Law Society of Singapore v Caines Colin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 08 November 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 250
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 09 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 on four charges of criminal breach of trust,Whether show cause order should be made absolute,Appropriate order to be made,Section 83 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed)
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 250

8 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”) to make absolute an order to show cause under s 98(5) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”). The respondent, Colin Caines, did not attend the hearing. After hearing counsel for the Law Society, we granted the application and ordered the respondent to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. We now give 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 M/s Khosa & Caines (“the firm”).

3 On 6 June 2002, the Commercial Affairs Department received a complaint against the respondent from one of his clients, Diana Chan Sun Sun (“Diana Chan”), alleging that he had misappropriated moneys entrusted to him as a stakeholder. Subsequent investigations revealed that the respondent had made a number of unauthorised withdrawals from the firm’s clients’ account. The account was finally closed on 31 December 2001 with a nil balance, and no restitution was made to any of the respondent’s clients.

4 On 2 September 2002, the respondent pleaded guilty and was convicted on four charges of criminal breach of trust under s 409 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed). The facts relating to each of the four charges are briefly set out below.

The first charge (DAC 30465/02)

5 The respondent acted for Diana Chan and Richard Kong Guan Huat in the sale of their matrimonial property. He was appointed as stakeholder of the sale proceeds pending a decision from the court as to the division of the moneys. On or about 4 July 2001, the respondent received a $2,000 deposit from the purchaser. A further $180,410.51 was received on 29 September 2001, and the total sum of $182,410.51 was deposited into the firm’s clients’ account. However, instead of retaining the money on behalf of his clients, the respondent dishonestly misappropriated it to his own use.

The third charge (DAC 34120/02)

6 The respondent was engaged by Lim Wong Choong (“Lim”) to represent him in a third party claim for damages from NTUC Income Insurance Cooperative Limited (“NTUC”) after Lim’s vehicle was involved in an accident. On or about 29 August 2001, NTUC paid the respondent $8,200 as settlement for Lim’s claim. The money was deposited into the firm’s clients’ account, but was later withdrawn by the respondent to pay for his personal debts and expenses.

The fifth charge (DAC 34122/02)

7 The respondent also represented Yeo Soh Choo (“Yeo”) in her third party claim for damages arising from a traffic accident. The insurance company, India International Insurance Pte Ltd, paid the respondent $4,500 as partial settlement of Yeo’s claim on or about 11 April 2001. On 16 June 2001, a further $440 was received. The total sum of $4,940 was also misappropriated by the respondent.

The eleventh charge (DAC 34128/02)

8 The respondent acted for Fortunecom, which was sued by Nokia Corporation and Nokia Mobile Phones Ltd (collectively referred to as “Nokia”) over their unauthorised use of the “Nokia” trademark. Fortunecom agreed to pay $4,000 to Nokia to settle the legal proceedings, and the respondent persuaded Fortunecom’s representative to make the payment in cash. On or about 19 July 2001, Fortunecom entrusted the respondent with $4,000 cash. Instead of paying the money over to Nokia, the respondent kept the money for himself.

9 All in all, the respondent dishonestly misappropriated at least $199,550.51 of his clients’ moneys. Seven other charges were also taken into consideration for sentencing purposes. In mitigation before the district judge, the respondent highlighted his contributions to the Law Society, his remorse by pleading guilty at the first available opportunity and his medical history. Balancing these factors with the seriousness of the offences, the substantial amounts of money involved and the respondent’s failure to make restitution, the district judge sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment on the first charge and 12 months’ imprisonment on each of the remaining charges. The sentences for the first and third charges were ordered to run consecutively, bringing his total sentence to four years’ imprisonment.

The show...