Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Abdul Gofar

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 06 January 1997
• Date: 06 January 1997
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 101 of 1996
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Public Prosecutor

Plaintiff

and

Mohamed Abdul Gofar

Defendant

[1997] SGHC 3

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 101 of 1996

High Court

Criminal Law–Statutory offences–Prevention of Corruption Act–Corruptly receiving gratification–Whether corrupt intent and corrupt element in transaction established–Section 6 (a) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)

The respondent Gofar stood trial for 20 corruption charges under s 6 (a)of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), which involved the receipt of gratification from Presidential Pacific Limousine Pte Ltd (“PPL”) in his capacity as Chief Concierge of the Omni Marco Polo Hotel (“the Hotel”). The trial judge acquitted Gofar on all the charges on the ground that there was no basis to infer the existence of the requisite corrupt mens rea and that further, he found there was evidence which showed the absence of a corrupt intent. The Prosecution appealed against the acquittal.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The temptation to receive commissions could well influence Gofar in his decision-making process. However, there would still have to be evidence that he was actually improperly influenced, and had compromised his duties to the hotel. The difficulty with the entire prosecution was that the inferences sought to be drawn were based on little more than conjecture: at [22] and [25].

(2) Although Gofar could have influenced the management in some way relating to PPL's appointment or retention, the Prosecution had not shown that this necessarily led to an inference that he had received the payments with a corrupt intent, or that there was ipso facto a corrupt element in the transaction: at [29].

(3) Section 6 (a)of the Act dealt specifically with corrupt transactions involving agents and its scope was restricted to the extent that it was intended to safeguard the fidelity of agents to their principals and to protect a principal against his agent's corruption in respect of his affairs or business: at [33].

(4) It was clear that the Hotel did not see any problem with Gofar's conduct and had not seen any cause for alarm. It was also clearly shown that in the Hotel's view, Gofar had not compromised his duties or acted improperly in relation to its affairs: at [38].

(5) The furtiveness of a transaction might be an indicator of corruption, but it could not be a conclusive point in every case. The evidence showed that there was nothing surreptitious taking place. The payments were properly documented and receipts had to be acknowledged openly. More importantly, the hotel management also knew about the arrangement and had not voiced any objections to it: at [42] and [43].

(6) Even if income tax laws were violated, this did not necessarily mean that the moneys were corruptly obtained. Moreover, the fact that no proper accounts were kept in respect of the moneys received was not a conclusive indicator of corruption. The uses to which the moneys were put were relevant in ascertaining whether they were ill-gotten in the first place. This would be relevant in determining the existence of a corrupt intent: at [44] and [45].

Narindar Singh s/o Malagar Singh v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 318; [1996] 3 SLR 639 (refd)

PP v Khoo Yong Hak [1995] 1 SLR (R) 769; [1995] 2 SLR 283 (refd)

Sairi bin Sulaiman v PP [1995] 2 SLR (R) 794; [1995] 3 SLR 242 (refd)

Tan Tze Chye v PP [1996] 3 SLR (R) 357; [1997] 1 SLR 134 (distd)

Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6 (a) (consd);s 5 (a) (i)

Foo Cheow Ming (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the appellant

Suresh Damodara and Leong Hee Tean (Haridass Ho & Partners) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

The charges

1 This was the Prosecution's appeal against the respondent's acquittal of 20 corruption charges involving the receipt of gratification from Presidential Pacific Limousine Pte Ltd (“PPL”), contrary to s 6 (a)of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Ed) (“PCA”). There were another 192 charges of a similar nature involving other limousine companies which were stood down.

2 The charges averred that the respondent had received corrupt gratification from PPL on 20 occasions between 13 February 1992 and 28 July 1994. The total amount paid was $15,341.65, all paid by way of cheques issued to the respondent. It was not disputed that these payments had been received by the respondent in his capacity as Chief Concierge of the Omni Marco Polo Hotel (“OMPH”).

The agreed facts

3 An agreed statement of facts was tendered at trial. The key points were as follows:

1. a One of the respondent's duties as Chief Concierge was to book limousine services for hotel guests.

2. b PPL had quoted certain rates for providing limousine services to OMPH. These were accepted by one Wayne Brice Darbyshire, who was then the Front Office Manager of OMPH.

3. c A contract was entered into between OMPH and PPL on 6 March 1992 (the contract) by which OMPH would engage the latter's services. The contract was signed by Dieter Loewe, then General Manager, on behalf of OMPH. It stipulated, inter alia, that OMPH would not engage another company unless PPL had acted in breach of any of the terms.

4. d Between 1992 and 1994, various authorised payments of commission were made by PPL to the respondent, with supporting documentation recorded by PPL's staff.

The case for the Prosecution

4 The Prosecution case hinged on the evidence of Daniel Han Hock Tee (“Daniel”) and Eric Lie Hwan Piao (“Eric”). Daniel and Eric were the general manager and managing director of PPL at all material times. As general manager, Daniel was in charge of handling the day-to-day operations of PPL.

5 In February 1992, the respondent spoke to Daniel to arrange for limousine services for guests of OMPH, in view of an impending demand for such services coinciding with Singapore Aerospace 1992. Daniel agreed to assist on the mutual understanding that there would subsequently be discussions concerning the possibility of PPL securing a contract for the supply of limousine services to OMPH on a regular basis. In Daniel's own words, “I help him for the Singapore Aerospace period and he will in turn help me to get the OMPH contract to provide limousine services”.

6 When they eventually met in February 1992, the respondent gave Daniel a positive indication that PPL's services might be engaged, because the existing limousine service utilised by OMPH was unsatisfactory. According to Daniel, the respondent asked for two quotations. One was meant for OMPH, citing PPL's standard rates and offer terms. The other quotation was for the concierge, citing a “discounted rate”. The difference between the quoted rates was actually meant to reflect the commission.

7 Daniel said he had to consult Eric in relation to the commissions. Subsequently, Daniel, Eric and the respondent met to discuss the rental rates before a formal contract was signed between OMPH and PPL. The following passages from Daniel's evidence are pertinent and are best set out verbatim:

If I had refused to pay the commission to the concierge when I first met Gofar, I don't think I could get the contract. In the market, if someone introduced you business or help you, you sure have to give them something. If you give them something, you can get the contract.

According to my knowledge, all the other limousine companies are also paying a commission. According to my knowledge, what Accused had proposed to me is the standard market commission. It's not higher than what the market norm is.

From my opinion, the Accused is in a position to influence or recommend which limousine company the hotel signs a contract with because transport services is under the Concierge Department.

Having signed the contract, if PPL refused to pay the commission or stop paying after a while, in my opinion, it will be difficult for us to serve the hotel. There will be inconvenience and trouble. In my opinion, they may try to give us last minute booking and if we can't make it they will report to the hotel that our company is not good. Then the hotel...