Ng Chee Sing Billy v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: See Kee Oon
• Judgment Date: 30 March 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGDC 62
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Citation: [2002] SGDC 62
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Background

1. The accused is a former police officer and lawyer. He obtained a bursary to pursue his Bachelor of Laws degree at the National University of Singapore. Upon graduation in 1984, he served a six-year bond with the Singapore Police Force (‘SPF’). In 1994, he resigned from the SPF with the rank of DSP to embark on a full-time career as an advocate and solicitor.

2. I shall refer to the key personalities and companies by means of abbreviations in this grounds of decision for brevity and convenience (see list of abbreviations at Annex A). At all material times, the accused was the managing partner of a law firm known as Billy Ng Chua & Partners (‘BNC’), in partnership with one Chua Eng Hui (PW6 - ‘CEH’) and several other partners and assistants. BNC was set up in 1995. This was the accused’s first foray into legal practice. His main role was to bring in clients to the firm. As CEH said, the accused was the ‘rainmaker’. BNC was eventually dissolved in 1997. The accused himself left practice in the same year.

3. The present three charges against the accused arose out of transactions that took place within a year after the formation of BNC. As a consequence of these transactions, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him by the Law Society of Singapore. These proceedings culminated in an order for him to be struck off the rolls. The accused did not attend the show cause proceedings nor was he represented. He only tendered a written mitigation (D9). The judgment of the court of three judges is reported in Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee Sing [2000] 2 SLR 165. Until 2000, the investigations did not lead to any formal charges against him.

4. The accused was eventually charged on 22 November 2000 with the present three cheating charges under s 420 of the Penal Code. These charges arose from his involvement in three property dealings with Chung Khiaw Bank (‘CKB’) and Public Finance Company Ltd (‘PF’) dating from December 1995 and March 1996. The defence did not object to a joint trial to all three charges.

5. The prosecution called a total of 22 witnesses in this trial, of whom 16 underwent cross-examination. Their case was that the accused had deliberately concealed or abetted others to conceal facts in the course of applying for loans from CKB and PF, relating to the purchase of the following properties:

1. 5B Ridley Park #02-05 Tanglin Park at the purchase price of $1.9m (‘the Tanglin Park property’)
2. Two units at 66 and 70 Trevose Crescent, Trevose Park ie. #03-02 and #02-08 respectively, both at the same purchase price of $1.65m (‘the Trevose Park properties’).

Undisputed facts

6. Various other background facts were undisputed. A statement of agreed facts was admitted in evidence as ‘AF’, alongside 22 agreed documents as exhibits, marked as ‘AB1 to AB22’. The accused had requested for his own long statement (D10) and his cautioned statements (D7A to 7C) to be admitted in evidence. He said that his statements would corroborate his oral testimony. The long statement was produced by the prosecution after he had completed giving evidence. The accused accepted that it was given voluntarily. In addition, the accused put forward his mitigation plea (D9) which was tendered at the show cause proceedings before the court of three judges.

7. I shall set out the material undisputed facts at the outset. It will be helpful to do so as my findings eventually turned largely on the appropriate inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts, as well as the admissions made by the accused in earlier proceedings and within his own long statement.

i. Undisputed facts relating to the first charge

8. The sale and purchase agreement in connection with the Tanglin Park property was entered into between the accused as the purchaser and Tarakes Investments Pte Ltd (‘Tarakes’) as the seller (see AB1). A loan amount of $1.5m was obtained by the accused from CKB to be applied towards the agreed purchase price of $1.9 m. CKB appointed BNC to act as solicitors for the mortgage transaction. Ms Chan Lai Foong (PW14 – ‘CLF’) was the conveyancing partner from BNC having conduct of the matter. This transaction forms the subject-matter of the first charge (DAC 51742/2000).

9. Pursuant to a trust arrangement between the accused and one of the directors of Tarakes, one Tarun Jain, the accused was to hold the Tanglin Park property on trust for Tarun Jain. A trust deed and indemnity (AB2) dated 18 December 1995 was duly signed and executed. Tarun Jain was a British citizen, and a Singapore permanent resident at the material time. He was a businessman, who later became a friend and client of the accused. The accused was keen to cultivate Tarun Jain’s custom and assist him to manage Tarakes’ portfolio of property investments in Singapore. Tarakes held various residential properties from which rental income was derived.

10. Tarakes is 50% foreign-owned. It is basically a family business, managed by Tarun Jain in Singapore. The rest of his family apparently reside in England. Tarun Jain himself used to reside in an apartment unit at Tanglin Park. By powers of attorney granted by his father Tej Paul Jain and one of his cousins, Rakesh Jain (see AB6 and AB17 respectively), Tarun Jain was ostensibly authorised to deal with all relevant matters pertaining to investments held by Tarakes in Singapore. The properties within Tarakes’ portfolio are held under the names of the respective members of Tarun Jain’s immediate family and his relatives.

11. The accused came to know that Tarun Jain was ‘over-exposed’ in terms of his financial commitments. Thus when Tarun Jain mentioned that he needed assistance to bolster his cashflow, the accused agreed to purchase the Tanglin Park property and to hold it on trust for Tarun Jain, on the understanding that Tarun Jain would have the first option to repurchase the property from the accused. The loan disbursements ended up with Tarun Jain. However, the accused did not pay Tarun Jain the difference between the approved loan quantum of $1.5 m and the purchase price of $1.9 m.

12. The prosecution's case relating to the first charge revolved substantially around the evidence of three officers from CKB, who testified in respect of CKB’s banking practice and procedures. CKB has since been incorporated into the corporate structure of United Overseas Bank (‘UOB’). It was common ground that in processing a housing loan application, CKB would generally consider three main credit criteria, namely, the applicant’s repayment ability, the security on the loan and the purpose of the loan. All three officers from CKB testified to the same effect.

13. It was also common ground that the accused had never disclosed the fact that there was a trust deed and trust arrangement between him and Tarun Jain in respect of the Tanglin Park property purchase. None of the CKB officers knew of the existence of a trust deed in any event. They had all assumed that in applying for a housing loan for the purchase of the Tanglin Park property, the accused was a bona fide applicant who had intended to purchase the property for investment purposes. This was stated in his application form (exhibited as WYS-1 to the conditioned statement of Wong Yen Siang in PS1). The CKB officers also conceded that there was no written requirement, whether in the form of an internal guideline or a condition of offer, stipulating a duty of disclosure on the part of a housing loan applicant in respect of the existence of a trust deed.

ii. Undisputed facts relating to the second and third charges

14. The sale and purchase agreements relating to the Trevose Park properties were entered into between one Claarance Foo Beng Wai (PW9 - 'CFBW') and one Chan Kok Fai (PW13 - 'CKF') as purchasers and Tej Paul Jain and Rakesh Jain as joint sellers (see AB5 and AB16), through the powers of attorney granted to Tarun Jain. CFBW was a good friend of the accused. He was running an antique business, and also a part-time geomancer and temple medium. CKF was the brother-in-law of the accused. He is a sales manager.

15. Upon the request of the accused, CFBW and CKF agreed to do him a favour by being his nominees for the purchase of the properties. The accused told them that he could not buy the properties himself as he was ‘over-exposed’ in terms of his financial commitments. CFBW signed on a trust deed and indemnity dated 14 March 1996 (see AB8), which also carried Tarun Jain's signature, with the accused as witness. A similar trust deed and indemnity was prepared in respect of CKF (see AB19), but it was not signed. They were supposed to hold the properties on trust for Tarun Jain, although they themselves were apparently not conscious of this fact.

16. The accused also arranged for two of his friends, Mike Soon Chin Chee (PW11 - 'MSCC') and Tommy Lim Yeow Sun (PW12 - 'TLYS') to be the guarantors in the respective housing loan applications for the Trevose Park property purchases. However, neither the nominees nor the guarantors knew that the transactions were meant to raise funds for Tarun Jain. Separate loan amounts of $1.3m and $1.25m were obtained from PF. The sale prices were $1.65m for each property. BNC acted for all the parties to these transactions, inclusive of PF. CLF was also the solicitor having conduct of these matters. These transactions form the subject-matter of the second and third charges (DAC 51743 and 51744/2000).

17. CFBW and CKF had no apparent intention to become private property owners. In any event, they did not have such means. The accused gave them his assurance that he would take care of everything. They had no other role to play apart from being his nominee purchasers. They did not pay any money towards the purchase price of the properties. They did not know what happened to the loan disbursements as they had left everything to the accused to handle. The accused did not tell them...