Senior Exec was violated by confidentiality by downloading thousands of files when he stepped down: Court

Singapore – At the time He stepped back As head of the investor relationships at a fund management company based in Singapore, a man invited thousands of documents from the company's cloud memory on Google Drive.

Mr. Rajan Sunil Kumar was then sued by his former employer Hayate Partners for violating confidentiality by accessing the documents and being downloaded and maintaining the copies of the documents that go beyond the end of his employment.

The files contained documents that relate to Hayat's investment strategies. Personal identification information and bank account Details of customers; Meet logs and call protocols; and personal identification information from the company's key staff.

After he was ordered by the court to hand over his electronic Devices for forensic test by Hayates experts, Mr. Rajan, deleted them cleanly.

He then argued that his former employer had no evidence that he had retained the downloaded documents that would go beyond the end of his employment.

In a judgment published on March 14, a judge of the High Court said the only reason why Hayate had no evidence of such evidence was the deliberate and deliberate actions to delete the applications for his devices.

Justice Dedar Singh Gill said: “This is comparable to a thief that deletes the video material that captures his act of theft, and then says that nobody can prove that he has stolen something.”

The judge found that Mr. Rajan had violated his confidentiality obligations by downloading certain documents into his personal MacBook and maintaining the files after his employment was completed.

But justice Gill Also found that Mr. Rajan had not violated the confidentiality of other downloads that were made to his Dell Work laptop, which was returned to the company after his employment ended.

Justice Gill ordered that the cache files that remain in the MacBook are deleted under the supervision of Hayate or his forensic expert and lawyers.

Hayat's claim for damages is assessed at a separate hearing.

The company registered in Singapore held a Capital Markets Services license and mainly headed the Hayate Japan Equity Long-Short Fund.

At the time of the procedure, the Singapore monetary authority was registered as a financial institution.

A Straits Times Check about the current status seriesS that an announcement was submitted to the termination.

Mr. Rajan, he is 38 this yearwas the head of the company's investor relationships from December 9, 2019 to December 22, 2021.

His main task was to achieve potential investors to promote the fund.

During his employment, the company did not provide him with regularly.

This became increasingly a bugbear when Mr. Rajan, who came from India, had to submit his payslips to apply for citizenship in Singapore.

He finally sent his resignation orally on December 8, 2021.

The company then carried out an examination of its IT activities as part of its usual protocol when an employee stepped down.

In total, Mr. Rajan is said to have downloaded about 4,800 different files from the company's online cloud storage in his MacBook for three days in 2021 from the company's online cloud storage store on December 8, 20 and December 21.

He should have retained these files after his employment ended.

Hayate, represented by Ms. Sharon Chong by Rhtlaw Asia, sued him in 2022.

The company was based on clauses in its letter of appointment to argue that he was contractually obliged to keep confidential information.

Hayate also received a court order so that Mr. Rajan could hand over all the devices with which the confidential information was downloaded so that they can be examined by the forensic experts.

Mr. Rajan handed over his MacBook and iPhone after deleting most of the devices from the devices.

Hayate argued that Mr. Rajan knew that removing the applications could wipe the decisive metadata and restrict the evidence restored by the forensic experts.

Mr. Rajan, who was represented by Mr. Alfred Dodwell, argued that there was none explicitly Conditions in his declaration of appointment, which imposes an obligation to him Do not access and download the information for non -work -related purposes.

He accepted that the downloads were on December 8th and 21st in his MacBook claimed that the downloads were on December 20 in the Dell laptop.

Mr. Rajan's explanation for deleting the applications was that he did not know who he gave away the devices and that he had started in a new job.

In his judgment, Justice Gill said that Mr. Rajan's statement for the deletions was hollow and was unsatisfactory.

With regard to the downloads on December 8th and 21st, the judge came to the conclusion that Mr. Rajan had taken over the confidential documents in his personal devices over the last day of his employment.

The judge said it was more likely that the downloads were based on December 20 in the Dell Laptop, based on the Timings Downloading and synchronizing between Mr. Rajan's devices and the company's servers.

Mr. Rajan had claimed that he downloaded Skype chat protocols on December 21st to use as evidence of complaints to various authorities against Hayate.

But Justice Gill said that Mr. Rajan had already collected the necessary evidence by removing numerous screenshots of the Skype talks regarding the output of his paylips, and he was not necessary to download the entire chat protocol.

• Selina Lum is Senior Law Correspondent to the Straits Times.

Connect The WhatsApp channel from ST and the latest news and must-reads.