Public Prosecutor v Ewe Pang Kooi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 15 March 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 72
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hon Yi and Nicholas Khoo Tian Lun (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Date: 27 November 2018
• Year: 2019
• Hearing Date: 27 November 2018,05 July 2018,04 July 2018,03 July 2018,06 July 2018,17 July 2018
• Subject Matter: Property,Criminal Breach of Trust,Criminal law,Offences
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 53 of 2018
• Defendant Counsel: Michael Khoo SC, Low Miew Yin Josephine and Cleophas James Pfang (Michael Khoo & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2019] SGHC 72
• Published date: 28 March 2020

Chan Seng Onn J: Introduction

The accused, Ewe Pang Kooi (“Ewe”), claimed trial to a total of 50 charges under s 409 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 22 charges under the 1985 Rev Ed; 28 charges under the 2008 Rev Ed) for criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) by an agent. Given that there was no amendment made to s 409 in the 2008 amendments to the Penal Code, I shall hereinafter refer to both the 1985 Rev Ed and 2008 Rev Ed of the Penal Code as “the Code”.

The charges faced by Ewe can be divided into three broad categories: Charges relating to Ewe’s role as liquidator for 21 companies (“the liquidator charges”); One charge relating to Ewe’s role as receiver for the assets of one Prem Ramchand Harjani (“Harjani”) (“the receiver charge”); and Charges relating to Ewe’s role as manager for the bank accounts of Technology Partners International (“TPI”) Singapore Branch (“the TPI charges”).

An example of one of the liquidator charges is set out as follows:¹

That you, EWE PANG KOOI,

On or about between … in Singapore, did commit criminal breach of trust in the way of your business as an agent, in that you, being at the material time the appointed liquidator of … and in such capacity was entrusted with dominion over property, namely, the firm’s funds in … did dishonestly misappropriate a total sum of … by transferring the said funds into various bank accounts and withdrawing the funds for your own purposes, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224 …).

The receiver charge is set out as follows:

On or about between 13 November 2010 and 15 April 2011, in Singapore, did commit criminal breach of trust in the way of your business as an agent, in that you, being at the material time the appointed receiver of Prem Ramchand Harjani and in such capacity was entrusted with dominion over property, namely, Prem Ramchand Harjani’s funds in the Malayan Banking Berhad account … did dishonestly misappropriate a total sum of $680,990.82, by transferring the said funds into various bank accounts and withdrawing the funds for your own purposes, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, Revised Edition 2008).

An example of one of the TPI charges is set out as follows:

On or about between … , in Singapore, did commit criminal breach of trust in the way of your business as an agent, in that you, being at the material time the certified public accountant and an agent of Technology Partners International, Inc. Singapore Branch (“TPI”) and in such capacity was entrusted with dominion over property, namely, TPI’s funds in the … did dishonestly misappropriate a total sum of … , by transferring the said funds into various bank accounts and withdrawing the funds for your own purposes, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 409 of the Penal Code (Chapter 223, …).

At the end of the trial, I reserved judgment. Having considered the evidence before me and the submissions made by both parties, I find that the Prosecution has made out all 50 charges against Ewe beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I convict Ewe of all 50 charges. I now state my reasons.

Undisputed facts

The Defence and the Prosecution have agreed to a comprehensive statement of agreed facts (“SOAF”), the material parts of which are set out below.

Facts relating to Ewe

Ewe is a 65 year-old male Malaysian citizen with Singapore permanent resident status. At all material times, he held professional qualifications as both a Certified Public Accountant (“CPA”) as well as an Approved Liquidator registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority. He was also the managing partner of Ewe Loke & Partners (“ELP”), a Certified Public Accounting firm, and a director of E & M Management Consultants Pte Ltd (“EM”), a firm in the business of providing tax and financial consulting and corporate restructuring services.

ELP was registered on 2 September 1998. From 2002 to July 2012, the partners of ELP were Ewe, one Loke Poh Keun (“Loke”), and one Mitsuru Morii (“Morii”). Another accountant, one Farooq Mann (“Farooq”), acted jointly with Ewe as liquidator for some of the companies. EM was registered on 20 July 1990 by Morii and Ewe. Subsequently, in early 1992, Loke was appointed as an additional director.²

Facts relating to the role of a liquidator and receiver as set out by the parties

I reproduce the key portions of the parties’ SOAF on the role of a liquidator and receiver below.

A liquidator is an officer appointed when a company goes into winding up or liquidation. When a company is being wound up, the company’s business ceases to operate and its assets and affairs are handed over to a liquidator, whose powers, duties and functions are set out in s 272 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the CA”). The liquidator’s roles include the following: ³ Investigate into the affairs and assets of the company, the conduct of its officers and the claims of creditors and third parties; Recover and realise the company’s assets in the most advantageous manner to the company; Adjudicate the claims of creditors and ensure an equitable distribution of the company’s assets in accordance with the provisions of the CA.

When a company goes into receivership, all assets of the company will be transferred into the control of a receiver. A receiver may be appointed by the court or a creditor, and he is entrusted with custody of the property of the company, including its tangible and intangible assets and rights. His responsibility is to liquidate all available assets and rights of the company, and ensure as much debt as possible is repaid to the creditors.⁴

When the accused was appointed as a liquidator or receiver by the companies, he was authorised to have control over the bank accounts and assets of the companies, in order for him to make payments to creditors and to recover the companies’ assets.⁵

Facts relating to the liquidator charges

Ewe was appointed as a liquidator for the following companies (“the 21 companies”). The sequence of the 21 companies as listed in the table below follow the exact sequence as they appear in the SOAF:⁶

Name of company	Date of appointment	Remarks
Quality Stainless Pte Ltd	31 October 2003	Joint liquidator with Loke
Grandlink Group Pte Ltd	26 March 2001	Joint liquidator with Loke
Tuan Huat Construction Pte Ltd	21 September 2001	Joint liquidator with Loke
Nian Chuan Construction Pte Ltd	13 September 2002	Joint liquidator with Loke
Peoy Contractor Pte Ltd	30 June 2003	Joint liquidator with Loke
San International Pte Ltd	11 April 1997	Joint liquidator with Loke
Multimend (S) Pte Ltd	28 April 2000	Joint liquidator with Loke
JSP Films Pte Ltd	1 February 1999	Joint liquidator with Loke
Inter-park Limited	12 November 1999	Joint liquidator with Loke
Camphill Limited	12 November 1999	Joint liquidator with Loke
Ernismore Holdings Pte Ltd	24 March 2000	Joint liquidator with Loke
3PAR Singapore Pte Ltd	28 September 2011
3COM South Asia Pte Ltd	25 November 2011
Mercury Interactive (Singapore) Pte Ltd	10 June 2009
Compaq Asia Pte Ltd	30 September 2009
Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd	26 October 2009
Compaq Computer Asia/Pacific Pte Ltd	26 October 2009
A.S.K. Solutions Pte Ltd	16 October 2009
Premier Learning Consultants Pte Ltd	26 June 2009
Jack Chia Holdings (S) Pte Ltd	24 March 2000	Joint liquidator with Loke
Nomura Asia Property Investment Pte Ltd	15 March 2010	Joint liquidator with Farooq

At the commencement of liquidation, Ewe transferred the assets of the 21 companies into various bank accounts for which he was an authorised signatory.

In summary, between February 2002 and July 2012, Ewe used the moneys from the bank accounts of the 21 companies to gamble, repay his gambling debts, or to reinstate the amounts that he had taken from other companies. The specific facts pertaining to each of the charges involving Ewe acting in his capacity as liquidator are set out in the Annex (see [A.1] to [A.133]).⁷ The order in which the facts pertaining to each of the charges are set out in the Annex follow the exact sequence as they appear in the SOAF.

Facts relating to the receiver charge 50th Charge: TRC 900029/2015

Ewe was appointed as the receiver to take control of the assets owned by Harjani. Ewe deposited the following cheques amounting to S$680,990.82 into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account which represented the assets of Harjani that he received on behalf of Merril Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (“Merril Lynch”).

Date of cheque	Amount (S$)
11 November 2010	378,981.90
13 April 2011	248,194.10
13 April 2011	53,814.82

Between 13 November 2010 and 15 April 2011, Ewe issued the following cheques from ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account. These cheques amounted to a total of S$680,000, which were made payable to the stated payees:

Date of cheque	Amount (S$)	Payee
13 November 2010	150,000.00	Cash
15 November 2010	150,000.00	Cash
24 November 2010	80,000.00	Cash
14 April 2011	150,000.00	Cash
14 April 2011	20,000.00	EM
15 April 2011	130,000.00	Cash

The moneys which were deposited into ELP’s Maybank Clients’ account were subsequently withdrawn by Ewe. Based on the withdrawals from the said clients’ account: The sum of S$378,981.90 deposited on 11 November 2010 had been wholly withdrawn by the accused through the above cheques drawn from the clients’ account; From the sums of...