Chua Tiong Tiong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 16 July 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 182
• Date: 16 July 2001
• Subject Matter: Purpose of s 6(b) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed),Recalcitrant offender,Appellant's previous antecedents,Whether giver of gratification more culpable than receiver,Corruption involving public servants,Consistency with sentence meted out to receiver of gratification,Sentencing,Whether sentence manifestly inadequate,Public interest considerations,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether sentence manifestly excessive
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 342 of 1999
• Published date: 07 November 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Bala Reddy and Tan Boon Gin (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edmond Pereira (Edmond Pereira & Partners)

: Before me, this appeal was adjourned no less than four times. It was originally scheduled for hearing on 9 January this year. On that occasion, I was informed that the appellant was unable to attend due to medical reasons. I was told that the appellant had recently undergone a triple heart-bypass operation. I adjourned the hearing till March. On 13 March, I was again informed that the appellant was unable to attend court. He was hospitalised and a medical certificate was tendered in his absence. I therefore allowed counsel`s application for a further adjournment.

Finally, when this appeal was fixed for hearing on 26 June, I decided not to adjourn the hearing any longer without first having an opportunity to see the appellant himself. When counsel again asked for another adjournment with a medical certificate in support, I declined, and informed counsel I wished to see the appellant appear in court the very same afternoon. I also refused counsel`s application to withdraw the appeal, for the very simple reason that I did not think it appropriate to do so in the absence of this appellant.

The appellant did not appear, despite his counsel`s numerous attempts to locate him. In this instance, I revoked bail and issued a warrant of arrest for him. On 27 June, I saw counsel and the deputy public prosecutor (`DPP`) again, who informed me that the appellant was still at large, but the police and officers from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (`CPIB`) were working on this matter. I reiterated my position that I would not be granting leave to withdraw the appeal. In the meantime, I adjourned the appeal until such time as the appellant was arrested.

On 9 July, the appellant turned himself in at Mr Edmond Pereira`s office, and asked Mr Pereira to represent him in this appeal and take over the case from Mr Subhas Anandan, who had been representing him previously. Mr Pereira subsequently informed the police of the appellant`s presence, and he was arrested at Mr Pereira`s office.

On 10 July, I granted Mr Subhas`s application to be discharged, and Mr Pereira`s corresponding request that he be the appellant`s counsel on record. I also heard the appellant`s appeal against sentence. After giving this matter considerable thought, I dismissed the appeal, but enhanced the appellant`s sentence to 48 months, together with a fine of $100,000 in default another 24 months. I now give my reasons.

The facts

The appellant was convicted by District Judge Jasvender Kaur of one charge of bribing one Lim Poh Tee (`Lim`), then Acting Inspector of the Violent Crime Squad at the Jurong Police Division Headquarters, under s 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed) (`PCA`), to provide assistance and insider information relating to arrests arising from his illegal moneylending activities. Lim was convicted in the same trial of a corresponding corruption charge of providing the appellant with such assistance and information relating to such illegal activities.

I heard Lim`s appeal against sentence in the early part of the year and dismissed it. The facts culminating in the appellant`s arrest, charge and conviction of his offence were substantially similar to those which I set out in my grounds of judgment dismissing Lim`s appeal (see Lim Poh Tee v PP [2001] 1 SLR 674 ), which allows me the luxury of not regurgitating the facts again in this appeal.

It is no secret that the appellant is the now infamous `Ah Long San`, a well-known illegal moneylender operating from the vicinity of Geylang. By his own admission, he started his business from as early as 1980, and it soon spread island-wide. Throughout the years, the appellant charged interest varying from 5% to 20%. In 1990, the appellant claimed he gave up illegal moneylending to become a legitimate businessman. At present, he owns a karaoke lounge and a coffeeshop.

According to him, the reason for giving up this lucrative, though illegal, business was that the law was catching up on him. He had been fined on several occasions for being an illegal moneylender and no longer wished to pursue the business for fear of being arrested and imprisoned.

In her judgment, the district judge doubted if the appellant had ever given up his illegal moneylending business. Right up to the late 1990s, it was common knowledge that a loan shark by the nickname Ah Long San operated island-wide. In fact, the police knew of Ah Long San and his activities, and had been keeping a close watch on him.

It is convenient at this juncture to briefly recall the appellant`s conviction. The appellant and Lim frequented the Lido Palace Nite Club (`Lido Palace`) on several occasions since 1996. These visits were always at the expense of the appellant. In return, Lim not only tampered with the administration of the criminal justice system by abusing his authority to release one Lee Hwee Leong (`Lee`), suspected of working for the appellant in his illegal moneylending business, from custody but also recruited junior police officers to provide him with information on loan shark cases with the intention of passing on such information to the appellant so as to allow the latter and those under him to evade the clutches of the law. The appellant subsequently footed their entertainment bills when these junior officers frequented Lido Palace. By doing so, the appellant insidiously cloaked the entertainment provided in a veil of normalcy and acceptability, shrouding his ulterior motive under the fa+ade of being a generous man.

The district judge convicted the appellant and Lim in a joint trial as follows (at [para ]232 of her grounds of decision):

I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that both [the appellant and Lim] knew each other by late 1996 at the latest; that [Lim] got himself involved in Lee`s case because he had been asked by [the appellant] to help out; that [Lim] invited [other junior officers] to Lido Palace after Lee`s case; that he introduced [the same junior officers] to [the appellant] and intentionally made it known to him that they were investigating moneylending cases at Jurong; that [the appellant] provided free entertainment to [Lim] to make him beholden to him with the corrupt intention of seeking his assistance in the event he required his help in his moneylending activities; and that [Lim] thereafter requested [the same junior officers] to forward him information on loan shark cases reported at the station to pass to [the appellant] to enable him to alert his runners to escape conviction. I therefore found that the entertainment was given and accepted corruptly.

For his offence, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months. He appealed against his sentence.

Appeal against sentence

Counsel`s arguments were straightforward. He contended that the imposition of a custodial sentence of 18 months upon the appellant`s conviction of a single charge under the PCA was manifestly excessive....