Carl Elias v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 25 April 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 111
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion No 5 of 1995 (Magistrate's
• Date: 25 April 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Khoo and Josephine Low (Michael Khoo & BB Ong)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 111
• Defendant Counsel: Ong Wei Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Adducing fresh evidence,Appeal,Leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether evidence sought to be adduced could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at trial

Cur Adv Vult

The applicant in this criminal motion is the appellant in MA 43/94 and seeks by this motion to adduce further evidence in the appeal. The applicant faced in the court below five charges of criminal breach of trust. The first charge read as follows:

You, Carl Elias s/o Jack Moses Elias, NRIC No 1475884/D, are charged that you, on or about 23 October 1989, in Singapore, being entrusted with property, namely, 2,000 Overseas Union Bank Warrants 1994 for the purpose of delivering these warrants on behalf of Trans-Pacific Credit Pte Ltd (the company) to DBS Securities Pte Ltd pursuant to a sale (per contract Number 414270/501) of the said warrants, and thereafter to pay the proceeds, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 406 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The other four charges were virtually identical save for the property alleged to have been entrusted to the appellant and the respective contract numbers. These were: 10,000 Inter-Pacific Industrial Group Bhd shares (contract numbers 413142/501); 12,000 North Borneo Timber shares (contract numbers 413124/501 and 413125/501); 92,000 Keppel Investment Warrants 1991 (contract numbers 414182/, 414176/501, 414179/501 and 415507/501 and 100,000 Straits Steamship Warrants 1994 (contract numbers 414292/501, 414307/503, 414295/501 and 414289/501).

The facts

Briefly, the facts of the case were that in March 1989, the applicant entered into a share financing scheme with a finance company known as Trans-Pacific Credit Pte Ltd (Trans-Pacific). Under the scheme, loans were extended to the applicant by Trans-Pacific, these loans being in turn secured by shares which the applicant purchased. The arrangement was that the applicant would be permitted to borrow up to 60% of the value of any shares he had deposited with Trans-Pacific. At the same time the applicant also had a securities trading account with DBS Securities Pte Ltd (DBS Securities).

On 16 October 1989, the applicant sold through DBS Securities five lots of shares, which shares later became the subject matter of the five charges levelled against the applicant. These were shares which the applicant had deposited with Trans-Pacific as security for their loan. On 23 October 1989, the five lots of shares were handed over to the applicant by a Trans-Pacific staff in order that he might deliver them to DBS Securities for the completion of the sales made on 16 October 1989. The prosecution`s case against the applicant in the court below was that the arrangement between the applicant and Trans-Pacific necessitated the sales proceeds being credited directly to Trans-Pacific rather than to the applicant`s DBS Securities account. This was to prevent the applicant`s loan facility with Trans-Pacific from becoming undersecured. To that end, so the prosecution alleged, cover notes were attached to the shares handed over to the applicant, which notes contained directions to DBS Securities to credit the sales proceeds to Trans-Pacific.

...