Public Prosecutor v Lin Haifeng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chay Yuen Fatt
• Judgment Date: 16 May 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 93
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC-913241 of 2020 & Ors, Magistrate’s Appeal No. MA- 9061-2023-01
• Hearing Date: 14 February 2022,15 February 2022,16 February 2022,02 November 2022,03 November 2022,07 November 2022,08 November 2022,09 November 2022,10 November 2022,01 September 2022,30 August 2022,31 August 2022,22 March 2023,07 February 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 93
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPPs Senthilkumaran Sabapathy, Joseph Gwee
• Defendant Counsel: Lok Vi Meng S.C., Michelle Yeo, Samuel Ling (LVM Law Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Corruption,Forgery,Admission,Acquittal
• Published date: 26 May 2023

District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt: Introduction

The accused is Lin Haifeng (“the accused”). He claimed trial to 18 charges of abetment by way of conspiracy of corruption and forgery offences committed principally by his subordinate in collusion with another person. At the conclusion of the trial, after having considered all the evidence and the written, as well as oral submissions from the parties, I acquitted the accused of all the charges.

I had provided parties with my brief reasons for the acquittal and indicated that full grounds will be furnished if necessary. The Prosecution has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the accused of all the charges. Therefore, I now set out the full grounds of my decision.

The Charges

The accused was charged with the following two sets of nine charges, adding up to a total of 18 charges: Corruption Charges Nine charges for abetting by engaging in a conspiracy with a subordinate, Guo Jiaxun (“Guo”) to corruptly agree to give to Collin Lee Mun Cheng (“Collin”), a Resident Technical Officer (“RTO”) of CPG Consultants Pte Ltd (“CPG”), gratification in the form of endorsed overtime work that did not occur, resulting in a total amount of $5,319.78 being paid to Collin, as an inducement for Collin being more lenient in his inspections for the mechanical construction works in the Customs Operations Command Complex (“the COCC project”), which is an offence under s 6(b) read with s 7 and s 29(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (“PCA”) (“the corruption charges”). (Added emphasis) Falsification Charges Nine corresponding charges for abetting by engaging in a conspiracy to falsify overtime list claim forms belonging to CPG, which were signed on the accused’s behalf and which falsely stated that Collin did overtime work when he was not present during the stated period, which is an offence under s 477A read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) (“the falsification charges”).

For ease of reference, I set out a pair of such corresponding charges in full as follows:

Corruption Charge - DAC-913242-2020

You…are charged that you, in September 2017, in Singapore, did abet by engaging in a conspiracy with one Guo Jiaxun, a Deputy Project Manager of Newcon Builders Pte Ltd, to corruptly agree to give to an agent, to wit, one Lee Mun Cheng, a Resident Technical Officer (Mechanical) in the employ of CPG Consultants Pte Ltd, gratification in the form of endorsed overtime work that did not occur, resulting in an amount of SGD$144.76/- being paid to Lee Mun Cheng, as an inducement for showing favour to you in relation to his principal’s business, to wit, by the said Lee Mun Cheng being more lenient in his inspections for the mechanical construction works in the Customs Operations Command Complex and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 6(b) read with Section 7 and Section 29(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

Corresponding falsification charge - DAC-913241-2020

You…are charged that you, on or around end of September 2017, in Singapore, did abet by engaging in a conspiracy with one Guo Jiaxun, a Deputy Project Manager of Newcon Builders Pte Ltd, and one Lee Mun Cheng, a Resident Technical Officer (Mechanical) in the employ of CPG Consultants Pte Ltd, to wilfully and with intent to defraud, falsify a paper which belongs to CPG Consultants Pte Ltd, and in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing an act took place, to wit, the said Guo Jiaxun signed an overtime list claim form belonging to CPG Consultants Pte Ltd for the month of September 2017 on your behalf, which falsely stated that the said Lee Mun Cheng did overtime work on 23 September 2017, when the said Lee Mun Cheng was not present for overtime work during the stated period, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 477A read with Section 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.

Background Facts

The following background facts are not disputed.¹

At all material times, the accused was employed by Newcon Builders Pte Ltd (“Newcon”) and was the Senior Project Manager of the COCC project.

On 23 September 2016, Newcon was awarded a contract to be the main building contractor for the COCC project which was owned by Singapore Customs. CPG managed the project on behalf Singapore Customs. Around February 2017, CPG deployed its employee, Collin, to work on the COCC project. Collin was responsible for ensuring that the construction works were done in accordance with the contractual requirements.

Collin’s job scope included: Carrying out site supervision and inspection of the contractors’ (i.e. Newcon’s) works to ensure that the works were constructed to the required quality and accuracy; Ensuring that the contractors’ works fulfilled the contractual requirements; and Ensuring that the contractors did not proceed to the next stage of construction/installation if the work was not in accordance with the contractual requirements. If Collin did not approve the inspections with a “pass”, Newcon’s works would not be able to progress to the next stage.

Collin’s ordinary working hours were from 8.30am to 5.30pm on weekdays, and 8.30am to 12.30pm on Saturdays.

As the Senior Project Manager of the COCC project, the accused’s duties included overseeing the project management and operations, management of sub-contractors, and liaising with the consultants and relevant authorities regarding project matters.

Guo was the Deputy Project Manager cum Mechanical & Electrical (“M&E”) Coordinator of the COCC project. He was the accused’s second-in-command. Guo was assisted by Rajendran who subsequently joined Newcon in November 2017.

Overtime and Inspection Procedure

The correct procedure for overtime (“OT”) claims was as follows: When Newcon assessed a need for Collin to inspect their works outside of working hours, Newcon would submit a “Request for Overtime Supervision for RTO Form” (“OT Request Form”) to CPG, stating the date and time for the proposed inspection. If CPG approved the request for OT, Collin would be deployed to inspect the works. On the scheduled date and time, Collin would carry out the inspection together with Newcon’s representatives and record the results of his inspection (i.e. “pass” or “fail”) on an “Inspection Form”. After the inspection was done, the Inspection Form would be signed by Collin and the Newcon representative. If Collin failed the inspection, Newcon would have to rectify and a further inspection would follow. Every month, Collin would prepare an Overtime List Claim Form (“OT List Claim Form”) listing out his claims for all the OT inspections conducted for the month. Each OT List Claim Form was countersigned by a Newcon representative. Collin would submit the OT List Claim Form, as endorsed by Newcon, to CPG along with supporting documents to show that he did work overtime. CPG will process Collin’s claim and pay him.

Between September 2017 and 29 December 2017, Guo prepared the requisite OT Request Forms and submitted them to CPG by email, copying the accused amongst others.

Between March 2018 and 19 September 2018, a new colleague, Rajendran Thiagarajan (“Rajendran”) prepared the requisite OT Request Forms. With Guo’s permission, Rajendran signed the forms and submitted them to CPG by email, also copying the accused amongst others.

Around 18 September 2018, Guo resigned from Newcon. One Lim Heng Hock (“LHH”) took over Guo’s duties at the COCC construction site on 21 September 2018.

After Guo’s resignation, Rajendran signed the OT Request Form in his own name for the purported OT on 22 September 2018. LHH signed the OT Request Forms for the purported OTs on 25 September 2018 and 29 September 2018. Rajendran then submitted the OT Request Forms to CPG by email, copying the accused amongst others.

Between September 2017 and August 2018, Collin would hand the OT List Claim Form for the month to Guo or to Rajendran to sign. Guo would endorse the OT List Claim Form by countersigning under a column that stated that Collin’s claim had been checked by him in his capacity as the M&E Coordinator. Guo also signed under another column which stated that Collin’s claim was approved by the accused in his capacity as the Senior Project Manager.

Collin submitted the endorsed OT List Claim Forms to CPG and was paid accordingly.

Newcon obtained the Temporary Occupation Permit for the COCC project in April 2019 and handed the project over to Singapore Customs around June 2019.

Guo, Rajendran and Collin

It is not in dispute that the OT claims as specified in the charges were in fact falsified. These OT claims are referred hereinafter as “false OTs” or “false OT claims”.

It is also not in dispute that Guo, Rajendran and Collin were aware that the said claims were false. The three of them have pleaded guilty and have served their sentence for their respective corruption and falsification charges.²

Only Collin testified in court as a Prosecution witness. The Prosecution was unable to procure Guo and Rajendran as witnesses at the trial because they have already left the country.

The Prosecution applied for their investigation statements to be admitted pursuant to s 32(1)(j)(iii) of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Revised Edn) (“Evidence Act”). Guo had provided eight statements and Rajendran had provided five statements. An ancillary hearing was held to determine the admissibility of the statements. Evidence was led to show that the investigators had corresponded with Guo and Rajendran but they gave various reasons declining to come back to Singapore to testify at the trial. I was satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to secure their attendance as they had repeatedly indicated their unwillingness to testify even though the option to testify remotely was suggested. Accordingly,...