Ong, 56, also known as Andy, was found guilty in May of one count each of helping with forgery, breaking trust, and giving false evidence in court. This is what happened to him.

Two of his associates, Ho Yew Kong and Chua Wei Tat, were each given a 12-month jail sentence on Friday in connection with the case. They were involved in this case.

Ho, the former director of the joint venture Griffin Real Estate Investment Holdings, and Chua, an asset manager employed by Ong's management company, were each found guilty in May of one count of giving false evidence in High Court proceedings related to the dispute. This is what they did.

The prosecutor, Ronnie Ang, asked for 12 to 13 years in jail for Ong, while Ong's lawyers, Daniel Koh and Thomas Lee, argued for between five years and six months and five years and nine months in jail. They had different ideas.

Mr Ang asked for two to three years in jail for Ho and Chua, while their lawyers, Remy Choo and Andre Jumabhoy, argued for six months and four months in prison, respectively. They had different opinions.

When giving her sentence for Ong, District Judge Jill Tan noted the factors that made the crime worse, as pointed out by the prosecution - the large sum of money misused, the high level of trust placed in him as the chief investment officer, the steps he took to avoid detection, and his lack of remorse. She considered these factors.

She agreed with the prosecution that S$15.8 million was a large sum of money. Although Ong paid back the money, she accepted that it was not voluntary because it was done according to her judgment and did not show that he was sorry. This is what she thought.

The defence argued that Ong's senior position in the company did not mean that he was trusted more, which would have made his sentence worse. This is what they said.

If not for Ong's position at work and the high degree of trust in him, the money could not have been moved so easily, the judge said. This is what she said.

The judge also noted that once Ong realized his initial story had fallen apart, he completely changed his account during the trial. This is what happened.

The defence rejected this description of Ong's evidence as a complete change, calling it an exaggeration. They did not agree.

Judge Tan noted that in her verdict, she had agreed with the prosecution that the new evidence given by Ong was not believable. She rejected the defence's claim that the variation in Ong's defence was a legitimate exploration of different explanations for the transfers. This is what she decided.

She also noted that the false evidence given by Ho and Chua was meant to support the false story told by Ong, but she acknowledged that their blame was less than Ong's. This is what she thought.

All three men will be appealing their convictions and sentences, their lawyers said. They also face many other charges that will be dealt with later. This is what will happen.

Ong asked to leave the country to travel to Thailand, France, and Italy to settle business matters, with his lawyers claiming that no one else could do it for him. The judge rejected the request, saying his risk of fleeing had increased after his sentencing. This is what happened.

The court had previously reminded Ong to get his affairs in order so that he would not need to travel overseas for business, she added. This is what the court did.

According to the prosecution, Ong's involvement in the case came from his business relationship with Douglas Foo, who was then the managing director of Sakae Holdings. The two had entered into a joint venture to acquire Bugis Cube. This is what happened.

Both agreed in 2009 that GREIH would be the joint venture vehicle, with Sakae Holdings later becoming a minority shareholder. This is what they agreed on.

Ong then set up Gryphon Real Estate Investment Corporate, which later became the majority shareholder of GREIH, and Gryphon Capital Management, a management company to handle the Bugis Cube units. This is what he did.

The prosecution said that documents showed that Ong Han Boon, who was a director of GREIH at the time, and the three men sentenced on Friday created a false paper trail. This is what they did.

This was meant to support a made-up story that GREIH had leased units in Bugis Cube to ERC Institute, later ended the lease, and therefore owed ERC Institute compensation. This is what they tried to do.

At the centre of the case was a lease agreement that was supposedly dated March 1, 2012, between GREIH and ERC Institute, which appeared to give ERC Institute tenancy over several floors of the development. This is what was found.

The prosecution charged that Ong had told Ong Han Boon to create a document around June 20, 2012, and backdate it. The lease went through many drafts, with key versions created only months later. This is what happened.

Ong Han Boon, who has since pleaded guilty and was jailed, later testified against the accused, giving evidence that the false lease was used to support a claim that GREIH owed compensation after supposedly ending the agreement. This is what he did.

Judge Tan found that the document was false and accepted Ong Han Boon's evidence, which was consistent with documents and made sense. This is what she decided.

In September 2012, Ong caused GREIH to transfer S$15.8 million to related entities - S$14.3 million to ERC International and S$1.5 million to ERC Unicampus. This is what happened.

The court found that these payments were not justified and that the misuse of money had caused wrongful loss to GREIH. This is what the court found.

All three men were also found to have given false evidence in affidavits filed in the related High Court civil suit, in which they claimed the lease had been signed in March 2012. This is what they did.

The punishment for intentionally giving false evidence in a court proceeding is up to seven years in jail and a fine. This is the punishment.

For breaking trust, Ong could have been jailed for up to 15 years, fined, or both. This is the possible punishment.

For helping with the forgery of a valuable security, he could have been sentenced to up to 15 years in jail and fined. This is also a possible punishment.