Singapore CEO sacked after $10,000 work-trip advance triggers $500,000 misappropriation ruling by Singapore HC

A Singapore High Court ruling has shed light on a high-stakes corporate fallout that began with a $10,000 travel advance and escalated into allegations of misappropriation exceeding half a million dollars, ultimately leading to the summary dismissal of a chief executive and a complex legal dispute across multiple group entities.

The case centred on Kanan Packrisamy, who joined Herbal Pharm Pte in March 2018 as Chief Operating Officer before being elevated to Chief Executive Officer of the company and Herbal Pharm+ Asia Pacific company in November 2022. He also held significant financial authority within the group, including approval powers over transactions up to $30,000.

The dispute began to unravel in December 2023 when the company’s sole director, Vejaiyan, sought clarification on a $10,000 cash advance taken for a work trip to Africa. 

The court heard that Kanan had processed the payment and transferred funds from Herbal Pharm Organics firm to his personal account. While he claimed verbal approval and characterised the transaction as a misunderstanding, the court rejected his explanation.

Justice Audrey Lim found that he had “deliberately failed” to account for the funds and only attempted justification after being confronted, noting inconsistencies in his explanations and referencing a prior travel advance in 2022 that raised similar concerns.

Within days of the confrontation, Kanan was demoted and later dismissed without notice in December 2023. The employer subsequently launched a forensic investigation and counterclaimed more than $502,000 across dozens of transactions spanning multiple group entities.

The court upheld the summary dismissal, finding the conduct had irreparably damaged trust, a core requirement in an employment relationship involving senior financial oversight. 

It also confirmed that employers may rely on misconduct discovered after dismissal to defend against wrongful termination claims, and are not generally required to conduct a formal inquiry unless contractually obligated.

However, the court did not fully side with the employer. It ruled that the company could not unilaterally reduce salary through a demotion letter, and rejected the forfeiture of an earned growth incentive bonus in the absence of an explicit contractual clause.

On the counterclaim, the court found misappropriation in multiple categories and ordered repayment of approximately $476,000 across group entities, including Herbal Pharms Telelink, as well as personal and business-related reimbursements. A separate claim involving Herbal Pharms Direct was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The judgement underscores that while courts will uphold summary dismissal where fiduciary trust is fundamentally breached, employment contracts remain decisive in determining salary changes and bonus forfeiture.