Public Prosecutor v Goh Chan Chong (Wu Zhenzhong)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Luke Tan
• Judgment Date: 12 August 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGDC 210
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC No 902788-89 of 2015
• Year: 2016
• Published date: 16 August 2016
• Hearing Date: 02 September 2015,31 August 2015,31 May 2016,26 August 2015,07 March 2016,04 February 2016,25 August 2015,27 August 2015,02 February 2016,24 August 2015,16 February 2016,03 February 2016,01 February 2016,28 August 2015,03 September 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kelvin Kow and Andre Jumabhoy
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Low, Christine Low and Elaine Low (until 7 March 2016), and Raymond Lye (on 31 May 2016)
• Citation: [2016] SGDC 210

District Judge Luke Tan: Introduction

It was July 2007 and the property market was buoyant. One property development in particular, ‘The Rochester’, developed by United Engineers Developments Pte Ltd (“UED”), was apparently attracting a lot of attention from investors. One such investor was Goh Chan Chong (“the Accused”), and his girlfriend (often referred to by the Accused as his ‘wife’), DW2 Madam Chan Yan Ping (“Mdm Chan”). Madam Chan is also known as “Grace” or “Samantha”, while the Accused is also known as “John Goh”.

Both the Accused and Mdm Chan were property agents at the material time. Both also believed that The Rochester was an especially good investment, and that they needed to get in early into the show flat at the launch (“the Launch”), so as to select good units and at a good price. It was in the context of making this investment in `The Rochester’ that offences of corruption were committed by the Accused.

Before me, the Accused faced three charges under section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241 (“PCA”) [DAC 902788/2015 to 902790/2015]. For the actual hearing, the Prosecution proceeded with the first two charges DAC 902788/2015 and 902789/2015, and applied to stand down the charge in DAC 902790/2015.

Both proceeded charges were largely similar. Essentially, they related to separate bribes (“corrupt gratification”) of $50,000 each that were given to one Suhaimi bin Amin (“Suhaimi”), a senior manager of UED, on two occasions between 16 July 2007 to October 2007, in connection with being provided with invitation cards to the launch of The Rochester.

At the close of the Prosecution’s case, I agreed with the alternative submission of the Prosecution that there was enough evidence to call on the defence of the Accused on the amended charges for DAC 902788 and DAC 902789 of 2015. The amended charges, which are substantially similar, are reproduced below.

“You, Goh Chan Chong are charged that you, on a day between 16 July 2007 and October 2007, in Singapore, did corruptly give a gratification of S$50,000/- (Singapore Dollars Fifty Thousand Dollars Only) to one Suhaimi Bin Amin, being an agent, to wit, a Senior Manager in the employ of United Engineers Developments Pte Ltd, as a reward to the said Suhaimi Bin Amin for doing an acts in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, providing invitation cards to you for the launch for the sales of the Rochester condominium apartment units, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.”

After his defence was called, both the Accused and Madam Chan gave evidence.

At the end of the trial, I found that the testimony of the witnesses, together with the facts agreed by both the Prosecution and the Defence, as well as the documentary evidence produced by both sides in the course of the trial, showed beyond reasonable doubt, that the Accused was guilty of the offences, and I convicted him accordingly.

Thereafter, the Accused discharged his original set of counsels and engaged new counsels for the sentencing phase of the trial. After assessing the various matters raised by both parties during sentencing, I imposed a global sentence of 12 weeks’ imprisonment and $100,000 fine (in default 24 weeks imprisonment).

The Accused has appealed against both his conviction and sentence. I now set out my detailed grounds of decision.

Undisputed facts

The Prosecution and Defence put forward a Statement of Agreed Facts (PS2). From PS2, the following facts of the case are undisputed: The Accused attended the Launch on 16 July 2007, together with nine other associates (including his wife, his mother-in-law, his mother, his brothers, his brother’s then girlfriends, his girlfriend, and a friend of his girlfriend).¹ Each signed options to purchase one unit at The Rochester (for a total of ten units).² The Accused asked three of the buyers (the two then-girlfriends of the Accused’s brothers, and the Accused’s girlfriend’s friend) to hold their respective units on trust for him. They each executed a Power of Attorney in the Accused’s name.³ The Accused and his associates went on to complete the purchases of eight of the ten units. Of these eight units, six of them have been sold. All six of these units were sold at higher prices than the prices at which they were purchased.⁴ The purchase prices of the eight units, and the sales prices of six of these eight units, are listed below. The remaining two units have not been sold.

Unit Number	Purchase Price (P) 5	Sub-sale Price (S) 6	Difference between Purchase Price (P) and Sub-sale Price (S)	Sub-sale Option Date
26-03	$2,205,297	$2,606,800	$401,503	2 October 2007
27-01	$1,546,796	$2,026,080	$497,284	17 October 2012
20-10	$1,052,171	$1,168,480	$116,309	19 November 2010
13-09	$1,860,767	$2,288,000	$427,233	6 August 2007
24-11	$1,436,052	$1,628,100	$192,048	21 August 2007
14-09	$1,877,266	$2,211,300	$334,034	13 August 2007
Total	$1,968,411
32-04	$1,611,224	Not Sold	-	This unit has been retained
35-11	$1,675,865	Not Sold	-	This unit has been retained

The Prosecution’s case in brief

I will now set out an outline of the Prosecution’s case, before discussing the evidence in greater detail when dealing with the specific issues of this case.

Suhaimi provided invitation cards to the Accused for the launch of The Rochester

In the booming property market in July 2007,⁷ UED launched The Rochester for sale. UED’s policy was to have invitation cards sent to invite VVIPs to the Launch. These VVIPs were supposed to be people referred by the directors of UED⁸, and their names were supposed to be placed on a list (Exhibit P13) maintained by UED.

Suhaimi, then a senior manager of UED, was in charge of the distribution of the invitation cards to the VVIPs before the Launch. According to Ms Quek, the deputy VP development sales of UED, neither Suhaimi nor she was entitled to include the names of people into the VVIP list. Instead, the names on the list were to be given by the respective directors either to herself or to Suhaimi, for them to key in the names and to update the list⁹.

A copy of the invitation card for the VVIPs was produced in court (Exhibit P19). The card, easily identified by its bright green colour and the words “The Rochester” printed in front, contained inter alia the following words printed inside: “…private preview of The Rochester…” and “Please bring along this invitation card for admission to the show gallery….”.

Suhaimi testified that it was the Accused who first telephoned him to say that he was very keen on the project. Subsequently, only after the Accused had made many calls to Suhaimi where he insisted on being invited, did Suhaimi put the Accused’s name in the VVIP list. Suhaimi also put down the names of other people provided by the Accused, but he was not able to remember all those names. When asked what benefit it was for those people to have their names put on the list, Suhaimi replied “(t)hey will get the invitation card”¹⁰. Subsequently, on the eve of the Launch, Suhaimi gave the invitation cards out to the Accused at the taxi stand near the UE building.

The Accused used the invitation cards and purchased units at The Rochester with his friends and associates

On the day of the Launch, according to Ms Quek, there was a queue of interested buyers outside the show flat. While UED was supposed to have a soft launch for the VVIPs, this was called off, and buyers were allowed to enter either through queuing or through using their invitation cards.

The Accused testified that he gave out the invitation cards (given to him earlier by Suhaimi) to his associates. He admitted that he waved his invitation card when he entered the show flat, even though he claimed to also have been in the queue. During the Launch, UED’s policy was to increase prices by switching to a more expensive price list each time a certain number of units were sold. Prices thus increased in this stepped fashion¹¹ over the course of the Launch, based on the price-lists Exhibits P14 to P18. There was no dispute that the Accused and his nine associates purchased a total of ten units from the first (and cheapest) of five price-lists used at the Launch (i.e. Exhibit P14), indicating that they were among the first buyers into the show flat.

Options were exercised for eight of the ten units. Of these eight, six of the units were sold at significantly large profits, while the remaining two units have been kept by the Accused and his “wife” Madam Chan.

The Accused gave the bribes to Suhaimi and the latter subsequently returned them

According to Suhaimi, a few weeks after the Launch, the Accused called him and asked to meet up at the car park near the roti prata shop (“Casuarina car park”) at Upper Thomson road. At that meeting, the Accused did not say much but just gave an envelope to Suhaimi, to show appreciation to Suhaimi for inviting him for the Launch. He insisted that Suhaimi take the envelope. While the Accused did not say what was inside the envelope, from the thickness of the envelope, Suhaimi knew that it contained a large sum of money Subsequently, Suhaimi returned home with the envelope, but he did not open it or count how much money it contained. Instead, he kept the envelope (with its contents intact) in a drawer at his home¹². This was the subject matter of the first charge.

Suhaimi testified that a couple of weeks later, the Accused called him again on Suhaimi’s mobile phone, and asked to meet up. They met at the same venue, where the Accused passed him a second envelope. Again this was to show appreciation to Suhaimi for inviting him to the...