Seaward v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 25 July 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 189
• Date: 01 August 1994
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 245/92/01
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: R Palakrishnan and Christine Lim (Palakrishnan & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 189
• Defendant Counsel: Roy Neighbour and Mabel Ha (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Abetment by conspiracy,Offences,Whether necessary to prove that the deceived party was induced to part with money solely by reason of the deception,Cheating,ss 24, 107(b), 415 & 420 Penal Code (Cap 224),Property

The appellant brought an appeal against his conviction for an offence of abetment by conspiracy to cheat, punishable under s 420 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The appellant was originally charged and tried with a second accused, Koh Siew Kiat Sheree (Koh), and a third accused, Chua. The third accused was acquitted at the conclusion of the trial below. The appellant was sentenced to one day`s imprisonment and fined $10,000, in default four months` imprisonment. The second accused was convicted and sentenced to one day`s imprisonment and $5,000 fine.

The charge

The appellant was convicted on the following charge:

DAC 7535/6 of 1990

You, Frederick Oliver Seaward III, NRIC No 1161360-H, are charged that you, between 14 February 1987 and 31 March 1987, in Singapore, being a director and chairman of Calvary Charismatic Centre Ltd (CCC) abetted one Koh Siew Kiat, Sheree, when you did engage in a conspiracy to cheat Hong Leong Finance Ltd (Hong Leong) and in pursuance of that conspiracy certain actions took place, namely, that you had furnished Koh Siew Kiat, Sheree, with details of equipment together with its prices as listed in two telexes on 16 and 19 February 1987 in order to have her apply to Hong Leong for hire purchase financing of equipment amounting to US$66,937.50 and to have her prepare and submit to Hong Leong with the said details an invoice totalling US$66,937.50 purportedly issued by World Missions Ministries Inc (WMM) to CCC Ltd when in fact the following items stated therein, namely:

(1) 12 JBL 2220J bass drivers

(2) 13 JBL 2380A horn units

(3) 13 JBL 2445J horn drivers

(4) 4 JBL D16R2445 diaphragms

(5) 5 DOD RD 320 digital relay

(6) 1 Genie PLC36PDC aerial platform

(7) 1 M9.5 Genie Mix-N-Match

(8) 1 Genie GL-12 Genie lift

(9) 1 Megic Electro Genie carpet steamer and 24+ wand

(10) 1 Salvi + Diana + pedal harp

(11) 8 Dukane Pro-100 slide projectors

(12) Soundcraft 32/4 200B

had, between 17 and 24 February 1987, been purchased and paid for by CCC Ltd from the respective suppliers for a sum of US$46,728.68, which price was inflated to a sum of US$57,591.00 for the above-listed items in the application for financing to Hong Leong and by so doing deceived Hong Leong into believing that the above-listed equipment were being purchased at the inflated price of US$57,591, and thereby dishonestly induced Hong Leong to grant to CCC Ltd the hire purchase financing of the above-listed equipment at US$57,591 and thereafter to enter into a hire purchase agreement No 101130-0087-001847 dated 31 March 1987 with CCC Ltd, whereby Hong Leong consequently delivered to CCC Ltd`s bankers, Citibank NA, a sum of S$143,514 (S$ equivalent of US$66,937.50) and have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 420 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The facts

The appellant was at the material time the chairman and a director of the Calvary Charismatic Centre (CCC). The third accused in the trial at first instance (Chua) was his administrative assistant. The second accused in the trial (Koh) was at the material time the financial controller of CCC who supervised CCC`s accounting system. She reported either directly to the appellant or through Chua. Basically, the appellant and Koh were charged for having engaged in a conspiracy between 14 February 1987 and 31 March 1987 to cheat Hong Leong Finance Ltd (HLF) over the hire purchase financing of US$66,937.50 worth of audio and visual equipment.

The appellant had travelled to the USA in February 1987 for the purpose of purchasing certain musical and sound equipment on behalf of CCC. It was decided that the equipment should be purchased directly from the USA as several of the items were not immediately available in Singapore. Also, those that were available were considerably cheaper in the USA. A total sum of US$55,175 was sent to an American company, World Missions Ministries Inc, (WMM) in February 1987 to purchase the equipment concerned. WMM was a company incorporated on or about 1 July 1982 in the USA for the purposes of spreading the Christian faith and expediting CCC`s activities and operations in the USA. WMM was a non-profit religious organization, and was, at all material times, controlled and managed by CCC. A large part of the moneys remitted to WMM`s account emanated from CCC in Singapore. The appellant was the chairman of WMM`s board of directors and a signatory to its bank account at First Interstate Bank of California. The other directors of WMM were the appellant`s father and one Howard Dean Gamber (Gamber).

Early in February 1987, it had been decided that hire purchase financing would be sought to purchase the equipment. On or about 14 February 1987, the appellant contacted Chua and told her that he had decided to purchase a sound system from the USA. He gave a list of equipment and prices to Chua. A note with the words `we may put higher price` was prepared. The appellant also told Chua to inform Koh to commence discussions about the possibility of obtaining hire purchase financing for the equipment. It had also been decided to have a proforma invoice on a WMM letterhead listing the details of the equipment purchased. These details were to be provided by the appellant.

On or about 14 February 1987, Chua telexed the appellant in California and requested a `full description of assets on WMM proforma invoice by 16 February 1987`. By that same telex, Chua informed the appellant that she and Koh `would be preparing a proforma invoice on the WMM letterhead based on details to be given by [the appellant]`. On or about 16 February 1987, the appellant telexed Chua and Koh, supplying the inflated prices of various equipment to be included in the proforma invoice. By that same telex, the appellant requested for the immediate telegraphic transfer of US$56,881 from CCC.

It was not disputed that upon receipt of US$55,175 from CCC in two sums (US$45,800 and US$9,385 less bank charges), the appellant personally solicited and purchased 17 items of musical and sound equipment from the original suppliers in the USA. Twelve of those 17 items formed the subject matter of the present charge. In some of the original invoices of the American suppliers, CCC was stated to be the purchaser. In respect of these 17 items, the appellant paid US$54,215.75 using several WMM cheques signed by himself. The 12 pieces of equipment forming the subject matter of the charge accounted for US$46,728.68 of the total amount. The final proforma invoice (there were numerous revised copies) bore the WMM letterhead and was signed by Gamber, who was an administrator in CCC as well as a director of WMM. This invoice, prepared by Koh and Chua in Singapore, inflated the total price of all 17 pieces of equipment to US$66,937.50 from the original US$54,215.75. The price for the 12 pieces of equipment forming the subject matter of the charge was inflated for their part, from US$46,728.68 to US$57,591.

The final inflated WMM invoice dated 18 February 1987 for a sum of US$66,937.50 was presented on or about 19 February 1987 to HLF, which had been approached by Koh to finance the hire purchase of the equipment. As a matter of procedure, HLF required the proforma invoice from the supplier(s) for all the items that were to form the subject matter of the hire purchase. This would enable HLF to assess the creditworthiness of the customer in order to determine if it should finance these transactions. In this case, however, HLF was unaware of numerous key facts, namely:

(a) that the equipment had already been purchased and paid for through CCC`s funds;

(b) that there were in existence several USA original suppliers` invoices, some of which reflected CCC as the original buyer;

(c) that WMM was not the true supplier of the equipment concerned, even though such was the representation given in the invoice;

(d) that the appellant was a director of both CCC and WMM concurrently and that it was he who made the purchase on behalf of CCC;

(e) that the invoice had been prepared by CCC staff and signed in Singapore;

(f) that the real price of all 17 items of equipment came up to only US$54,215.75, and that the price had been inflated as instructed by the appellant.

On or about 23 February 1987, HLF approved the hire purchase arrangement to finance up to 90% of the purchase price of the equipment listed in detail. In giving approval to the transaction, Lim Peng Boon, the general manager of HLF, had regard to three criteria: (i) the financial standing of the borrower; (ii) the value of the security which HLF would be getting in granting this facility; and (iii) whether there was any adverse report on the borrower. A set of an agreement for hire purchase, a hire purchase agreement and an indemnity/guarantee from the directors of CCC, was sent to CCC. A sum of S$143,514 (S$ equivalent of US$66,937.50) was subsequently disbursed through Citibank (who had earlier remitted moneys to WMM).

At the trial below, the prosecution relied substantially on the evidence of Annie Ng Lai Keen (Annie Ng), who was a marketing executive of HLF from April 1981 to April 1987. Koh had telephoned Annie Ng a few days before 17 February to inquire about hire purchasing for the equipment. Annie Ng informed Koh that with regard to imported items forming the subject matter of hire purchase, it was established procedure for HLF to be provided with a proforma invoice of the goods. Annie Ng...