StanChart to pursue further appeal in 1MDB-linked suit

PETALING JAYA: Standard Chartered Bank (Singapore) Limited said it will seek leave to file a further appeal after the Singapore High Court allowed a US$2.7 billion lawsuit over its alleged role in the 1MDB scandal to proceed to trial.

A spokesperson for Standard Chartered said the bank would continue to “vigorously defend” itself

“The recent decision in the bank’s strike-out appeal is not a decision on the merits of those claims.

“In any case, we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision, and intend to apply for permission to file a further appeal,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

The spokesperson also said that the claims against the bank were brought by shell companies that misappropriated funds from 1MDB and had no legitimate business.

“We emphatically reject the claims of these fraudulent entities. Their claims are without merit.

“We take our responsibility to fight financial crime extremely seriously, in service of our clients and the markets in which we operate,” the spokesperson said.

1MDB’s independent court-appointed liquidators earlier said the Singapore High Court, in a June 30 ruling, had rejected the bank’s appeal against an earlier decision refusing to strike out the suit.

The liquidators said that the outcome reaffirms that the claims against the bank, including claims of dishonest assistance and breach of the bank’s duties of reasonable skill and care, should properly proceed to trial, where the evidence could be fully examined.

The suit was filed in June 2025 by three British Virgin Islands entities allegedly used to funnel stolen 1MDB funds – Alsen Chance Holdings Limited, Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners Limited, and Brightstone Jewellery Limited.

The liquidators allege that Standard Chartered allowed more than 100 intrabank transfers between 2009 and 2013 that “helped conceal the flow of stolen funds” and it “chose to overlook obvious red flags” in relation to the transfer of funds.

They also accused the bank of failing to comply with anti-money laundering regulations and client due diligence rules when permitting the transactions.