Public Prosecutor v Heng Boon Tong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Liew Thiam Leng
• Judgment Date: 17 October 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGDC 290
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 13 December 2007
• Year: 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutor David Chew
• Defendant Counsel: Foo Cheow Meng (KhattarWong)
• Citation: [2007] SGDC 290

17 October 2007

District Judge Liew Thiam Leng

1. The accused is facing 4 charges for obtaining credit without informing that he was an undischarged bankrupt under s.141(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act ( “BA”)- and one charge of managing a business whilst being an undischarged bankrupt without the permission of the High Court or the Official Assignee under s.26(1) of the Business Registration Act(Cap 32). The prosecution proceeded on 2 charges ie a charge under s.141(1)(a) of the BA and a charge under s.26(1) of the Business Registration Act. The accused pleaded guilty to the 2 charges and consented to have the remaining 3 charges under s.141(1)(a) of the BA into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. The accused admitted to the Statement of Facts without any qualification and was convicted on the 2 charges accordingly. He was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for the charge under s.141(1)(a) of the BA and 1 month imprisonment for the charge under s.26(1) of the Business Registration Act with the sentences to run consecutively.

2. Statement of Facts

The Accused is Heng Boon Tong (“the accused”), male, 43 years old. He is also known as David.

2. The accused was adjudicated a bankrupt on 13 October 2000 by virtue of Bankruptcy Order No. 777 of 2000 and remains an undischarged bankrupt to this day. The accused has not at any time obtained leave of the High Court or written permission from the Official Assignee to manage any business and/or company.

Facts relating to DAC No. 022065 of 2007

Managing a business without the leave of the High Court or the written permission of the Official Assignee

3. The accused first came to know Ho Ban Chai Stanley (“Ho”) aged 50, sometime in 2000 through renovation-related activities. The accused told Ho that he was having problems with his partners and sought Ho’s assistance to set up another renovation business to compete against his partners’ business. It was also verbally agreed that the profits arising from SDI would be equally shared between the accused and Ho.

4. SD Intergrated Design & Contracts (“SDI”) was registered as a sole proprietorship on 11 June 2001 under the name of Ho. The principal activities of SDI are interior designing and renovation of residential properties. The registered office of SDI is at 95 South Bridge Road #10-32 Singapore 058717. The accused was in charge of managing SDI from its inception and Ho did not contribute any capital to set up SDI.

5. SDI maintained a bank account with DBS Bank Ltd (“xxx”). Although Ho was the only authorised signatory, the accused had unrestricted access to the account as he was the custodian of the ATM card and the cheque book. The accused was able to freely withdraw monies with the ATM card without Ho’s approval. Ho would meet the accused fortnightly to pre-sign blank cheques for use by the accused. Accordingly, the accused was able to freely withdraw monies, without Ho’s knowledge or approval, for the expenses incurred from the operating cost of SDI.

6. Sometime on 4 February 2006, Stanley decided to withdraw from SDI as he felt that it was not profitable. The accused’s father, Heng Ak Lim@Heng Ik Lim (“Heng”), aged 74 subsequently took over as the sole-proprietor of SDI. Heng could not manage the business owing to his poor health and he was unable to read or write in English. As such, he left the running of SDI completely to the accused.

7. Although the ownership of SDI was transferred to Heng, Ho still remained as the authorised signatory of the bank account of SDI as the accused claimed that he did not want to inconvenience Heng as he was prone to signature inconsistencies due to old age. The accused still retained full control of the bank account.

8. The accused was the only person who met existing and potential customers of SDI. He singly negotiated, issued quotations, variation orders, and coordinated the renovation works with sub-contractors as well as determined the terms of transaction with the clients of SDI.

9. Chua Bee Yan, Lim Lek Chew, Yap Wil Kiat and Quek Kai Yeow were four of SDI’s clients during the accused’s management of the business. Investigations by CAD revealed that the accused was their only point of contact as well as the only signatory for all renovation contracts and quotations. Further, the accused was the only one who decided on the pricing of all renovation contracts and quotations.

10. Notwithstanding his bankruptcy, the accused was directly concerned in the management of SDI between 11 June 2001 and 11 January 2007 by issuing renovation quotations, negotiating sales contracts with customers as well as negotiating prices with suppliers.

11. The accused had thereby committed one count of an offence under Section 22 of the Business Registration Act, Cap 32 (2001 Revised Edition) and renumbered with effect from 1 April 2004 as Section 26(1) of the Business Registration Act, Cap 32 (2004 Revised Edition) whilst being an undischarged bankrupt, was directly concerned in the management of SDI between 11 June 2001 and 11 January 2007 without the leave of the High Court or the written permission of the Official Assignee.

Facts relating to DAC No. 022066 of 2007

Obtaining credit exceeding $500 without disclosing to that person that he is an undischarged bankrupt.

12. Investigations also revealed that the accused had entered into a renovation contract with Lim Lek Chew on 12 January 2006 to renovate the latter’s residential unit located at 12 Holland Avenue #06-25 Singapore 272012.

13. For the cost of the contracted renovation, the accused received the following from Lim Lek Chew (“Lim”):

a) 3 January 06, 1 United Overseas Bank cheque numbered 383917 for the amount of $5000/- dated 23 January 2006; and

b) February 06, 3 Development Bank of Singapore cheques numbered 340020, 340021 and 340022 dated 9 February 2006 totaling $29,400 without informing the latter that he is an undischarged bankrupt.

14. At all material times, the accused did not inform Lim that he was an undischarged bankrupt [any reason why he did not disclose this?]. If Lim was aware that the accused was an undischarged bankrupt, he would not have contracted with the accused to renovate his flat or extended credit to the accuseed.

15. The accused had thereby committed 1 count of an offence punishable under Section 141(1) (a) of the Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20) by obtaining credit exceeding $500 without informing the creditor that he is an undischarged bankrupt.”

Mitigation

3. The mitigation is summarised as follows:-

The accused had to work at the age of 18 in the armed forces to support his younger sister in her studies. He had worked in various jobs as an insurance agent, sales manager and as a freelance renovation design and consultant. As he had difficulties in getting a job, he joined his friend in an interior decorating firm where he was involved in managing the business. His mistake was omission to inform the Official Assignee and his clients on his bankruptcy. The defence counsel submitted that there was no fraud or dishonesty...