PP v Koh Seah Wee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 04 November 2011
• Date: 04 November 2011
• Docket Number: Criminal Case No 36 of 2011
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Koh Seah Wee and another

Defendant

[2011] SGHC 240

Tay Yong Kwang J

Criminal Case No 36 of 2011

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Principles—Defrauding public institution for substantial period of time and for astronomically large sum of public funds—First and second accused persons abused their position as public servants trusted with handling of public funds—Whether fraud committed from within organisation deserved deterrent sentence—Section 420 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) and Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Principles—Defrauding public institution for substantial period of time and for astronomically large sum of public funds—First and second accused persons each faced hundreds of charges—Whether sentencing should focus on what the offence under each charge deserved or the overall aggregate sentence

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing—Sentencing—Principles—Defrauding public institution for substantial period of time and for astronomically large sum of public funds—First and second accused persons were first offenders—Whether mitigating weight should be given to first offenders who flouted law for years but were only caught and charged for first time

Both of the accused persons were former colleagues in the Singapore Land Authority (‘SLA’). The first accused was the deputy director of SLA's Technology and Infrastructure (‘TI’) department while the second accused was a subordinate of the first accused, being TI's department's manager. The first accused also previously worked as a consultant in the information technology department of the Supreme Court and in the information technology department of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (‘IPOS’) before he moved to SLA.

The first accused faced a total of 372 charges. He pleaded guilty to 55 charges, viz, 46 charges of cheating offences and nine charges of money laundering offences. The cheating offences were charged under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) (‘the PC 1985’) or s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (‘the PC 2008’) or conspiracy to cheat (s 420 read with s 109 of the PC 1985 or the PC 2008). The money laundering offences were charged under s 47 (6) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65 A, 2000 Rev Ed). He consented for the remaining 317 charges of cheating and money laundering offences to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

The second accused faced a total of 309 charges. He pleaded guilty to 49 charges, viz, 41 charges of cheating offences and eight charges of money laundering offences. 40 of the cheating offences concerned the offence of conspiracy to cheat SLA and one other cheating offence involved a conspiracy to cheat a finance company, Sing Investments & Finance Limited (‘Sing Investments’). The charge regarding the conspiracy to cheat Sing Investments was unique to the second accused. He had forged a document to deceive Sing Investments into believing he had a monthly income of $20,000 in order to get a loan of $350,000 from Sing Investments to purchase a second hand Ferrari. He consented for the remaining 260 charges of cheating and money laundering offences to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.

The investigations of the Commercial Affairs Department (‘CAD’) into SLA's police report which had alleged that both of the accused persons had falsely procured goods and services using fictitious purchase orders had unravelled an elaborate scheme to defraud SLA with seven accomplices. The second accused was the procurement/verifying officer for the requisition of goods and service for SLA's TI department, while the first accused as the deputy director could approve the quotations recommended by the second accused up to contractual value of $60,000. Both accused persons would rig the quotation results to award goods and services contracts for SLA to false vendors who were their accomplices. As a result of their fraudulent scheme, SLA was dishonestly induced to pay the false vendors a sum of more than $12.1 m. The bulk of the loot went to both of the accused persons but the Prosecution was not able to state the exact division of the loot between them. CAD's investigations also uncovered the first accused's earlier cheating offences during his previous jobs at IPOS and the Supreme Court.

Both of the accused persons had used the illegally obtained monies in similar ways, ie, they bought private properties in their or their wives' names, opened bank accounts in the names of family members, bought luxury goods and cars. The CAD seized properties and cash worth some $7.45 m and $1.43 m from the first accused and the second accused respectively. Out of what had been seized, $1.5 m and $38,000 of the first accused and second accused's assets respectively were the subject of adverse claims whose merits had not been determined.

Held, convicting and sentencing the first accused to 22 years' imprisonment and the second accused to 15 years' imprisonment:

(1) The sentencing precedents cited by the Prosecution all concerned accused persons defrauding others of millions of dollars and spending their illegally obtained fortunes on themselves, their families or friends. These served as useful comparisons for the total imprisonment terms for both of the accused persons because the significance of the sentencing processes in such cases was not what each of the offences deserved but what the aggregate sentence comprising the consecutive imprisonment terms would be: at [53].

(2) Although both of the accused persons were first offenders, they did not deserve the kind of sympathy reserved for those who transgressed for the first time on an isolated occasion and often out of line with their general character. A clear distinction had to be drawn between those who broke the law for the first time and those who had been flouting the law with impunity for years and were finally caught and charged for the first time: at [56].

(3) Offences involving public funds committed against public institutions had to be dealt with strictly as they amounted to an assault on the common weal and undermine good administration. Detection of fraud became more elusive when there was collaboration and collusion from within the organisation defrauded. Fraud from within had to be deterred and decisively punished when it was committed: at [57] and [59].

[Observation: Financial crimes like these often had repercussions beyond the immediate facts of the case. New and more stringent checks might have to be introduced to try to prevent a repeat of the cheating. The result is increased costs in time, manpower and possibly infrastructure. There was the added dimension of creating disputes and litigation among those deceived which would result in generating costly litigation among the victim organisations : at [60].]

ADF v PP [2010] 1 SLR 874 (folld)

Chen Weixiong Jerriek v PP [2003] 2 SLR (R) 334; [2003] 2 SLR 334 (refd)

PP v Lam Chen Fong [2002] 2 SLR (R) 599; [2002] 4 SLR 887 (refd)

PP v Chia Teck Leng [2004] SGHC 68 (refd)

PP v Teo Cheng Kiat [2000] SGHC 129 (refd)

Tan Kay Beng v PP [2006] 4 SLR (R) 10; [2006] 4 SLR 10 (refd)

Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65 A,2000 Rev Ed) ss 47, 47 (6) ,47 (6) (a)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68,1985 Rev Ed)

Penal Code (Cap 224,1985 Rev Ed) s 420 (consd) ; ss 109,241, 408, 409,467

Penal Code (Cap 224,2008 Rev Ed) s 420 (consd) ; s 109

Aedit Abdullah and Jean Chan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the Public Prosecutor

Ravinderpal Singh and Rina Kalpanath (Kalpanath & Co) for the first accused

Subhas Anandan and Sunil Sudheesan (RHT Law LLP) for the second accused

Tan Chee Meng SC (Wong Partnership) on watching brief for SLA

Loh Kia Meng (Rodyk & Davidson) on watching brief for IPOS.

Tay Yong Kwang J

The accused persons

1 The accused persons were former colleagues in the Singapore Land Authority (‘SLA’). At the material time, Koh Seah Wee (‘Koh’), now 41 years old, was the deputy director of the SLA's Technology and Infrastructure (‘TI’) department while Lim Chai Meng (‘Lim’), now aged 38, was the said department's manager, a position subordinate to that of Koh's.

2 Between 11 February 1997 and 20 July 2004, Koh was a consultant in the information technology department of the Supreme Court. From 21 July 2004 to 11 March 2007, he worked as a consultant in the information technology department of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (‘IPOS’). He then moved to the SLA's TI department and worked there until 31 March 2010. For the next two months, he worked in the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore.

3 Lim was employed as a manager in the TI department of SLA from 1 July 2006 to 30 April 2010. He resigned from SLA on 30 April 2010 and remained unemployed thereafter, not bothering to look for a job as (according to his defence counsel) he knew it was a matter of time that the law would close in on him.

The charges

4 Koh faced a total of 372 charges. He pleaded guilty to 55 charges of which 46 concerned the offences of cheating (s 420 Penal Code Cap 224) or conspiracy to cheat (s 420 read with s 109 Penal Code). Nine charges related to concealment or conversion of properties representing his benefits from criminal conduct punishable under s 47 (6) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65 A) (‘Confiscation of Benefits Act’). The two categories of offences will be referred to hereafter as the cheating and the money laundering offences. In addition, Koh admitted and consented to the remaining 317 charges involving cheating and money laundering offences to be taken into consideration for the purpose of...