Law Society of Singapore v Ong Cheong Wei

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 09 November 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 293
• Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel John and Kevin Cheng (Goodwins Law Corporation)
• Date: 09 November 2017
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 5 of 2017
• Hearing Date: 09 November 2017
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Disciplinary Proceedings,Breach,Professional Conduct
• Published date: 16 November 2017
• Defendant Counsel: and the respondent in person.
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 293
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Year: 2017

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):

The respondent is a solicitor who made false declarations of his income over a period of time to evade tax. He pleaded guilty to and was convicted of two offences under s 96(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2004 Rev Ed; 2008 Rev Ed) (“ITA”). The Law Society of Singapore (“Law Society”) convened a Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) under the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”), which found that there was cause of sufficient gravity to refer the matter to this court. The Law Society then brought proceedings to establish that pursuant to s 83(2)(a) of the LPA, the convictions implied a defect of character that made him unfit for the profession.

The Respondent did not contest the charge and the only question before us is whether he should be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. For the reasons that follow, we are satisfied that he should be struck off.

The offences and the charge

The respondent’s conviction was for two charges of wilful tax evasion under s 96(1)(b) of the ITA. Specifically, he had, wilfully and with the intent to evade tax, made false entries in his income tax returns by misstating the income he had earned from his law firm (a sole proprietorship) for the years of assessment 2007 and 2008. The respondent pleaded guilty to the charges under the ITA and was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay a fine of $118,341.78, being three times the amount of the tax he had evaded.

The charge against the respondent now is one under s 83(2)(a) of the LPA, on the basis that these convictions implied a defect of character making the respondent unfit for the profession.

The respondent chose not to participate in the proceedings before us, but in reaching our decision, we take into account the arguments which he had raised before the DT as well as certain authorities which counsel for the Law Society, Mr Daniel John, has brought to our attention in fairness to the respondent.

Our decision

The main issues are whether the respondent’s offences demonstrated dishonesty and whether striking off is the appropriate penalty. We are of the firm view that the offences did demonstrate dishonesty and that striking off is necessary, for two reasons.

First, it is the settled jurisprudence of this court that a solicitor who has been dishonest will almost invariably be struck off: Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512 at 518, cited with approval by this court in numerous cases including the recent case of Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju and another matter [2017] SGHC 141 (“SK Kumar”) at [101]. If there is any exception to this principle, it would be extremely rare, and there is nothing in the present case to take it out of that principle. As Yong Pung How CJ observed in Chng Gim Huat v Public Prosecutor [2000] 2 SLR(R) 360 at [107], an offence of wilful tax...