Lim Choon Kang v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 12 October 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 244
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 244
• Defendant Counsel: Hamidul Haq and Tan Boon Kok (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher Chuah Chee Kian and Thio Shen Yi (Drew & Napier)
• Date: 12 October 1993
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 344/93/01
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Custodial sentence,Offence of cheating involving submission of multiple share applications,Principles,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Whether imposition of a fine is adequate punishment,Appeal against custodial sentence

The appellant pleaded guilty to and was convicted on a charge under s 415 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) of having cheated a company by deceiving it into believing that a certain Poh Lai Hiang had applied for 1,001,000 shares in the company. In fact, the appellant himself was to be the beneficial owner of the shares applied for. By virtue of the appellant`s deception, the company was fraudulently induced to make an allotment to him of 17,000 shares. This was therefore a case of a multiple share application as this type of case is commonly known. Seven similar charges were taken into consideration.

The appellant was sentenced to three weeks` imprisonment and a fine of $10,000 and now appeals against his sentence of imprisonment on the ground that it is on the whole manifestly excessive and wrong in principle.

For the appellant, it is contended that since 1989 a tariff of sentences has been established for these offences, in that the sentence has always been a fine, and in no case has a sentence of imprisonment been imposed. This appears to be true.

So far as this so-called tariff is concerned, however, the deputy public prosecutor has pointed out that there is an important distinguishing feature in this case which sets it apart from all previous cases. The distinguishing feature is that the prospectus of the company, which was given to the appellant together with the share application form, contained a clause which categorically stated that the making of joint or multiple share applications may be an offence under the Penal Code (Cap 224) and the Securities Industry Act (Cap 289). This cl 2 read as follows:

Joint or multiple applications shall be rejected. Persons submitting multiple applications may be committing an offence under the Penal Code (Cap 224) and the Securities Industry Act (Cap 289) and such applications shall be referred to the relevant authorities for investigation.

Before deciding on the sentence, the district judge took into consideration various mitigating factors which had been urged upon him, namely, that the appellant co-operated immediately and fully with the Commercial Affairs Department in its investigations, that he then pleaded guilty and thereby saved the court both time and inconvenience, and that after investigations began he donated to charities the whole of the $22,577 which he had benefitted from the application. Finally, both in the court below and in this court today, there has been an eloquent and...