Public Prosecutor v Zhong Xiaoqin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jill Tan Li Ching
• Judgment Date: 02 March 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGDC 80
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 18 March 2010
• Citation: [2010] SGDC 80
• Plaintiff Counsel: Christine Liu (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Leonard Loo (Leonard Loo LLP)
• Year: 2010

2 March 2010

District Judge Jill Tan:

1 The Accused faced 16 charges – 12 under section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Chapter 241) (“PCA”), three under section 57(1)(k) of the Immigration Act (Chapter 133), and one under section 148(1) of the Women’s Charter (Chapter 353). She initially claimed trial to them, but on the first day of trial, elected to plead guilty to eight charges – five under the PCA, two under the Immigration Act and one under the Women’s Charter. The remaining charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

Facts

2 The Accused, a Chinese national, first arrived in Singapore in 2005. On 14 October 2005, she made a false statement in her Application for a Visit Pass which was submitted to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”). In the Application, she falsely declared that she lived at a certain address in Bedok, when she in fact did not. That address belonged to one Lim Ah Seng (“Lim”), who was her local sponsor for her applications to extend her social visit pass (“SVP”). The Accused had also filed for marriage to Lim at the Registry of Marriages in September 2005. As a result of the false declaration, the Accused was granted an extension of her SVP from 14 to 29 October 2005. On 28 October 2005, she and Lim visited ICA again, where she made another similar false declaration. This time, her SVP was extended from 28 October to 28 November 2005. These false declarations were made to obtain an extension of her SVP, and formed the bases for her two proceeded charges under the Immigration Act.

3 In late 2007, the Accused became acquainted with one Ong Thiam Hock (“Ong”), a police officer with the Singapore Police Force (“SPF”), when he conducted a raid at a massage parlour that she was then working at. He was attached to Clementi Police Division and was in charge of licencing, including massage establishment licences. She obtained his contact number and began contacting him. In early May 2008, she began operating an unlicensed massage establishment in the Clementi area. On a number of occasions between May and July 2008, she contacted Ong and arranged to meet him, during which time they had sexual relations and/or she gave Ong money. The proceeded charges under the PCA were in respect of four occasions where the Accused gave monetary gratification (of between $500 and $2000) to Ong, and in respect of one occasion where she gave him gratification in the form of free sexual services. These were inducements to provide her with tip-offs on impending raids by the police on massage establishments. Ong did in fact tip-off the Accused of impending raids – once in late May 2008 and again in early June 2008. She thus kept her massage establishment closed on the first occasion so that it could not be raided that day, and was aware beforehand that the raid on the second occasion would be conducted.

4 Between 10 May and 16 July 2008, the Accused also managed a brothel by allowing her massage establishment to be used for sexual services by four masseuses who worked there. She instructed them on how much to charge for the sexual services, and imposed a $200 fee on them for allowing them to offer sexual services there. However, she only retained their earnings from massages, and not from the sexual services. This formed the basis for the charge under the Women’s Charter, for managing a brothel.

15 Ong faced 12 charges under 6(a) of the PCA, for corruptly receiving the gratification, which charges mirrored the 12 faced by the Accused under the PCA. He was a first offender and had first joined the SPF in 1994. He pleaded guilty in July 2009 to five charges, with the remaning seven being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. He received ten months’ imprisonment per charge, with three to run consecutively. His total sentence was 30 months’ imprisonment, with a penalty of $7000.

Mitigation

6 The Accused had no previous convictions. In mitigation, Counsel pointed out that the amount of money involved in the proceeded charges, at $4500, was not high. He also pointed out that the Accused only benefitted twice as a result of the gratifications. He submitted that a sentence lower than that imposed on Ong should be given to the Accused, and asked for a lenient custodial sentence.

My Decision

7 In cases involving bribery of a public servant, a custodial sentence is the norm. In particular, where such offences concern law enforcement officers, these are treated seriously as they are entrusted with the responsibility to investigate crime and the administration of justice depends on their honesty – see “Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts”, Second Edition 2003, at pages 829 – 830 generally. In Chua Tiong Tiong v PP [2001] 2 SLR(R) 515 at [21], the High Court held that:

“… the general principle [is] that in most cases the giver of gratification bears equal culpability to that of the receiver. Sentences meted out should therefore be similar in terms. There are cases where a giver will not warrant a similar punishment as that of the receiver, such as when a giver was under compulsion or some form of pressure to give. In that situation, it is reasonable to punish the receiver more harshly than the giver. Conversely, there are instances where a giver bears equal, if not more, culpability than the receiver, and this is when the giver intends to corrupt the establishment of law and order for his private gain, and/or gives or offers bribes to...