bank’s reputation, said the assistant registrar.

He added that the high degree of specificity in the allegations made the words more believable, which, in turn, raised the level of gravity of the defamation.

He noted that as a regional bank listed on the Singapore Exchange, UOB is an institution of high standing, which meant that a higher award of damages would be warranted.

He added that TOC is relatively well-known, and words published on the website were likely to have some weight to the public.

The articles were also widely viewed, he said.

For instance, the March 27 posts had 2,134 reactions from readers, 466 comments, were shared 698 times and had at least 325,000 views.

A spokesperson for the bank told The Straits Times: “UOB is pleased with the High Court ruling that the bank was defamed by The Online Citizen.”

The spokesperson added that UOB has stayed the legal action against Mr Koh as he has been adjudged to be a bankrupt by another bank.

UOB was represented by Mr Ng Yeow Khoon, Mr Sherman Ho and Mr Leong Kit Weng from Shook Lin & Bok.