Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee Allan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 30 January 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHC 21
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hassan Esa Almenoar and Liane Yong (R Ramason & Almenoar)
• Date: 30 January 2018
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 4 of 2017
• Hearing Date: 29 September 2017
• Subject Matter: Disciplinary Proceedings,Breach,Professional Conduct,Legal Profession
• Published date: 07 February 2018
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person.
• Citation: [2018] SGHC 21
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Year: 2018

Judith Prakash JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

This was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) for an order pursuant to s 94(1) read with s 98(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) that the respondent, Mr Chan Chun Hwee Allan (“the Respondent”), be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the LPA. The application arose from an anonymous complaint that the Respondent had aided and abetted in money laundering activities. The Law Society’s eventual case against the Respondent was that he had failed to: (a) verify his clients’ identities before accepting instructions as required under r 11D of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed) (“the Rules”); and (b) obtain evidence as to his clients’ business relationship in matters unusual in the ordinary course of business as required under r 11F of the Rules. As each course of conduct related to two distinct clients, the Law Society preferred four charges against the Respondent. The charges were not contested by the Respondent.

At the end of the hearing, we found that due cause for disciplinary action had been shown. We imposed a two-year suspension and a fine of S$100,000 on the Respondent. We now set out the full reasons for our decision.

The charges

The four charges against the Respondent, which were framed in the alternative under ss 83(2)(b) and 83(2)(h) of the LPA, read as follows: (1) You, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that during or about that period between May and August 2008 you did accept instructions from a foreign entity purportedly known as the Institute of Business Management & Financial Services (IBMFS) and, before accepting the instructions, failed to take reasonable measures to ascertain the identities of the natural persons that have a controlling interest in or that exercise effective control over IBMFS, and you have thereby breached Rule 11D(1) read with 11D(3) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rule [sic], such breach amounting to improper practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, Rev Ed 2001).

Alternative Charge

You, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that during or about that period between May and August 2008 you did accept instructions from a foreign entity purportedly known as the Institute of Business Management & Financial Services (IBMFS) and, before accepting the instructions, failed to take reasonable measures to ascertain the identities of the natural persons that have a controlling interest in or that exercise effective control over IBMFS, and you have thereby breached Rule 11D(1) read with 11D(3) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rule [sic], such breach amounting to misconduct unbefitting as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, Rev Ed 2001).

(2) That you, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that during or about the period between October and November 2011 you did accept instructions from a foreign entity purportedly known as Investment Suisse SA (ISSA) and, before accepting the instructions, failed to take reasonable measures to ascertain the identities of the natural persons that have a controlling interest in or that exercise effective control over ISSA, and you have thereby breached Rule 11D(1) read with Rule 11D(3) of the Legal Professional [sic] (Professional Conduct) Rules, such breach amounting to improper practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, Rev Ed 2001).

Alternative Charge

That you, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that during or about the period between October and November 2011 you did accept instructions from a foreign entity purportedly known as Investment Suisse SA (ISSA) and, before accepting the instructions, failed to take reasonable measures to ascertain the identities of the natural persons that have a controlling interest in or that exercise effective control over ISSA, and you have thereby breached Rule 11D(1) read with Rule 11D(3) of the Legal Professional [sic] (Professional Conduct) Rules, such breach amounting to misconduct unbefitting as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, Rev Ed 2001).

(3) That you, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that during or about the period between May and August 2008 you did act for a foreign entity purportedly known as the Institute of Business Management & Financial Services (IBMFS) in transfers of substantial sums of money amounting to US$172,850/-, AUD$55,000/- and EU$30,000/-, which is a matter unusual in the ordinary course of business, and when accepting instructions in relation to the matter failed to obtain satisfactory evidence as to the nature and purpose of the business relationship with IBMFS in the matter, and the business relationship between IBMFS and any other party to the matter, and you have thereby breached Rule 11F(2) read with 11F(1)(e) of the Legal Professional [sic] (Professional Conduct) Rules, such breach amounting to improper practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, Rev Ed 2001).

Alternative Charge

That you, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that during or about the period between May and August 2008 you did act for a foreign entity purportedly known as the Institute of Business Management & Financial Services (IBMFS) in transfers of substantial sums of money amounting to US$172,850/-, AUD$55,000/- and EU$30,000/-, which is a matter unusual in the ordinary course of business, and when accepting instructions in relation to the matter failed to obtain satisfactory evidence as to the nature and purpose of the business relationship with IBMFS in the matter, and the business relationship between IBMFS and any other party to the matter, and you have thereby breached Rule 11F(2) read with 11F(1)(e) of the Legal Professional (Professional Conduct) Rules, such breach amounting to misconduct unbefitting as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, Rev Ed 2001).

(4) That you, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that during or about the period between October and November 2011 you did act for a foreign entity purportedly known as Investment Suisse SA (ISSA) in transfers of substantial sums of money amounting to US$1,792,948/-, which is a matter unusual in the ordinary course of business, and when accepting instructions in relation to the matter failed to obtain satisfactory evidence as to the nature and purpose of the business relationship with ISSA in the matter, and the business relationship between ISSA and any other party to the matter, and you have thereby breached Rule 11F(2) read with 11F(1)(e) of the Legal Professional [sic] (Professional Conduct) Rules, such breach amounting to improper practice as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, Rev Ed 2001).

Alternative Charge

That you, Chan Chun Hwee Allan, are charged that during or about the period between October and November 2011 you did act for a foreign entity purportedly known as Investment Suisse SA (ISSA) in transfers of substantial sums of money amounting to US$1,792,948/-, which is a matter unusual in the ordinary course of business, and when accepting instructions in relation to the matter failed to obtain satisfactory evidence as to the nature and purpose of the business relationship with ISSA in the matter, and the business relationship between ISSA and any other party to the matter, and you have thereby breached Rule 11F(2) read with 11F(1)(e) of the Legal Professional [sic] (Professional Conduct) Rules, such breach amounting to misconduct unbefitting as an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161, Rev Ed 2001).

[emphasis in original]

The facts

The facts in support of the charges were essentially undisputed, and are summarised below.

Background

The Respondent is an advocate and solicitor who was admitted to the bar on 21 March 1998. At all material times, he was the sole proprietor of the law practice, M/s C H Chan & Co, which was located at Chinatown Point. This was also where the Respondent last practiced. For some time, the Respondent shared his office premises with someone named Peter Dornan (“Dornan”) who was then running a Human Resources training company.

In or around late 2005, Dornan introduced the Respondent to an acquaintance who went by the name of Sir Robert Cowley (“Cowley”). The Respondent subsequently met Cowley at several dinners and developed a relationship with him. According to the Respondent, Cowley carried himself well. He was referred to by the title “Sir” by those around him. During one of those dinners, a former Australian tennis star, Pat Cash, was also present and this impressed the Respondent. Cowley paid for the expensive meal.

In June 2006, Cowley represented to the Respondent that two companies, of which he was the Chairman, were in need of certain legal services. The companies were the Institute of Business Management and Financial Services (“IBMFS”) and Investment Suisse SA (“ISSA”). The nature of the legal services was allegedly twofold: (a) to give advice on Singapore law and investment opportunities; and (b) to act as an escrow agent. As an escrow agent, the Respondent was to receive funds into his client accounts and then carry out onward transmissions of funds as directed by Cowley, IBMFS or ISSA.

Facts relating to the charges

The date on which the Respondent first started handling money for Cowley, IBMFS and/or ISSA is not known. The earliest transactions documented in the complaint were dated...