Law Society of Singapore v Junaini bin Manin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 07 September 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 200
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 493 of 2004
• Date: 07 September 2004
• Published date: 10 September 2004
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel John (John, Tan and Chan)
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 200
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent absent
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Advocate and solicitor convicted of criminal breach of trust under s 409 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Appropriate order to be made,Show cause action,Sections 83(1), 98(5) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed), s 409 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)

7 September 2004

Tay Yong Kwang J (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This is an application by motion made by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) to a court of three judges to make absolute an order to show cause under s 98(5) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”). It involves another sad case of the court having to impose the ultimate professional sanction on an advocate and solicitor.

The facts

2 Junaini bin Manin (“the respondent”), 46 years old, is an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore of some 18 years’ standing, having been called to the Bar on 10 December 1986. He joined the firm of M/s Wong Khalis & Partners and became one of its partners in 1990. In 1995, he formed the partnership of M/s Junaini & Jailani with another advocate and solicitor. In 1999, he left the partnership and became the sole proprietor of M/s Junaini & Co.

3 On 9 June 2003, Suratemin bin Ali (“Suratemin”), one of the respondent’s clients, lodged a police report alleging that the respondent had misappropriated a sum of $789,200, representing the proceeds of sale of a house which belonged to the said client’s late mother. Following this, police reports were also lodged by four other clients alleging misappropriation of their money by the respondent. On 28 August 2003, the respondent was arrested and remanded.

4 Between August 2003 and January 2004, the Public Prosecutor preferred 13 charges of criminal breach of trust under s 409 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) against the respondent but subsequently proceeded on only five of these charges. On 25 February 2004, the respondent pleaded guilty in a district court to those five charges and agreed to have the other eight charges taken into consideration for sentencing. He was sentenced by the district court to a total of seven years’ imprisonment with the commencement of the sentences backdated to the date of remand, said to be 25 August 2003. However, the Statement of Facts (reproduced by the district judge in his grounds of decision) supporting the charges stated the date of arrest and remand as 28 August 2003. Nonetheless, nothing in the application before us turns on this apparent discrepancy in the dates.

5 We now set out briefly the facts relating to the said five charges.

Facts relating to the first charge

6 The complainant was Suratemin, who was the legal administrator and one of the beneficiaries to the estate of his late mother. On 6 March 1989, Suratemin and the other beneficiaries entered into a joint venture agreement to develop the plot of land that formed part of their late mother’s estate. This joint venture agreement was later assigned to Heng Properties Pte Ltd (“HPPL”). A civil suit over payment eventually arose between the beneficiaries and HPPL.

7 Sometime in 1991, Suratemin engaged the respondent to settle the dispute. The respondent was then in the firm of Wong Khalis & Junaini. When the respondent left that firm, he continued representing Suratemin. The matter was later settled out of court. On 6 December 1996, the respondent received a cheque for $789,200 from HPPL’s solicitor made in favour of his firm. He deposited this cheque into the firm’s client account. However, he did not disburse the money to Suratemin or the other beneficiaries. Instead, he issued a cheque for $729,200 from the client account and deposited it into his personal account.

8 On those facts, the respondent pleaded guilty to the following charge:

You, Junaini Bin Manin, Male 46 years, NRIC No: S1266992-E, are charged that you, between the 6^th day of December 1996 and the 11^th day of December 1996 at Junaini & Jailani Advocates & Solicitors, located at No 69 Geylang Serai, Geylang Serai Malay Village, Singapore, being the attorney of one Suratemin Bin Ali and entrusted with certain property, to wit, $789,200, being the agreed settlement fee arising from an Originating Summon no 633 of 1995 against Heng Properties, did commit criminal breach of trust, to wit, by dishonestly misappropriating a sum of $729,200 and converting it to your own use and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

Facts relating to the second charge

9 Sometime around April 2001, Zahrah bte Jaafar (“Zahrah”) engaged the respondent for the sale of her late father’s property. The respondent received the sale proceeds of $1,200,002.20 from the buyer’s solicitors between 23 April 2001 and 30 October 2001, via cheques and cashier’s orders made in favour of his firm’s client account. Subsequently, between November and December 2001, the respondent disbursed $1,030,524.90 to Zahrah and eight other beneficiaries, $15,000 to his firm’s account as his legal fees and $12,360 as commission to the housing broker. However, the respondent did not disburse the balance sum of $142,117.30 to the beneficiaries. He dishonestly misappropriated this sum between 23 April 2001 and 29 January 2002.

10 The charge against the respondent read as follows:

You, Junaini Bin Manin, Male 46 years, NRIC No: S1266992-E, are charged that you, between the 23^rd April 2001 and 29^th January 2002, in Singapore, being a practising advocate and solicitor and the sole proprietor of Messrs Junaini & Co, and entrusted in the way of your business as an agent with dominion over property, namely a sum of $142,117.30, entrusted to you by your client Zahrah Bte Jaafar, did dishonestly misappropriate the said sum by converting it to your own use and you have thereby committed an offence of Criminal Breach of Trust As An Agent, punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

Facts relating to the third charge

11 Sometime in early 2003, Haji Syed Sultanul Aidin bin Abdul Mutaif (“Haji Syed”) engaged the respondent for the sale of his property. Between 10 March 2003 and 10 May 2003, the respondent received a total of $220,331.24 from the buyer’s solicitors. The respondent deposited this sum into his firm’s account. He later issued a cheque for $130,000 to Haji Syed, a cheque for $3,267 being his legal fees and another cheque for $260 to the solicitor representing the mortgagee bank.

12 However, the respondent did not disburse the balance sum of $86,804.24 to Haji Syed but instead dishonestly misappropriated this sum. The charge brought against him was framed in the following terms:

You, Junaini Bin Manin, Male 46 years, NRIC No: S1266992-E, are charged that you, between the 28^th day of May 2003 and the 4^th day of June 2003, in Singapore, being a practising advocate and solicitor and the sole proprietor of Messrs Junaini & Co, and entrusted in the way of your business as an agent with dominion over property, namely a sum of $86,804.24, entrusted to you by your client Haji Syed Sultanul Aidin Bin Abdul Mutaif, did dishonestly misappropriate the said sum by converting it to your own use and you have thereby committed an offence of Criminal Breach of Trust As An Agent, punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

Facts relating to the fourth charge

13 Sometime in September 2000, Leong Lai Chan (“Leong”) engaged the respondent for her divorce proceedings against her ex-husband and for the completion of the sale of her matrimonial flat. Eventually, the solicitors acting for the buyer of the flat issued the final payment of $367,043.39 for the property via a cashier’s order and a cheque made in favour of Junaini & Co.

14 The respondent deposited this amount into his firm’s account. He later issued a cheque for $50,000 to Leong and disbursed a sum of $15,000 being his legal fees. However, he did not disburse the balance of $302,043.39 to Leong and her ex-husband but instead dishonestly misappropriated it. For this, the charge against him read as follows:

You, Junaini Bin Manin, Male 46 years, NRIC No: S1266992-E, are charged that you, between the 18^th day of February 2003 and the 30^th day of June 2003, in Singapore, being a practising advocate and solicitor and the sole proprietor of Messrs Junaini & Co and entrusted in the way of your business as an agent with dominion over property, namely a sum of $302,043.39, entrusted to you by your clients namely Leong Lai Chan and Wong Fook Theem, did dishonestly...