Public Prosecutor v Kong Swee Eng
Judge | Mathew Joseph |
Judgment Date | 24 June 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] SGDC 140 |
Citation | [2020] SGDC 140 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 07 July 2020 |
Docket Number | District Arrest Case No. 931919 of 2016 & Ors (9), Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9418 of 2020 - 01) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Deputy Public Prosecutors Jasmin Kaur and Tay Jingxi (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Michael Khoo SC and Ms Josephine Low (Michael Khoo & Partners) and Mr Nakoorsha Bin Abdul Kadir (Nakoorsha Law Corporation) |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Prevention of Corruption Act |
Hearing Date | 01 November 2017,27 June 2019,22 November 2017,26 June 2019,24 July 2019,15 May 2020,09 October 2018,27 February 2018,21 November 2017,05 September 2017,08 January 2018,10 October 2018,21 November 2018,30 October 2017,16 October 2017,04 September 2017,08 October 2019,05 April 2019,21 January 2019,08 September 2017,22 November 2018,26 February 2018,18 November 2019,24 May 2018,18 January 2019,01 March 2018,07 September 2017,25 June 2019,20 November 2018,17 March 2020,07 November 2019,31 October 2017,03 April 2020,22 July 2019,10 January 2018,08 October 2018,09 January 2018,20 November 2017,06 September 2017,11 January 2018,23 November 2018,24 June 2019,25 May 2018,23 July 2019,17 January 2019,09 October 2019,02 March 2018,02 November 2017 |
The accused, Ms Kong Swee Eng, also known as Rina Kong (“the Accused”) had been tried on ten proceeded charges under section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (“PCA”), for corruptly giving gratification to an agent employed by Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”) as an inducement to do acts in relation to his principal’s affairs,
At the conclusion of the trial, the Accused was found not guilty and was acquitted of all charges against her.
The Prosecution has filed an appeal against the acquittal of the Accused. I shall now set out my grounds of decision.
BackgroundThe Accused was a Director of Rainbow Offshore Pte Ltd (“Rainbow”), a company in the business of ship-repair and supplier of related equipment. Rainbow’s main business purpose was to sell various steel materials like piping, valves, hydraulic equipment and related equipment to Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”). In essence, the Accused was the face of Rainbow to JSPL. Furthermore, it was undisputed that JSPL was Rainbow’s sole and only customer at the material time. I will return to this unique business relationship between JSPL and Rainbow in a later part of this decision.
The ChargesThe ten proceeded charges against the Accused were as follows -
“DAC-931919-2016
You, are charged that you, on or about 11 April 2008, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to an agent, Chee Kim Kwang, the general manager of the procurement department of Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), to wit, the opportunity to invest in Golden Oriental Pte Ltd’s shares, as an inducement to do acts in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
“DAC-931920-2016
You, are charged that you, on or about 11 April 2008, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to an agent, Tan Kim Kian, a procurement manager of Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), to wit, the opportunity to invest in Golden Oriental Pte Ltd’s shares, as an inducement to do acts in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
“DAC-931921-2016
You, are charged that you, sometime in December 2011, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to an agent, Koay Chin Hock @ Adam Abdullah Koay (“Koay”), a deputy general manager of the procurement department of Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), to wit, a holiday to Japan, including return air tickets and accommodation, for Koay, his wife, Huda binte Mohamed Sanusi, and his daughter Nawal Adam Koay, as an inducement to do acts in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
“DAC-931922-2016
You, are charged that you, sometime in October 2011, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to agents, to wit, Chan Chee Yong (“Chan”), an assistant section manager in the procurement department of Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), and Ng Poh Lin (“Ng”), a procurement officer in JSPL, to wit, a holiday to Korea, including a return air ticket for Ng and accommodation in Korea for both Chan and Ng, as an inducement to do acts in relation to their principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
“DAC-931923-2016
You, are charged that you, sometime in April 2013, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to agents, to wit, Chan Chee Yong, an assistant section manager in the procurement department of Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), and Ng Poh Lin, a procurement officer in JSPL, to wit, a holiday to Korea, including return air tickets and accommodation, as an inducement to do acts in relation to their principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
“DAC-931924-2016
You, are charged that you, on or about 12 May 2013, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to agents, to wit, Chan Chee Yong, an assistant section manager in the procurement department of Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), and Ng Poh Lin, a procurement officer in JSPL, to wit, two Singapore Airlines return tickets to Europe worth a total of S$3,349, as an inducement to do acts in relation to their principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
“DAC-931925-2016
You, are charged that you, in 2013, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to agents, to wit, Chan Chee Yong (“Chan”), an assistant section manager in the procurement department of Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), and Ng Poh Lin (“Ng”), a procurement officer in JSPL, to wit, the rental of a flat located at Block 22, Ghim Moh Link, #XXX, Singapore at S$500/- per month, which Chan and Ng rented for a total of six months, as an inducement to do acts in relation to their principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
“DAC-931926-2016
You, are charged that you, on or about 28 March 2013, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to an agent, Chan Chee Yong (“Chan”), an assistant section manager in the procurement department of Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), to wit, a Mercedes Benz (vehicle registration no. SJU7907J) rented for two days at a cost of S$663.40/-, for use as the bridal car at Chan’s wedding, as an inducement to do acts in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
“DAC-931928-2016
You, are charged that you, on or about 28 March 2013, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to an agent, Chan Chee Yong, an assistant section manager in the procurement department of Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), to wit, a 3-litre bottle of Cordon Bleu worth S$1,180 and a bottle of Macallan liquor, as an inducement to do acts in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
“DAC-931929-2016
You, are charged that you, on or about March 2013, in Singapore, did corruptly give gratification to an agent, Lau Kien Huat, an engineer employed by Jurong Shipyard Pte Ltd (“JSPL”), to wit, the position of project manager in DMH Marine Solutions Pte Ltd, as an inducement to do acts in relation to his principal’s affairs, to wit, to advance your business interests with JSPL, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed).”
In brief, all the charges essentially involved the Accused allegedly showering some six JSPL employees with gifts, favours and investment opportunities to advance her significant business interests with JSPL. The Prosecution contended that these were corrupt gratifications given by the Accused as an inducement so as to advance her business interests with JSPL.
Preliminary ObservationsOrdinarily this case would have been all about whether the Accused had actually given a gratification to the JSPL employees as an inducement or reward. Further, there would also be the key issues of: (a) whether there was a corrupt element in the transaction; and (b) whether the Accused had given the gratification with a guilty knowledge.
It is apposite here to re-state the sacrosanct principle that the Prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused
As will be discussed shortly, the legal burden of proof on the Prosecution to prove its case and the evidential burden of proof on the Accused in relation to her defence to all the ten charges (all of which require as essential ingredients, an objectively corrupt element and guilty knowledge to be imputed to the Accused) will intersect and collide in an intriguing manner on the peculiar facts of this case.
At the same time, there is one unique and highly significant feature of this case, which both impacts and infects this entire case. The shadow of one Mr Wong Weng Sun (“Wong”) a person who almost became a witness, but who finally was never called by either the Prosecution or the Defence, will loom large in this case. Indeed, this was foreshadowed by the prescient words of the Prosecution during the oral submissions on 17 March 2020, when the learned Deputy Public Prosecutor stated: “
In the light of Wong being “
To continue reading
Request your trial