SINGAPORE — Art gallery owner Jasmine Tay has been spared jail for contempt of court after the appellate court yesterday agreed that she had not been given a chance to explain why she breached a judge’s order during her trial.

Tay, founder of the Museum of Art and Design, had been sentenced to eight weeks’ jail in April last year after flouting four court orders to disclose her assets.

The order came after Indonesian tycoon Tahir, who goes by one name, took legal action against her to recover the US$1.6 million (S$2.3 million) that he had paid her in March 2014 to buy a sculpture by Colombian artist Fernando Botero.

The artwork was never delivered, and it later emerged that she had kept most of the money for herself.

Mr Tahir’s lawyers sought a Mareva injunction — a court order to freeze her assets — on Oct 27, 2015. But Tay seemingly ignored this and made three withdrawals totalling S$3,000 from her OCBC bank account the following day. She was declared a bankrupt on Nov 11 the same year.

Yesterday, Tay, 49, argued through her new lawyers that the withdrawals were a technical breach of the court order. The cash was withdrawn overnight — at 1am — but she claimed to have only found out about the injunction later that day when she met her former lawyer.

“Consequently, there was no malicious, sustained enterprise targeted at dissipating assets but rather a confused attempt by an unintelligent lady at navigating the Mareva Order and its exceptions, given that it had been issued just a day prior to the withdrawals,” said lawyer Salem Ibrahim.

He also argued that the trial judge did not make it clear that Tay would be penalised for flouting the Mareva injunction, which deprived her of the chance to explain her motives and state of mind then.

Rather than a jail term, Tay should have been given a “rap on the knuckles”, given her major depressive disorder, said Mr Salem. A severe reprimand or a fine would have sufficed, he added.

The appeal was heard by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judges of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang and Judith Prakash.

Delivering the verdict, CJ Menon said that the trial judge did have the authority to take the breach of the Mareva injunction into account.

“However, if he was minded to convict and punish the appellant for that breach, it was necessary to ensure that proper notice was given to the appellant and she was given an opportunity to put her case across. That did not seem to be the case,” he added.

The court reduced Tay’s sentence to a S$10,000 fine and ordered her to return the S$3,000 she had withdrawn to the Official Assignee, which manages the affairs of bankrupts.

Tay, who teared up and hugged her lawyer after the hearing, said she was very happy with the outcome. VALERIE KOH