Public Prosecutor v Chua Hock Soon James, Harriet International Network Pte Ltd & Harriet Education Group Pte Ltd
Judge | Wong Choon Ning |
Judgment Date | 23 March 2016 |
Neutral Citation | [2016] SGDC 71 |
Citation | [2016] SGDC 71 |
Docket Number | DAC No 4413 of 2012, DCN No 2 to 3 of 2012 |
Published date | 01 April 2016 |
Hearing Date | 22 January 2015,29 October 2013,28 November 2013,26 November 2013,27 November 2013,31 December 2014,24 January 2015,16 October 2014,28 October 2013,17 January 2015,03 September 2014,01 November 2013,28 November 2014,23 January 2015,21 January 2015,30 October 2013,16 January 2015,04 July 2014,18 February 2014,25 November 2013,10 March 2014,03 October 2014 |
Plaintiff Counsel | DPP Ms Kok Shu En, Mr Gordon Oh and Mr Hon Yi |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Philip Fong Yeng Fatt, Mr Ong Poh Qin and Mr Lionel Chan (Messrs Harry Elias Partnership LLP) |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
The first, second and third accused persons were convicted after a joint trial of offences under the Multi-Level and Pyramid Selling (Prohibition) Act (Cap 190, 2000 Rev Ed) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The third accused, Harriet Education Group Pte Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “HEG”) was convicted of having, between December 2007 and September 2008 or around the said period, in Singapore, promoted a pyramid selling scheme or arrangement, namely the Global Eduprenenur Program scheme (hereinafter referred to as “the GEP scheme”), which scheme was not an excluded scheme or arrangement described in Paragraph 2 of the Multi-Level and Pyramid Selling (Excluded Schemes and Arrangements) (Amendments) Order 2001, which was an offence under Section 3(1), and punishable under Section 3(2) of the Act.
The second accused, Harriet International Network Pte Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “HIN”), was convicted of having, during the same said period, in Singapore, promoted the said GEP scheme, by allowing its UOB bank account to be used to receive monies paid by participants of the said scheme and to pay out monies being commissions to participants of the said scheme, which was similarly an offence under Section 3(1), and punishable under Section 3(2) of the Act. The first accused, Mr Chua Hock Soon James, was convicted of having, during the said period, been the managing director of HEG when the said company promoted the said GEP scheme, which was an offence under Section 3(2), read with Section 6(1), of the Act.
After hearing the prosecution’s address on sentence and the learned counsel’s mitigation plea, for the charge against the first accused, I imposed a fine of $50,000 or in default 3 months’ imprisonment. For the second accused (HIN), I imposed a fine of $20,000 or in default an order of attachment. For the third accused (HEG), I imposed a fine of $50,000 or in default an order of attachment.
The defence is dissatisfied with the orders of conviction for all three accused persons and now appeals against them. The prosecution is dissatisfied with the order of sentence against the first accused and now appeals against it. The first accused has since paid his fine in full.
UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE Pursuant to Section 267(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), the prosecution and the defence agreed to a set of facts enclosed in the Statement of Agreed Facts (
The first accused was also a director of the following four companies :-
The prosecution’s case was that, from early 2007, HEG, HIN and the first accused had begun promoting a scheme known as the GEP. Participants were recruited under the GEP as “consultants” and they were required to enter into a licensing agreement with HEG and pay,
The prosecution called a total of nine witnesses, who included the general manager of HEG and the Investigating Officer. The remaining seven witnesses were participants in the GEP who had come from three separate teams or groups. For instance, PW 1, PW 2 and PW 9 were the Country Manager, Global Manager and Senior Consultant respectively within one group, while PW 3, PW 4 and PW 6 were the Country Manager, Global Manager and Senior Consultant respectively within another group. PW 5 was the Global Manager within a third group, but the Country Manager for this third group was not called during the trial and there was also no Senior Consultant or Consultant for this third group as PW 5 did not manage to recruit anyone under the GEP.
Evidence of Kelvin Lim (PW 1), Lam Chian Poh (PW 2) and Ronald Quan (PW 9) (Country Manager, Global Manager and Senior Consultant for Team 1) Mr Kelvin Lim Hsien Ann (
To sign up for the GEP, Kelvin Lim had to first attend an interview and pay a non-refundable registration fee of $80. After interviewing Kelvin Lim, the first accused told him that he was accepted into the programme. Kelvin Lim then signed two documents, namely the Licensing Agreement (
Pursuant to the Licensing Agreement, Kelvin Lim was appointed as an International Student Consultant with HEG for three years (from 6 Sept 2007 to 5 Sept 2010), and he was given the right or licence to represent HEG to recruit students to take up programmes offered in the HEG group of companies, namely, HBS, HTT and CLC. Kelvin Lim would be entitled to receive commissions payable from HEG, based on the following rates calculated on a quarterly basis,6 provided that HEG had received in full the payment of the programme fees from the student recruited :-
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Pursuant to clause 3.9 of the Licensing Agreement, Kelvin Lim was also given a 100% licence fee money back guarantee. Upon completing the 10-month GEP, he had an option to terminate the licensing agreement and receive a full refund of the licence fee of $10,00010, provided that the following conditions were satisfied :-
In return for the right to recruit students to take up programmes offered by HEG and earn commission from HEG for a three-year period and the money back guarantee, Kelvin Lim was obligated to pay HEG a total fee of $22,080,14 which consisted of the following three components :-
| |
| |
| |
| |
Kelvin Lim testified that HEG had organised training sessions which were conducted by the first accused and two speakers from overseas, namely, Mr Ed Sobey and Mr Timothy Stearn.15 Kelvin Lim would not consider these sessions to be proper lectures.16 At these sessions, the speakers merely informed the participants of the kind of...
To continue reading
Request your trial