Public Prosecutor v Liang An Wey
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Kow Keng Siong |
Judgment Date | 06 October 2023 |
Neutral Citation | [2023] SGDC 231 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | District Arrest Case 908742 of 2021 & anor |
Hearing Date | 05 October 2023,05 July 2023,09 January 2023,10 January 2023,11 January 2023,12 January 2023,13 January 2023,16 January 2023,18 January 2023,19 January 2023,20 January 2023 |
Citation | [2023] SGDC 231 |
Year | 2023 |
Plaintiff Counsel | DPPs David Menon & Sapna Jhangiani (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | Eugene Thuraisingam, Johannes Hadi, & Hilary Low (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP) |
Subject Matter | Criminal Law,General exceptions,Slight harm,Cheating,$8,000 cheated,Whether harm so slight as not to constitute an offence,How assessment is to be made,Section 95 Penal Code 1871,Evidence,Proof of evidence,Proof beyond reasonable doubt on the totality of the evidence,Evidential burden on accused person to prove his mental state when making representations which are factually false,Accused person running primary defence (that he consciously made the representations believing them to be true) and alternative defence (that he made the representations carelessly),Implications of running factually inconsistent defences,Principles,Expert evidence,Prosecution failed to call an expert to rebut defence expert's opinion that the accused person's persistent complex bereavement disorder had affected his ability to form a dishonest intent to cheat,Whether this gives rise to reasonable doubt,Solicitation of bribe by accused person based on evidence of sole witness,Whether evidence is unusually convincing,Factors for consideration,Whether evidence is corroborated,Witness reported the solicitation of bribe to his employer,Whether employer's evidence regarding the report constitutes corroboration,Words and Phrases,"Harm" |
Published date | 14 October 2023 |
Liang An Wey (“
Cheating Charge You, […] are charged that you, sometime between June and July 2013, in Singapore, did deceive Singapore Post Limited (“
SingPos t”) that you wereemployed at GSM Holdings from 2012 at a monthly salary of $12,500 with an allowance of $2,000, by providing false information regarding your employment history and remuneration in the documents submitted to SingPost for a job application , and thereby dishonestly induced SingPost to deliver property to you, namely, salary amounting to $8,000, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).[emphasis added]
Corruption Charge You, […] are charged that you, sometime between March – June 2015, in Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a Senior Vice President in the employ of Singapore Post Limited (“
SingPost ”), didcorruptly attempt to obtain gratification of $1,000,000 from one Wong Siaw Fun, Chief Operating Officer of Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd (“Bintai ”), as aninducement to do an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, torecommend Bintai as a preferred sub-contractor for air conditioning and mechanical ventilation, electrical installation, and security works in respect of construction work to be undertaken on the SingPost Centre located at 10 Eunos Road, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)[emphasis added]
At the end of the trial, I convicted the Accused on the two charges. In this judgement, I will explain how I have arrived at my decision.
Cheating Charge Undisputed facts I begin by setting out the facts for the Cheating Charge. It is not disputed that on 28 June 2013, the Accused applied for the position of Vice President (Project Execution) with SingPost. On 12 July 2013, SingPost (a) offered the Accused the job at a salary of $15,000/month and (b) gave him a form titled “Application for Appointment”1 (“
It is not disputed that in connection with this job application, the Accused had made the following representations (“
It is also not disputed that the Accused (a) was never a director at GSM, (b) did not sign an employment contract with them, and, importantly, (c) had never receive any salary or CPF contributions from them.
The Accused did perform some work in connection with GSM. This came about through his friend, Gary Tan Yew Seng (“
After the Accused submitted the Application Form, SingPost employed him at a salary of $15,000/month. About eight months later, they increased his salary to $18,000/month following a performance review.
Parties’ caseThe case for the Prosecution and the Defence regarding the Cheating Charge is as follows:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
I now come to the facts for the Corruption Charge. It is not disputed that after the Accused commenced employment with SingPost, he took charge of the SingPost Centre redevelopment project (“
One of the contractors which had tendered for the Project is Shimizu Corporation (“
While the Tender Offer was still under evaluation, the Accused exchanged WhatsApp messages with Wong Siaw Fun (“
The bribe was not paid. During a tender interview on 4 June 2015, the Accused requested that Bintai be excluded from Shimizu’s tender proposal. On 24 August 2015, Shimizu won the tender. They did not appoint Bintai as their subcontractor.
Parties’ caseThe case for the Prosecution and the Defence regarding the Corruption Charge is as follows:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
The key issues at the trial and my findings on them are as follows:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
I will now explain how I have arrived at the above findings.
My decision – Cheating Charge Legal requirements I begin by summarising the legal requirements for the offence of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code. Three elements must be proved to make out the offence.
Having set out the legal requirements for cheating, I will now explain why they are satisfied in the present case.
Representations are false The Representations I begin with the threshold issue of whether the Representations are false. To recap, they consist of three elements.
I find the Representations are false. My reasons are as follows.
To continue reading
Request your trial