Public Prosecutor v Koh Seng Lee and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Ong Chin Rhu
• Judgment Date: 29 March 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 66
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No 927116 of 2017 and 39 Others, Magistrate’s Appeals No 9110-2021-01 & 02 and 9111-2021-01 & 02
• Published date: 05 April 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 09 February 2018,07 September 2020,11 May 2021,08 May 2018,25 July 2018,09 May 2019,16 July 2020,12 July 2018,05 February 2018,24 July 2018,15 August 2018,16 April 2019,23 July 2019,08 May 2019,04 June 2019,29 March 2021,06 February 2018,09 May 2018,01 April 2020,17 April 2019,18 April 2019,14 August 2018,11 April 2019,28 May 2019,30 October 2019,07 August 2018,29 May 2019,24 July 2019,07 May 2019,08 February 2018,31 October 2019,30 May 2019,07 February 2018,25 July 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jiang Ke-Yue and Loh Hui-Min (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Chelva Rajah S.C., Megan Chia, Jacqueline Gwee (Tan Rajah & Cheah),Andre Maniam S.C., Melanie Ho, Cheronne Lim, Erwin Wan, Lin Si Hui (WongPartnership LLP)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Corruption,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Penalty,Default sentence
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 66

District Judge Ong Chin Rhu:

The accused persons, Mr Koh Seng Lee (“Koh”) and Mr Chang Peng Hong Clarence (“Chang”) claimed trial to 20 charges each under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (“PCA”). The charges related to the payment of gratifications by Koh to Chang totalling more than S$6 million during the period 2006 to 2009.

At the conclusion of the trial, I found the accused persons guilty and convicted them on the proceeded charges. I sentenced each of them to a total of 54 months’ imprisonment. In addition, I ordered Chang to pay a penalty of $6,220,095. The accused persons, being dissatisfied with their respective conviction and sentence, have filed appeals accordingly. The prosecution, being dissatisfied with the sentence meted out to the accused persons, have also filed appeals against sentence.

I had provided brief oral grounds at the conclusion of the trial to explain some of my findings and my decision to convict the accused persons on the respective charges.¹ At the sentencing stage, I had also set out brief reasons for the sentences imposed on them.² I shall elaborate on my reasons for conviction and sentence in these grounds.

The Charges

The two sets 20 charges against Koh and Chang were mirrors of each other, reflecting Koh as the giver and Chang as the receiver of the gratifications.

The first 18 charges against each of them were brought under section 6 of the PCA. These related to payments from Koh to Chang during the time Chang was employed by BP Singapore Pte Ltd (“BP Singapore”). These 18 charges were similarly framed, save as to the details relating to the date of the offence and the amount of gratification.³ As such, I shall set out in full the first of such charges against Koh (under section 6(b) PCA) and Chang (under section 6(a) PCA) respectively, followed by a table containing the salient details of each of the 18 charges for reference:

DAC-927116-2017 (1st charge) against Koh

You, […] are charged that you, the sole shareholder and Executive Director of Pacific Prime Trading Pte Ltd (“PPT”), on or about 31 July 2006, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification of USD300,000/- to an agent, to wit, Chang Peng Hong Clarence, a Regional Operating Unit, Manager Fuels in the employ of BP Singapore Pte Ltd (“BP”), via your HSBC HK Premier bank account number XXX, as an inducement to do an act in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, advance the business interest of PPT with BP, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

DAC-9048841-2017 (1st charge) against Chang

You, […] are charged that you, on or about 31 July 2006, in Singapore, being an agent, +, a Regional Operating Unit, Manager Fuels in the employ of BP Singapore Pte Ltd (“BP”), did corruptly obtain gratification of USD300,000/-from Koh Seng Lee, the sole shareholder and Executive Director of Pacific Prime Trading Pte Ltd (“PPT”), via your HSBC HK Premier bank account number XXX, as an inducement to do an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, advance the business interest of PPT with BP, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Cap 241.

No.	Koh DAC No.	Chang DAC No.	Date	Amount
1	927116-2017	908841-2017	31 July 2006	USD300,000
2	927117-2017	908842-2017	9 October 2006	USD350,000
3	927118-2017	908843-2017	8 January 2007	USD300,000
4	927119-2017	908844-2017	6 March 2007	USD100,000
5	927120-2017	908845-2017	10 April 2007	USD100,000
6	927121-2017	908846-2017	23 May 2007	USD350,000
7	927122-2017	908847-2017	30 July 2007	USD200,000
8	927123-2017	908848-2017	2 October 2007	USD200,000
9	927124-2017	908849-2017	11 December 2007	USD200,000
10	927125-2017	908850-2017	25 February 2008	USD150,000
11	927126-2017	908851-2017	30 June 2008	USD200,000
12	927127-2017	908852-2017	23 September 2008	USD200,000
13	927128-2017	908853-2017	8 January 2009	USD200,000
14	927129-2017	908854-2017	19 February 2009	USD200,000
15	927130-2017	908855-2017	9 April 2009	USD150,000
16	927131-2017	908856-2017	18 May 2009	USD100,000
17	927132-2017	908857-2017	17 August 2009	USD300,000
18	927133-2017	908858-2017	20 January 2010	USD200,000

The 19th and 20th charges related to a payment to Chang after he had left BP Singapore and payments by Koh for Mindchamps Preschool @ City Square Pte Ltd (“Mindchamps City Square”) respectively. These charges were amended at the close of the prosecution’s case and the final form of the charges on which the accused persons were convicted were as set out below:

DAC 927134-2017 (19th charge) against Koh

You, […] are charged that you, the sole shareholder and Executive Director of Pacific Prime Trading Pte Ltd (“PPT”), on or about 26 July 2010, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification of USD150,000/- to Chang Peng Hong Clarence (“Chang”), via your HSBC HK Premier bank account number XXX, on account of Chang doing an act in respect of a matter, to wit, advancing the business interest of PPT with BP Singapore Pte Ltd, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

DAC 927135-2017 (20th charge) against Koh

You, […] are charged that you, the sole shareholder and Executive Director of Pacific Prime Trading Pte Ltd (“PPT”), sometime before September 2009, in Singapore, did corruptly agree to give gratification, being payments for Mindchamps Preschool @ City Square Pte Ltd, to an agent, to wit, Chang Peng Hong Clarence, a Regional Operating Unit, Manager Fuels or Regional Marine Manager Fuels in the employ of BP Singapore Pte Ltd (“BP”), as an inducement to do an act in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, advance the business interest of PPT with BP, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

DAC-908859-2017 (19th charge) against Chang

You, […] are charged that you, on or about 26 July 2010, in Singapore, did corruptly receive gratification of USD150,000/- from Koh Seng Lee, the sole shareholder and Executive Director of Pacific Prime Trading Pte Ltd (“PPT”), via your HSBC HK Premier bank account number XXX, on account of you doing an act in respect of a matter, to wit, advancing the business interest of PPT with BP Singapore Pte Ltd, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Cap 241

DAC-908860-2017 (20th charge) against Chang

You, […] are charged that you, sometime before September 2009, in Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a Regional Operating Unit, Manager Fuels or Regional Marine Manager Fuels in the employ of BP Singapore Pte Ltd (“BP”), did corruptly agree to accept gratification, being payments for Mindchamps Preschool @ City Square Pte Ltd, from Koh Seng Lee, the sole shareholder and Executive Director of Pacific Prime Trading Pte Ltd (“PPT”), as an inducement to do an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, advance the business interest of PPT with BP, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Cap 241.

Undisputed facts and the issues at trial Agreed and undisputed facts

The prosecution and defence had agreed to a Statement of Agreed Facts (Exhibit PS1) as well as the documents contained in two Agreed Bundles (Exhibits AB1 - 1 to 59 and AB2 – 1 to 346) for the purposes of the trial. I shall broadly adopt the contents of PS1 in summarising and setting out the background and undisputed facts in this case.

The relationship between Koh, Chang and BP

BP Singapore was the Singapore-based subsidiary of BP p.l.c. (“BP”), a British multinational company headquartered in London, and one of the world’s oil and gas “supermajors”. BP operated in all areas of the oil and gas industry, including exploration and production, refining, distribution and marketing, petrochemicals, power generation and trading. BP Singapore served BP’s markets in the Middle East, Southern and East Africa, Australia, India, South East Asia, and China.

Koh was the sole shareholder and executive director of Pacific Prime Trading Pte Ltd (“PPT”). PPT was a limited exempt private company incorporated in Singapore on 5 April 2001, and its principal activities included wholesale and retail trade in mineral fuels and lubricants. PPT was one of the trading counterparties (“TCPs”) of BP Singapore from 2001 to 2015.

Vermont UM Bunkering Pte Ltd (“Vermont Bunkering”) was also BP Singapore’s TCP. Koh was one of Vermont Bunkering’s shareholders, together with Poh Fu Tek (“Poh”) and Vermont Groups Limited, a Hong Kong company.⁴

Chang was an employee of BP for 13 years from 7 July 1997 to sometime around 9 July 2010. He joined BP Singapore’s Marine Department as a Marine Support Executive on 7 July 1997. He was promoted to Marine Trading...