Law Society of Singapore v Yap Shao Sin Philip

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 09 November 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 252
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 12 November 2004
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Leslie Phua Oei Heong (Phua Wai Partnership)
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent absent
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Show cause action,Advocate and solicitor convicted of criminal breach of trust,Weight to be given to mitigating factors,Appropriate order to be made,Section 83(1) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed), s 409 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 252

9 November 2004

Yong Pung How CJ (delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This was an application by the Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) under s 98(5) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) to make absolute an order to show cause. We granted the application and ordered the respondent, Philip Yap Shao Sin, to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. We now set out our reasons.

Facts

2 The facts of this case were undisputed. The respondent was an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. At all material times, he was practising as a sole proprietor in the firm of M/s Philip Yap & Partners.

3 Sometime in 1993, Lim Jew Kann (“the complainant”) and his father Lim Hong Min (“the victim”) decided to purchase a private apartment, which was proposed to be erected at No 5 Jalan Masjid #04-03, Kembangan Court, Singapore. They applied to the Overseas Union Bank for a loan. They were recommended to appoint the respondent as their solicitor to transact all subsequent matters relating to the purchase of the apartment.

4 Towards the end of 1993, the victim executed a purchase agreement with the apartment developer, LKN Development Pte Ltd. Following this, the complainant and the victim met the respondent at his law firm, whereupon the respondent asked for the sum of $31,200.52. He explained that $7,255.02 of this were his legal fees, $22,145.50 were the stamp fees and $1,800 were the survey fees required to purchase the apartment.

5 The victim agreed to the amount and thereupon issued a cheque for the $31,200.52, made payable to the respondent’s law firm.

6 The respondent banked the victim’s cheque at the Bank of China to open a current account in his own name. After that, he made use of the victim’s money to make payments, all of which were either for the payment of the respondent’s personal credit card bills or for his personal cash withdrawals.

7 In August 1996, the victim received, via courier service, documents relating to his purchase of the apartment and a note, addressed to him by the respondent, stating that the respondent had ceased acting for the victim in relation to the purchase of the apartment. Subsequently, in December 1996, the victim received a letter from the developer stating that they had yet to receive the stamp fees from the respondent amounting to $19,232. This was to have been the final payment to complete the purchase of the apartment.

8 The complainant lodged a police report alleging that the victim had paid a sum of $31,200.52 to the respondent for the purchase of a private apartment but that the respondent had failed to fulfil his responsibility as the lawyer and had not repaid any money to the complainant.

9 The respondent was charged with committing criminal breach of trust under s 409 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). The charge read:

You, Philip Yap Shao Sin, Male 42 years, NRIC No S 1424518/I, are charged that you, between 16^th November 1993 and 14^th February 1994, in Singapore, being entrusted with a certain property, to wit cash amounting to S$19,232, in the way of your business as an attorney, did commit criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, by dishonestly converting the said amount of cash to your own use, and you have thereby committed an offence...