A Singaporean High Court has ordered Bloomberg News and one of its reporters to pay S$460,000 (about US$356,000) in damages to two government ministers after finding that a 2024 report on luxury property transactions defamed them.
The lawsuit was brought by Singapore’s Coordinating Minister for National Security, K. Shanmugam, and Minister for Manpower, Tan See Leng, against Bloomberg and reporter Low De Wei over an article titled Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy.
The report examined how wealthy individuals in Singapore sometimes use trusts and shell companies to conceal purchases of Good Class Bungalows (GCBs), an elite category of multimillion-dollar homes.
According to the article, Shanmugam sold a bungalow for S$88 million (US$68 million) through a trust arrangement, while Tan was identified as one of several prominent figures who bought a GCB worth around S$27 million through a non-caveated transaction, making it harder to identify the parties involved.
The ministers filed the defamation suit shortly after the article’s publication in December 2024, arguing that it wrongly associated their legitimate property dealings with allegations of secrecy, lack of transparency and potential money laundering.
Bloomberg defended its reporting, insisting the article did not suggest any wrongdoing by the ministers and that they were mentioned merely as notable examples within a broader trend in Singapore’s luxury housing market.
The company also said the story had been thoroughly researched and that both ministers had been approached for comments before publication.
However, High Court Judge Audrey Lim ruled that, when read in its entirety, the article conveyed the impression that the ministers had exploited existing regulations to conduct non-transparent property transactions and evade scrutiny that could extend to possible money laundering concerns.
The judge described the allegations as serious and said they had harmed the ministers’ integrity, character and professional reputations, warranting the damages awarded.
Following the ruling, the court ordered Bloomberg to remove the article from its website, and it was taken down on Tuesday.
Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait expressed disappointment with the judgment but said the media organisation would comply with the court’s decision.
He maintained that the report was accurate and served an important public interest, adding that Bloomberg believed the ministers had attached “an extremely strained meaning” to what it considered a well-reported story.
The case is separate from action taken under Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). After the article’s publication, Singaporean authorities directed Bloomberg to attach a correction notice to the report, alleging that it contained falsehoods.
Bloomberg complied with the order while standing by its reporting.
Correction notices were also issued to other media outlets that republished the story or published commentaries based on it.
The two ministers also won a separate defamation case against the editor-in-chief of independent news platform The Online Citizen over a commentary linked to the Bloomberg report.
Singapore has a longstanding history of government officials pursuing defamation suits against critics and foreign media organisations.
While authorities argue that such legal actions are necessary to protect reputations from false allegations, critics say they can have a chilling effect on press freedom and political dissent.
