Goh Kah Heng (alias Shi Ming Yi) v Public Prosecutor and another matter

JudgeTay Yong Kwang J
Judgment Date27 May 2010
Neutral Citation[2010] SGHC 167
Citation[2010] SGHC 167
Docket NumberMA Nos 333 and 332 of 2009 (DACs 31694 and 31688 of 2008 and Others)
Published date10 June 2010
Hearing Date13 April 2010
Plaintiff CounselAndre Yeap SC, Hamidul Haq, Adrian Wong and Jansen Chow (Rajah & Tann LLP)
Date27 May 2010
Defendant CounselJaswant Singh and David Chew, DPPs (Attorney-General's Chambers),Ng Lip Chih (NLC Law Asia LLP)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterCharities,Criminal Law
Tay Yong Kwang J: Introduction

The present appeals arose from the appellants’ conviction and sentence by a District Judge (the “DJ”) in Public Prosecutor v Goh Kah Heng alias Shi Ming Yi and Another [2009] SGDC 499 (the “GD”) and in Public Prosecutor v Goh Kah Heng alias Shi Ming Yi and Another [2009] SGDC 500 (the “GD on Sentence”). The appellants (“SMY” and “RY”) were convicted after a 23-day trial in the District Court.

The charges

Originally, SMY faced ten charges but the prosecution proceeded with only four relating to the grant of a $50,000 loan to RY. SMY claimed trial to and was convicted on the following four charges: DAC 31694/2008 ( “SMY’s First Charge”)

… that you, on 17 May 2004, in Singapore, being an officer of Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre (“Ren Ci”), namely its Chief Executive Officer, did engage in a conspiracy with one Raymond Yeung Chi Hang (“Raymond”) to falsify a paper belonging to Ren Ci wilfully and with intent to defraud, and in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, Goh Bee Choo, a clerk of Ren Ci, prepared a payment voucher no. PV200405-082 which falsely stated that a loan of $50,000 was made by Ren Ci to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre, which act was committed in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s.477A read with Section 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

DAC 31695/2008 (“SMY’s Second Charge”)

… that you, on 17 May 2004, in Singapore, being an officer of Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre (“Ren Ci”), being entrusted with dominion over funds of Ren Ci, did dishonestly misappropriate $50,000 of Ren Ci’s funds, to wit, by approving a loan of $50,000 to one Raymond Yeung Chi Hang (“Raymond”), which loan Raymond was not entitled to, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

DAC 31696/2008 (“SMY’s Third Charge”)

… that you, on 18 December 2007, in Singapore, in purported compliance with a requirement imposed by the Charities Act, Chapter 37 (the “Act”), did knowingly provide information which was false in a material particular to the Commissioner of Charities (the “Commissioner”), to wit, you furnished an oral statement on affirmation to Ms Penelope Lepeudry and Mr Ng Wan-Sing Winston, officers of Ernst and Young Associates Pte Ltd who had been duly appointed by the Commissioner to conduct the Inquiry into Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre (“Ren Ci”) under Section 8 of the Charities Act (“the Act”) that the loan of $50,000 by Ren Ci to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre (“Mandala”) on 17 May 2004 was for Mandala to purchase wood, which information you knew was false, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 10(1)(a) and punishable under Section 10(3) of the Act.

DAC 31697/2008 (“SMY’s Fourth Charge”)

… that you, sometime around January 2008, in Singapore, did engage with one Raymond Yeung Chi Hang (“Raymond”) in a conspiracy to knowingly provide the Commissioner of Charities (the “Commissioner”) with information which was false in a material particular, and in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, a letter purportedly from Bei Jing Jing Hai Shan Artifact Co. Ltd (China) stating that it had delivered two statues worth $16,000 to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre (“Mandala”) and that Mandala had balance of 25m3 of wood was delivered to the Commissioner, which information you knew was false, which you intended the Commissioner to use for the purpose of discharging his functions under Section 8 of the Charities Act, Chapter 37 (the “Act”), and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act read with Section 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 and punishable under s.10(3) of the Act.

RY was charged with and claimed trial to two charges (DAC 31688 and DAC 31689 of 2008) which were related to two of the charges that SMY faced, namely, SMY’s First Charge and Fourth Charge respectively, as follows: DAC 31688 of 2008 (“RY’s First Charge”)

… that you, on 17 May 2004, in Singapore, did engage in a conspiracy with one Goh Kah Heng @ Shi Ming Yi, namely its Chief Executive Officer, to falsify a paper belonging to Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre (“Ren Ci”) wilfully and with intent to defraud, and in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, Goh Bee Choo, a clerk of Ren Ci, prepared a payment voucher no. PV200405-082 which falsely stated that a loan of $50,000 was made by Ren Ci to Mandala, which act was committed in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 477A read with Section 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, 1985 Revised Edition.

DAC 31689 of 2008 (“RY’s Second Charge”)

… that you, sometime around January 2008, in Singapore, did engage with one Goh Kah Heng @ Shi Ming Yi in a conspiracy to knowingly provide the Commissioner of Charities (the “Commissioner”) with information which was false in a material particular, and in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, a letter purportedly from Bei Jing Jing Hai Shan Artifact Co. Ltd (China) stating that it had delivered two statues worth $16,000 to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre (“Mandala”) and that Mandala had balance of 25m3 of wood was delivered to the Commissioner, which information you knew was false, which you intended the Commissioner to use for the purpose of discharging his functions under Section 8 of the Charities Act, Chapter 37 (the “Act”), and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act read with Section 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, 1985 Revised Edition and punishable under Section 10(3) of the Act.

Background

SMY was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre (“Ren Ci”) while RY was his personal executive.

According to the prosecution, RY was someone “very close and dear” to SMY and the “close and personal relationship” between them was pivotal to a proper appreciation of the facts of this case. The prosecution alleged that RY was able to obtain the said $50,000 loan without documentation and repayment terms precisely because of this relationship. It was also because of this relationship that the loan was not repaid until E & Y emerged on the Ren Ci scene, that SMY tried to cover up the loan and lied to the Inquiry (see [65] below) and to the Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”). Similarly, it was this relationship that explained why RY tried to shield SMY from responsibility during the trial.

SMY met RY in Hong Kong sometime in 2000. SMY went out of his way to secure RY’s employment at Ren Ci in 2001. When RY’s application for an employment pass was rejected in April 2001, SMY nevertheless offered him a job at Ren Ci in May that year. The job offer (to be SMY’s assistant) was accepted by RY, with RY’s salary being paid by SMY via an increase in SMY’s salary. SMY also went to meet officials at the Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”) to appeal against the rejection of RY’s application for an employment pass. He further made personal appeals to two Members of Parliament on RY’s behalf. RY’s employment pass was finally approved only in November 2004.

SMY indulged RY with supplementary credit cards which RY used liberally. RY, an Australian citizen and permanent resident of Singapore and Macao, stayed with SMY in various condominiums when RY was in Singapore. They went on holidays together and even purchased two properties in Melbourne, Australia, jointly. One property was bought in 2002 while the other was bought in 2004. Each property apparently cost more than A$1 million. SMY also bought a BMW car for RY’s personal use in Melbourne. Counsel for RY explained that RY’s name was included in the Australian properties because one of the owners had to be an Australian citizen.

On 17 May 2004, RY gave instructions to Ren Ci’s finance manager to prepare a cash cheque (the “Cash Cheque”) for $50,000 and a payment voucher (the “Payment Voucher”) reflecting a loan of the same amount from Ren Ci to Mandala Buddhist & Cultural Centre (“Mandala”). Mandala was a partnership business between SMY and one Wee Beng Seng, sanctioned by Ren Ci, which was supposed to help generate income for Ren Ci. SMY signed the Cash Cheque and Payment Voucher. The Cash Cheque was later encashed by a staff of Ren Ci on RY’s behalf. RY took the cash and brought it to Hong Kong subsequently. This amount was reflected in Ren Ci’s accounts as a loan to Mandala but there was no corresponding entry in Mandala’s books showing the receipt or disbursement of this $50,000. The money was never given to Mandala. This anomaly was uncovered during the audit of Ren Ci’s books by Ernst & Young (“E & Y”) following a corporate governance review initiated by the Ministry of Health (“MOH”) in the middle of 2006, after the events surrounding the National Kidney Foundation (“NKF”) had taken place. On 12 June 2007, RY tendered his resignation from Ren Ci.

On 7 November 2007, a formal inquiry (the “Inquiry”) under s 8 of the Charities Act (Cap 37, 2007 Rev Ed) was initiated by MOH to look into RC’s affairs. During the course of the Inquiry, SMY gave evidence to the members of the Inquiry on 18 December 2007 that the $50,000 was a loan for Mandala to purchase wood, something which was untrue.

On 2 January 2008, the Commissioner of Charities asked SMY to provide documentary evidence of the purchase of wood. Pursuant to this order, a letter (the “BJJHS Letter”) purportedly from Bei Jing Jing Hai Shan Artifact Co Ltd (China) (“BJJHS”) was given to the Commissioner. The BJJHS Letter stated that it had delivered two statues worth $16,000 to Mandala and that there were 25m³ of surplus wood. This was not true as the statues were in fact purchased and paid for by a different entity. In February 2008, the CAD...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Public Prosecutor v Tan Kim Hock Anthony
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 14 June 2013
    ...had cited the following 2 cases as relevant precedents and useful reference points: In Goh Kah Heng (alias Shi Ming Yi) v PP and another [2010] 4 SLR 258 , the accused was convicted on 4 charges arising from financial mismanagement of Ren Ci’s funds. The facts are not complicated and can be......
  • Li Weiming and other matters v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 March 2013
    ...to the phrase in other areas of the law. For example, in Goh Kah Heng (alias Shi Ming Yi) v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2010] 4 SLR 258 (“Goh Kah Heng”), Tay Yong Kwang J agreed at [42] with the approach adopted in Public Prosecutor v Chow Wai Lam [2006] SGDC 1 at [47]–[52]. The l......
  • Public Prosecutor v Peter Khoo Chong Meng
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 6 December 2012
    ...appellant’s contributions to community work and development. As was observed by the High Court in Goh Kah Heng (alias Shi Ming Yi) v PP [2010] SGHC 167 at [94]: "In the sentencing process, the court is sometimes faced with the arduous task of deciding the punishment for a dishonourable act ......
  • Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Shafiq Bin Ahamad
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 14 April 2015
    ...of the drugs to be trafficked. The Law on Abetment by Conspiracy The prosecution submitted that in Goh Kah Heng (alia Shi Ming Yi) v PP [2010] 4 SLR 258, the High Court had summarized the essential elements of a charge of abetment by conspiracy at [39-41]: “39….The requirements for offence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Procedure, Evidence and Sentencing
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2010, December 2010
    • 1 December 2010
    ...conviction and sentence. 13.31 In this chapter, the focus of discussion in relation to the case of Goh Kah Heng v Public Prosecutor [2010] 4 SLR 258 is the appropriate sentence to be imposed. It was submitted on behalf of Shi Ming Yi that a short custodial sentence of one day will suffice a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT