Public Prosecutor v Goh Boon Leong and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan Jen Tse
• Judgment Date: 15 October 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 225
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 10 December 2020,17 August 2020,15 December 2020,18 August 2020,07 January 2021,14 April 2021,09 March 2021,19 August 2020,17 December 2020,09 February 2021,14 August 2020,28 April 2021,14 December 2020,18 December 2020,16 December 2020
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. DAC-935145 & 935146-2018, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9069-2021-01, District Arrest Case No. DAC-934566 & 934568-2018, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9100-2021-01
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPPs Marcus Foo & Benedict Chan
• Defendant Counsel: Both accused appeared in person (trial),Jeremy Cheong & Markus Kng (I.R.B. Law LLP)
• Subject Matter: Criminal law,Offences,Criminal breach of trust
• Published date: 22 October 2021

District Judge Tan Jen Tse: Introduction

The accused persons Goh Boon Leong (“Goh”) (B1) and Chiew Hiong Hiong (who was referred to as “Celine”) (B2) were charged with two counts of engaging in a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) against Yap Kian Nam (“Yap”) (PW1), which were offences punishable under s 406 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008). It was alleged that:- Sometime between August and September 2016, they conspired to commit CBT of $30,000 which was entrusted to them by Yap for the purposes of a business venture at Marina Square; and Sometime in September 2016, they conspired to commit CBT of $30,000 which was entrusted to them by Yap for the purposes of a business venture at Rochester Park.

At the end of trial, I acquitted Goh on both his charges as the prosecution could not prove that he conspired with Celine. The prosecution has filed an appeal against the orders of acquittal.

Celine was convicted on two amended CBT charges, which had references to the conspiracy with Goh omitted. She was sentenced to consecutive sentences of five months’ imprisonment per charge, giving an aggregate of ten months’ imprisonment. She has filed an appeal against conviction and sentence and has been released on bail pending appeal.

Charges

The two charges which Goh was acquitted of were as follows:- 1st Charge (amended) (DAC 935145-2018) are charged that you, sometime between August 2016 and September 2016, in Singapore, did abet by engaging in a conspiracy with Chiew Hiong Hiong to do a certain thing, namely to commit criminal breach of trust, and in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place, to wit, the sum of $30,000, which was entrusted to the both of you by Yap Kian Nam for the purposes of a business venture at Marina Square, was dishonestly misappropriated, which act was committed in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 read with section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). 2nd Charge (amended) (DAC 935146-2018) are charged that you, sometime in September 2016, in Singapore, did abet by engaging in a conspiracy with Chiew Hiong Hiong to do a certain thing, namely to commit criminal breach of trust, and in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place, to wit, the sum of $30,000, which was entrusted to the both of you by Yap Kian Nam for the purpose of a business venture at Rochester Park, was dishonestly misappropriated, which act was committed in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 406 read with section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

Celine was convicted on the following charges (as amended by the court):- 2nd Charge (amended) (DAC-934566-2018) are charged that you, sometime between August 2016 and September 2016, in Singapore, being entrusted with property, namely, the sum of $30,000 entrusted to you by Yap Kian Nam for the purposes of a business venture at Marina Square, did commit criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the said property, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008). 4th Charge (amended) (DAC-934568-2018) are charged that you, sometime between September 2016 and October 2016, in Singapore, being entrusted with property, namely, the sum of $30,000 entrusted to you by Yap Kian Nam for the purposes of a business venture at Rochester Park, did commit criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating the said property, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008).

Apart from these charges, Celine faced ten other charges punishable under s 406 and s 420 of the Penal Code, which were stood down.

Background facts

Goh and Celine were husband and wife. They were married on 3 January 2016. Goh had owned several pubs and nightclubs, but his business failed. He then started driving a taxi and later became unemployed.

Yap and Goh were secondary school friends and had known each other for over 30 years. They lost contact over time, but were re-acquainted in 2016 when Goh approached Yap for a loan. Yap regarded Goh as a brother and lent him $3,000. According to Goh, around the years 2000 to 2002, he lent Yap money and gave him work when he was still operating his business. Yap was grateful for this. Goh introduced Celine to Yap. Yap said that he treated Celine as a sister-in-law as she was Goh’s wife.¹

Celine was a Malaysian from Kuching, Sarawak. She worked in Singapore since 1997 as a shipping clerk and as a freelance employment agent. She claimed that from 2015, she operated a food court in Johore Bahru. She also claimed that she invested in businesses and received a share of the profits,² but no details were provided of these.

Yap informed the couple that he had funds to invest and suggested that they go into business together. He wanted to help Goh get back onto his feet. Celine approached Gan Siew Wai Bernard (“Bernard”) (PW6), a property agent who specialized in retail food and beverage commercial leasing.³ Bernard arranged to view various premises, including Marina Square and Rochester Park.⁴

Marina Square The Marina Square unit

Sometime on or around 12 July 2016, Celine, Yap, Goh and Bernard viewed a unit at Marina Square. Li Qui Ing Recca (“Recca”) (PW3), who was then an Assistant Leasing Manager at Marina Centre Holdings, showed them unit #03-01/02 (“the Marina Square unit”). This was a standalone rooftop unit which had an area of around 4,000 square feet.⁵

Marina Square rejected the proposal by 5 September 2016

The parties were interested in renting the Marina Square unit. On 30 July 2016, Bernard sent an email to Recca (copied to Celine), wherein he stated that he was presenting a proposal on Celine’s behalf. The proposed business concept was for a “bistro bar” with a live band. He clarified in a further email dated 4 August 2016 that Goh would sign the lease.⁶

Marina Square was not prepared to extend an offer for the unit. They were not impressed with the business concept, which involved patrons buying sashes or flower garlands to hang on the singers. They were also concerned with Goh’s credit and business history. On 15 August 2016, Recca informed Bernard byWhatsApp that Celine’s proposal had been rejected.⁷ Thereafter, they communicated on whether the situation could be salvaged.

On 30 August 2016, Recca sent an email to Bernard (copied to Celine) stating that Marina Square was not able to accept Celine’s proposal. Bernard arranged for Celine and Goh to meet the head of the leasing department on 1 September 2016, but no progress was made.⁸

On 5 September 2016, Recca sent Celine a WhatsApp message informing her, “Regret to inform you that Management is not agreeable to your proposed concept. Please proceed with your alternative choice of location.”⁹ This was the final rejection by Marina Square.

Yap transferred a total of $30,000 to Celine’s OCBC bank account for Marina Square on 11 and 19 August 2016

It was not in dispute that for the Marina Square venture, Yap transferred a total of $30,000 to Celine’s OCBC bank account (“Celine’s bank account”) upon her request. The funds were sent in two tranches, being $10,000 on 11 August 2016 and $20,000 on 19 August 2016.

On 30 July 2016 (the same day that Bernard first emailed the lease proposal to Marina Square), Celine sent a WhatsApp message to Yap at 2.36 a.m. stating, “Oh ya, tml need to pay marina square deposit”. When Yap asked if she had enough money and how much was to be paid, Celine replied, “26K (per month rental fee) I have 28k… If u want to share for half u can bank in my account, it is better by bank in cause it’s for business use… my bank account number OCBC xxxx2001, I need to keep records in our company account too”.¹⁰

On 11 August 2016, Yap made a cash deposit of $10,000 via ATM into Celine’s bank account. Yap explained that Celine had told him that the landlord needed a security deposit of $26,000. Each of them would pay $13,000, being half the security deposit . As she had borrowed $3,000 from him, this would be offset against his share of the security deposit.¹¹ It was not in dispute that Marina Square did not receive any money.

Yap transferred another $20,000 to Celine’s bank account on 19 August 2016, after Celine informed him that a deposit was needed for the sound system for the Marina Square unit.¹² It was not in dispute that no deposit for the sound system was ever placed.

Rochester Park The Rochester Park unit

Bernard also facilitated a viewing at Rochester Park. On or around 14 July 2016, the parties viewed a unit at Park Avenue Rochester Hotel H #02-01 to 07 (“the Rochester Park unit”), which had an area of 10,000 square feet. Celine told Bernard that she intended to start a restaurant.¹³

The letter of offer for Rochester Park lapsed on 5 October 2016

The key terms for the lease of the Rochester Park unit were eventually agreed upon. According to Bernard, Celine agreed in principle to a three-year lease at a rent of $6 per square foot (“psf”) for the first year, $6.30 psf for the second year and $6.50 psf for the third year. The initial monthly rent was $60,000 per month. A further three-month deposit of $180,000 was also required.¹⁴

After the landlord prepared the lease documents, they were handed to Celine on or around 27 September 2016 for execution. To secure the premises, she also had to give Bernard a cheque made payable to the landlord. Celine did neither of these, despite much prompting from Bernard.¹⁵

On 4 October 2016, the landlord’s representative Serene Yap Mei Yen sent an email to Bernard (copied to Celine) which stated, “Please be informed that...