Public Prosecutor v Ong Leong Lee and another
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Tan Jen Tse |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] SGDC 113 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | DAC-902254-2021 & others, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9022-2023-01, DAC-902262-2021 & others, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9023-2023-01 |
| Hearing Date | 01 June 2022,02 June 2022,03 June 2022,07 September 2022,20 October 2022,16 November 2022,09 January 2023,03 February 2023 |
| Citation | [2023] SGDC 113 |
| Year | 2023 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Darren Sim |
| Defendant Counsel | Oei Su-Ying Renee Nicolette (Peter Ong Law Corp) |
| Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Money laundering,Mens Rea,Sentence |
| Published date | 22 June 2023 |
From around May 2011 to January 2018, Chong Poh Chin (PW4) (“Chong”), dishonestly misappropriated $2,133,829.32 from Midpoint Engineering Hardware Private Limited (“Midpoint”), where she worked as an accounts assistant. She pleaded guilty to offences of cheating Madam See Ah Cheen (PW3) (“See”) a director of Midpoint, punishable under s 420 of the Penal Code. She also pleaded guilty to related charges of acquiring the benefits of her criminal conduct, which were offences under s 47(1)(c) of the Corruption Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (“CDSA”) punishable under s 47(6)(a) thereof. She was sentenced to a total of 84 months’ imprisonment.
Chong had on 80 occasions over a six-year period deceived See into signing multiple cheques payable to Leong Lee Huat Engineering Construction (“LLH”), of which Ong Leong Lee (“Ong”) was the sole proprietor. There were in fact no business transactions between Midpoint and LLH.
Sometime in 2010, Chong approached her friend Hay Ching Lin (“Hay”) and asked if he could find a bank account to receive money. She told him that she was assisting Midpoint to evade taxes. Hay then approached Ong, who agreed to allow LLH’s bank account to be used. Hay told Ong that this was for tax evasion purposes.
After Chong deceived See into signing the cheques, she deposited the cheques into LLH’s bank account and informed Hay when she had done so. Hay would then instruct Ong to prepare cash cheques from LLH’s bank account, which were encashed by Hay or Ong. Almost all the funds were withdrawn in this way. Ong was allowed to retain the balance as a benefit.
Hay would then carry the cash and pass it to Chong at her residence in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Chong would pay him cash of at least $300 for each delivery he made. The laundered funds have not been recovered and no restitution has been made by Chong.1
The accused persons were convicted after trial on seven charges each of being concerned with an arrangement, having reasonable grounds to believe that Chong had benefitted from criminal conduct and that the said arrangement would facilitate Chong’s retention of her benefits from criminal conduct, which were offences under s 44(1)(a) of the CDSA, punishable under s 44(5)(a) thereof (“the money laundering charges”).
Ong, a male Singaporean, aged 65 years old, was sentenced to a total of 56 months’ imprisonment.
Hay, a male Malaysian, aged 49 years old, was sentenced to 64 months’ imprisonment for his money laundering charges. In addition, he pleaded guilty to two further offences2 of moving cash out of Singapore to Malaysia, without giving a report in respect of the said movement in accordance with Section 48C(1) of the CDSA, punishable under Section 48 C(2) thereof (“the undeclared cash charges”), with 33 similar charges being taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. He was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment per charge, with one of the sentences to run consecutively to the money laundering charges. His aggregate sentence was thus 65 months’ imprisonment.
Both accused persons have filed appeals against conviction and sentence.
Sample money laundering chargesA sample money laundering charge relating to Hay’s case is as follows:-
7 th charge amended (DAC 902268-2021)… are charged that you, from around 5 January 2017 to around 5 January 2018, in Singapore, were concerned in an arrangement with Chong Poh Chin (“Chong”) and Ong Leong Lee (“Ong”), having reasonable grounds to believe that Chong had benefited from criminal conduct and that the said arrangement would facilitate Chong’s retention of her benefits from criminal conduct, and pursuant to the said arrangement, Chong caused a sum of S$416,412.79 to be transferred from Midpoint Engineering Hardware Pte Ltd to the bank account of Leong Lee Huat Engineering Construction, controlled by Ong, of which S$411,440 cash was withdrawn by Ong and handed to you for delivery to Chong in Malaysia, and you have therefore committed an offence under Section 44(1)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, (Cap. 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) (“CDSA”), punishable under Section 44(5)(a) of the CDSA, which charge is amalgamated pursuant to Section 124(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 2012 Rev Ed)
A sample money laundering charge in Ong’s case is as follows:-
7 th charge (Amended) (DAC 902260-2021)… are charged that you, from around 5 January 2017 to around 5 January 2018, in Singapore, were concerned in an arrangement with Chong Poh Chin (“Chong”) and Hay Ching Lin (“Hay”), having reasonable grounds to believe that Chong had benefited from criminal conduct and that the said arrangement would facilitate Chong’s retention of her benefits from criminal conduct, and pursuant to the said arrangement, Chong caused a sum of S$416,412.79 to be transferred from Midpoint Engineering Hardware Pte Ltd to the bank account of Leong Lee Huat Engineering Construction, controlled by you, of which S$411,440 cash was withdrawn by you and handed to Hay for delivery to Chong in Malaysia, and you have therefore committed an offence under Section 44(1)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, (Cap. 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) (“CDSA”), punishable under Section 44(5)(a) of the CDSA, which charge is amalgamated pursuant to Section 124(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 2012 Rev Ed).
A summary of the details of the accused person’s money laundering charges is as follows:-
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |
The parties agreed to the following facts, which were set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts (“SOAF”):-
Statement of Agreed Facts The Prosecution and the Defence hereby agree on the following facts:
The accused persons are: - Ong Leong Lee (NRIC No. xxx) (“Ong”), a male Singaporean aged 64. He is the sole proprietor of Leong Lee Huat Engineering Construction (“LLH”) (UEN No. xxx), which is in the business of construction. Ong is the sole owner and signatory of LLH’s UOB Account No. xxx (the “UOB Account”).
- Hay Ching Lin (NRIC No. xxx, Malaysian Passport No. xxx) (“Hay”), a male Malaysian aged 48.
- The co-accused is Chong Poh Chin (FIN No. xxx, Malaysian Passport No. xxx) (“Chong”), a female Malaysian aged 45. She was an Accounts Assistant at Midpoint Engineering Hardware Pte Ltd (“Midpoint”) from 1998 up to 5 February 2018.
- Hay and Ong were friends. They work in the construction industry and met through encounters at construction sites. Hay and Chong were also friends and both resided in Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Hay would travel to Singapore from Johor Bahru and back for work every day.
- Sometime in 2010, Hay agreed to help Chong find a bank account to receive monies. Hay, who knew that Ong was managing a sole proprietorship, approached Ong who agreed to provide the UOB account to receive monies.
Predicate Offence and Modus Operandi ... - Sometime in 2010, Chong concocted a plan to misappropriate monies from Midpoint for herself. Chong would fill up a cheque by naming LLH as the payee and insert an amount typically containing two decimal places. Chong would then pass the unsigned cheque to See Ah Cheen (“See”), a director of Midpoint, and See would sign on the cheque.
- From April 2011 to December 2011, Chong deceived See into executing 8 fraudulent cheques in LLH’s favour. Consequently, Midpoint delivered S$141,117.56 to LLH’s UOB Account.
- From December 2011 to December 2012, Chong deceived See into executing 12 fraudulent cheques in LLH’s favour. Consequently, Midpoint delivered S$236,590.79 to LLH’s UOB Account.
- From December 2012 to December 2013, Chong deceived See into executing 14 fraudulent cheques in LLH’s favour. Consequently, Midpoint delivered $381,851.51 to LLH’s UOB Account.
- From January 2014 to December 2014, Chong deceived See into executing 7 fraudulent cheques in LLH’s favour. Consequently, Midpoint delivered S$202,477.83 to LLH’s UOB Account.
- From December 2014 to December 2015, Chong deceived See into executing 12 fraudulent cheques in LLH’s favour. Consequently, Midpoint delivered S$350,575.77 to LLH’s UOB Account.
- From December 2015 to December 2016, Chong deceived See into executing 13 fraudulent cheques in LLH’s favour. Consequently, Midpoint delivered S$404,803.07 to LLH’s UOB Account.
- From December 2016 to December 2017, Chong deceived See into executing 14 fraudulent cheques in LLH’s favour. Consequently, Midpoint delivered S$416,412.79 to LLH’s UOB Account.
- The foregoing sums are proceeds of Chong’s benefits of criminal conduct (i.e. cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev Ed)) (“PC”).
- Chong processed each fraudulent cheque shortly after they were signed by See. She notified Hay by way of text message whenever a deposit was made to LLH’s UOB Account and specified an amount to be withdrawn, which was slightly less than the sum of the deposit. Hay then conveyed these instructions
To continue reading
Request your trial