Public Prosecutor v Tan Hock Khin (Chen Fuqin)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Choon Ning
• Judgment Date: 22 July 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 282
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC No 29706-29709 of 2012 and CEA-10-DSC of 2012
• Published date: 29 July 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 24 October 2013,22 July 2014,20 January 2014,23 October 2013,17 March 2014,16 August 2013,25 October 2013,10 March 2014,19 August 2013,22 October 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Mr Shaun Lee
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Ms Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin (Messrs Eugene Thuraisingam)
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 282

District Judge Wong Choon Ning:

The accused was convicted after a trial on the following five charges :-

DAC 29706/2012 (Exh. C1A )

“You, TAN HOCK KHIN (CHEN FUQIN) MALE / 42 YEARS OLD NRIC NO.: XXXXXXXX D.O.B.: YY/YY/YYYY SINGAPORE CITIZEN

are charged that you, on 24 March 2011, at the Kampong Java Neighbourhood Police Centre, Singapore, did knowingly give to one Pang Kim Meng (Feng Jinming), a Senior Investigation Officer of the Singapore Police Force, false information in relation to the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241, to wit, by stating that one officer of the Council for Estate Agencies had asked you for a corrupt benefit on 22 March 2011 during the inspection of a house, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 28(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.”

DAC 29707/2012 (Exh. C2A )

“You, TAN HOCK KHIN (CHEN FUQIN) MALE / 42 YEARS OLD NRIC NO.: XXXXXXXX D.O.B.: YY/YY/YYYY SINGAPORE CITIZEN

are charged that you, on 25 March 2011, at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau located at No. 2 Lengkok Bahru, Singapore, did knowingly give to one Lui Wen Hao Peter, a Senior Special Investigator of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, false information in relation to the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241, to wit, by stating that one Joseph Kiong of the Council for Estate Agencies had asked you for a corrupt benefit on 22 March 2011 during the inspection of No. 10 Geylang Lorong 14, #01-ZZ, Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 28(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.”

DAC 29708/2012 (Exh. C3A )

“You, TAN HOCK KHIN (CHEN FUQIN) MALE / 42 YEARS OLD NRIC NO.: XXXXXXXX D.O.B.: YY/YY/YYYY SINGAPORE CITIZEN

are charged that you, on 30 December 2011, at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau located at No. 2 Lengkok Bahru, Singapore, did knowingly give to one Luah Hong Sim, a Senior Special Investigator of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, false information in relation to the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241, to wit, by stating that one Joseph Kiong of the Council for Estate Agencies had asked you for a corrupt benefit on 22 March 2011 during the inspection of No. 10 Geylang Lorong 14, #01-ZZ, Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 28(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.”

DAC 29709/2012 (Exh. C4A )

“You, TAN HOCK KHIN (CHEN FUQIN) MALE / 42 YEARS OLD NRIC NO.: XXXXXXXX D.O.B.: YY/YY/YYYY SINGAPORE CITIZEN

are charged that you, on 22 May 2012, at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau located at No. 2 Lengkok Bahru, Singapore, did knowingly give to one Marcus Liew, a Senior Special Investigator of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, false information in relation to the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241, to wit, by stating that one Joseph Kiong of the Council for Estate Agencies had asked you for a corrupt benefit on 22 March 2011 during the inspection of No. 10 Geylang Lorong 14, #01-ZZ, Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 28(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.”

CEA-10-DSC-2012 (Exh. C5A )

“You, TAN HOCK KHIN (CHEN FUQIN) MALE / 42 YEARS OLD NRIC NO.: XXXXXXXX D.O.B.: YY/YY/YYYY SINGAPORE CITIZEN

are charged that you, on 22 March 2011, on or about 1400 hrs, did impede two inspectors from the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), namely, one Shawn Pereira and one Joseph Kiong Chin Fong, from lawfully carrying out their function in the exercise of their power conferred under the Estate Agents Act, Chapter 95A, to wit, by preventing the said inspectors from entering into the premises at 10 Geylang Lorong 14, Wing Fong Court, #01-ZZ, Singapore, when the said inspectors had reasonable grounds for believing that unregistered salesperson offences under sections 29(1)(a) or 41(2) of the said Act had been committed by you, and that they had reasonable cause to believe that evidence of the commission of such offences (including evidence relating to the partitioned rooms for subleasing and sub-tenants) could be found therein and wanted to enter the premises to gather such evidence, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 64(1)(c) of the Estate Agents Act, Chapter 95A.”

At the conclusion of the trial, I found that the prosecution had proven its case against the accused on all the five charges beyond a reasonable doubt and I accordingly convicted the accused on these charges.

After hearing the mitigation plea and the prosecution’s address on sentence, and in consideration of all the circumstances of the case, I sentenced the accused to two months’ imprisonment for the first charge and three months’ imprisonment for each of the second, third and fourth charges. I further imposed a fine of $6,000 or in default four weeks’ imprisonment for the fifth charge. The sentences of imprisonment for the first and second charges were ordered to run consecutively, while those for the third and fourth charges were to run concurrently with that for the second charge, making a total sentence of five months’ imprisonment and a fine of $6,000 or in default four weeks’ imprisonment.

The defence is dissatisfied with the orders of conviction and sentence and now appeals against them.

PROSECUTION’S CASE

The prosecution called a total of eleven witnesses. Evidence was adduced from two officers from the Council of Estate Agents (hereinafter referred to as “the CEA”) on what had transpired during their encounters with the accused on two occasions, namely, 22 Feb 2011 and 22 Mar 2011, and, in particular, how the accused had impeded them from carrying out their functions by preventing them from entering a rental unit to conduct investigations on 22 Mar 2011. The prosecution also called as witnesses two police officers and two officers from the Singapore Civil Defence Force (hereinafter referred to as “the SCDF”) who had been present on the premises on 22 Mar 2011. Evidence was further given by a third officer of the CEA on how the accused had behaved during an interview at the office of CEA on 1 Mar 2011. Lastly, the prosecution called one police officer and three officers from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (hereinafter referred to as “the CPIB”), to whom the accused had made statements, wherein he gave false information relating to his allegation that one of the CEA officers had on 22 Mar 2011 solicited a bribe from him.

The events of 22 Feb 2011

Mr Joseph Kiong Chin Fong (PW 1) gave evidence that, at the material time, in Feb and Mar 2011, he was a Manager for Investigations in the CEA, whose duty was to investigate into offences under the Estate Agents Act (Cap 95A). Prior to joining the CEA, PW 1 had been with the Singapore Police Force for nine years.

In Feb 2011, PW 1 was approached by his colleague, one Mr Shawn Pereira (PW 2), for assistance. PW 2 had received a complaint from a member of the public about the behaviour of an estate agent. When PW 2 checked the estate agent’s phone number (as given in the complaint) with the CEA’s database on estate agents, he could find no record of the said phone number. It hence appeared that this estate agent might not be a registered salesperson. By virtue of Sections 28 and 29 of the Estate Agents Act, estate agents and salespersons are required to be licensed and registered respectively. Pursuant to Section 41(2) of the said Act, a salesperson may only operate under a written agreement with a licensed estate agent.

PW 2 testified that, when he did a Google search using the estate agent’s phone number, he found two advertisements on the Gumtree website with the said phone number. They were advertisements for two rental properties, that is, Wing Fong Court and Wang Lodge, both of which were located at Lorong 14, Geylang. PW 2 approached PW 1 for help to pose as a tenant and arrange to view the premises. Using the handphone number taken by PW 2 from the advertisements, PW 1 spoke to one Mr Tan and made an appointment to view the property at Wang Lodge on 22 Feb 2011 at 6 pm.

At the appointed time on 22 Feb 2011, both PW 1 and PW 2 arrived at Wang Lodge. PW 1 telephoned Mr Tan who said that the owner of the unit was not available. Mr Tan offered to let PW 1 view a different unit for rental at Wing Fong Court. PW 1 indicated that he was agreeable and he proceeded to Wing Fong Court with PW 2. PW 2 then remained outside Wing Fong Court as a backup whilst PW 1 continued ahead into the common area. When PW 1 telephoned Mr Tan again, the accused came out and introduced himself as Mr Tan. The accused brought PW 1 into the unit, #01-ZZ, (hereinafter referred to as “the said premises”) and showed him the property. PW 1 saw that the said premises originally had four bedrooms, one kitchen and one living room, which had now been partitioned to create three additional rooms.

It was PW 1’s evidence that, during the viewing of the unit, the accused informed him that two partitioned rooms were available for rental at a monthly rental rate of $550 or $600, depending on the size of the room. The accused also told him that the kitchen, which was being renovated, would be ready for use in a couple of days. The accused further stated that the tenant would not need to pay towards the utility bill unless it exceeded $210. In response to PW 1’s queries, the accused further said that PW 1 would sign the tenancy agreement with the landlord and that PW 1 would need to pay him (the accused) the agent’s commission, which was equivalent to half a month’s rental, for a one-year lease. When PW 1 asked the accused for his namecard which would indicate his agency, the...