Public Prosecutor v Tjong Mark Edward

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Liew Thiam Leng
• Judgment Date: 05 August 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 304
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 13 March 2014,12 February 2014,07 January 2014,17 March 2014,06 January 2014,14 February 2014,11 February 2014,16 June 2014,18 March 2014,19 March 2014,13 February 2014,24 July 2014,14 March 2014
• Docket Number: DAC 24447-48/2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Grace Lim & Ms Lynn Tan (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Shashi Nathan & Ms Tania Chin (M/S Khattar Wong LLP)
• Published date: 11 August 2014

District Judge Liew Thiam Leng:

The accused is facing 2 charges of corruption under section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap.241) for corruptly obtaining the sums of $57,386.67 and $30,000 respectively as gratification from one Mujibur Rahman (“Mujibur”) as a reward. The accused had recommended and assisted Mujibur to be appointed as an agent of ST Electronics Pte Ltd (“STE”). He claimed trial to both charges and at the end of the trial, he was found guilty and convicted on the first charge and sentenced to 8 weeks imprisonment. The court also ordered a penalty of S$57,386.67 to be paid, in default 3 months imprisonment. As for the second charge, he was given an acquittal.

The defence is appealing against the conviction and sentence for the first charge. The Prosecution is appealing against the acquittal of the accused for the second charge. There is no dispute that the accused had received the sum of $57,386.67 and $30,000 in two cheques respectively from Mujibur.

The main issue in this case centre on the circumstances under which the accused had received the 2 cheques i.e. whether the accused had corruptly obtained the sum of $57,386.67 and $30,000 as indicated in the 2 cheques (Exhibits P10 and P11).

Charges

The following are the 2 charges: -

DAC-24447-2013 (Exhibit: C1)

THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

(Cap. 68 of 2012)

Sections 123 – 125

1st CHARGE

You, TJONG MARK EDWARD, MALE, 48 years old NRIC No : [XXX] D.O.B. : 23 December 1965 Nationality : USA (Singapore PR)

are charged that you, on 11 August 2006, in Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a Business Director in the employ of ST Electronics (Info-Software Systems) Pte Ltd (“STE”), did corruptly obtain, through one Ho Su-Ling (“Ho”), a gratification of S$57,386.67/- from one Mujibur Rahman (“Mujibur”), Managing Director of Kings Shipping & Trading Co. Ltd which was deposited into Ho’s POSB bank account (account number xxx-xxxxx-x), as a reward for doing an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, to appoint Mujibur as an agent of STE to assist STE with a project with the Bangladesh Police Department, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

DAC-24448-2013 (Exhibit: C2)

THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

(Cap. 68 of 2012)

Sections 123 – 125

2nd CHARGE

You, TJONG MARK EDWARD, MALE, 48 years old NRIC No : [XXX] D.O.B. : 23 December 1965 Nationality : USA (Singapore PR)

are charged that you, on 23 August 2006, in Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a Business Director in the employ of ST Electronics (Info-Software Systems) Pte Ltd (“STE”), did corruptly obtain, through one Ho Su-Ling (“Ho”), a gratification of S$30,000/- from one Mujibur Rahman (“Mujibur”), Managing Director of Kings Shipping & Trading Co. Ltd which was deposited into Ho’s POSB bank account (account number xxx-xxxxx-x), as a reward for doing an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, to appoint Mujibur as an agent of STE to assist STE with a project with the Bangladesh Police Department, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

Facts of the case

The accused is the Director of Business Development and the General Manager of STE overseeing the area of South Asia which includes Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh. His role is to identify potential areas of business and promote the business of STE. Sometime in 2005, he was introduced to Mujibur Rahman (“Mujibur’) and subsequently, Mujibur was appointed as an agent for STE in Bangladesh to assist in securing a contract with the Bangladesh Police Department (“BPD”) to supply walkie-talkies and a telecommunications network. The terms of the agency agreement between STE and Mujibur include the payment of a commission of the contract price at 7% to be paid to Muijbur if he is successful in obtaining the contract from the BPD. Eventually, through the assistance of Mujibur, STE was successful in its tender bid for the BPD Project. STE then made arrangements for the payment of the 7% commission to Mujibur for the sum of S$185,424.90. The payment by the STE was by cheque P6. As Mujibur does not have a Singapore Bank Account, he approached the accused to help him to open an account with the Citibank. With the assistance of the accused, Mujibur opened a bank account with Citibank. The cheque from STE P6 was deposited into this account and it was cleared on the next day on 26th July, 2006.

Shortly after this, Mujibur returned to Bangladesh and subsequently, he was contacted by the accused to bring his cheque book from Citibank and meet the accused at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Mujibur met the accused at the Pan Pacific Hotel sometime between 7 August 2006 and 11 August 2006 and handed 2 signed blank cheques (P10 and P11) to the accused. Mujibur had given evidence that the 2 cheques were given to the accused as he felt obligated to the accused for helping him in making him agent and guiding him on the tender for the BPD Project. The 2 signed blank cheques P10 and P11 were filled with the details i.e. the dates, payee (cash) and the respective amounts by the accused and they were deposited in PW2 Ho Su Ling’s (“Ho”) POSB account in Singapore. The amount in P10 was for S$57,386.87 and in P11, it was for the sum of S$30,000. The cheque P10 for S$57,386.67 was cleared on 11 August, 2006 as shown in Ho’s POSB bank statement for the period 15 July 2006 to 12 August 2006 in P12. On 23 August 2006, P11 was cleared and the sum of S$30,000 was deposited into Ho’s POSB account as shown in Ho’s bank statement for the period 13th August 2006 to 8 September 2006 as shown in P13.

Sometime on or before 14 August 2006, Ho signed a POSB cheque 592764 (“P14”) and handed it to the accused who withdrew a sum of S$57,386.67 in cash from Ho’s POSB account. The accused had written his name and NRIC number on the back of P14 and he had signed to acknowledge that he had received the cash from POSB. This withdrawal is reflected in Ho’s bank statement P13.

Sometime on or before 28 August 2006, Ho signed a POSB cheque 592769 (“P15”) and handed it to the accused who produced it at the POSB and withdrew the sum of S$30,000. The accused had written his NRIC number and signed at the back of P15 to acknowledge that he had received the cash from POSB. This withdrawal is reflected in Ho’s bank statement P13.

Prosecution’s case

The prosecution’s case was that the accused Mark had corruptly obtained the sum of S$57,386.67 (P10) and S$30,000 (P11) from Mujibur through Ho’s POSB bank account as a reward for appointing Mujibur as an agent of STE to assist STE in getting the project with the BPD. The prosecution had called a total of 9 witnesses with Mujibur as its main witness as well as Ho who acted as a conduit for the accused to deposit P10 and P11 into her POSB account and subsequently, withdrawing the sum of S$57,386.67 and S$30,000 respectively from her POSB account. In addition, the banking officers processing the cheques concerned had also given evidence to confirm the banking transactions by the accused. The officers from STE had testified to confirm on the appointment of Mujibur as its agent for the BPD Project and its policy of making payments in cheques and not in cash.

PW1 Chang Yew Kong’s evidence

PW1 Chang Yew Kong (“Chang”), President of STE in 2006 stated that sometime in 2006, the accused had sought his approval as well as the Deputy President of STE’s approval to appoint Mujibur as the Agent for the BPD Project in Bangladesh. Mujibur was appointed as an agent for STE to assist STE in securing the contract for the BPD Project in Bangladesh. Under the terms of the Agency Agreement (P1), Mujibur will be paid 7% commission of the contract sum if STE is successful in securing the contract for the BPD Project. Chang had given evidence that under the policy of STE, the staffs are not allowed to receive any money or benefits in the course of their duties and any payments by STE would be in cheques and not in cash. Chang further stated that Mujibur was also appointed as an agent of STE for another project in Chittagong. He also confirmed that subsequent to Mujibur’s appointment, a second agent was appointed and that he could be working on a different aspect of the project.

Chang testified that the email from Ng Kheng Hua (“Ng”) to the Head of the Business Unit in STE, Jeganathan (“Jega”) proposing S$10,000 per month was made before the appointment of Mujibur as the Agent and that subsequently, the Agency Agreement (P1) with Mujibur confirmed that only commission of 7% would be paid upon STE’s successful tender.

PW2 Ho Su Ling’s evidence

PW2 Ho Su Ling (“Ho”) was the accused’s girlfriend in 2006 and she eventually married the accused. Ho’s evidence is not in dispute as she merely confirmed that she has a POSB bank account with a savings and current account. She had stated that for convenience, she had often allowed the accused to do transactions in her bank account and she has no problem with the accused withdrawing money from her account as long as he does not withdraw her money in the bank account. Ho testified that 2 cheques from Mujibur for the sum of S$57,386.67 (P10) and S$30,000 (P11) were deposited into her bank account on 11 August 2006 (P12) and 23 August 2006 (P13) respectively. Ho also testified that she had handed 2 blank cheques which were signed by her (P14 and P15) and handed them to the accused who subsequently withdrew the sum of S$57,386.67 on 14 August 2006 (P14) and the sum of S$30,000 on 28th August 2006 (P15) from her POSB bank account. These 2 withdrawals of S$57,386.67 and S$30,000 are reflected in Ho’s POSB bank statement P13.

PW3 Chan Fei Yee Josephine

PW3 Chan Fei Yee Josephine (“Josephine”), the Client Services...