Siah Ooi Choe v Public Prosecutor

• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 26 April 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 32
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 32
• Defendant Counsel: Chee Wei-Lin and Eleanor Wong (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Sherrard QC and Woo Tchi Chu (Robert WH Wong & Woo)
• Date: 26 April 1988
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 155 of 1987
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Forms of punishment,Appropriate sentence,Highly exceptional circumstances,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Abetment of offence under s 406(a) of Companies Act (Cap 50),Sentencing

Cur Adv Vult

The appellant was charged for having abetted an offence under s 406(a) of the Companies Act (Cap 50) by inducing Bank of America NA & ST (the bank), through deceitful means, to give credit to his company, Lamipak Industries Pte Ltd (Lamipak), to the extent of $757,930. Briefly, the deceitful means employed consisted of submitting to the bank false documents purporting to show that Lamipak had purchased and received goods from a firm, Showa Trading, which it had not. Three other similar charges of similarly inducing three other banks on three separate occasions to grant credit to Lamipak were, with the consent of the appellant, taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the sentence. All these offences were committed over a period of about six months between October 1984 and Februay 1985. Three out of the four banks that had granted such credit to Lamipak had been repaid in full together with interest and other banking charges. As for the fourth bank, which is United Overseas Bank Ltd, a part payment of $200,000 had been made, and the balance of the principal sum of $872,843.42 remains unpaid. The reason for the non-payment is that at the material time, provisional liquidators of Lamipak had been appointed and if such payment were made it would or might amount to a preferential payment. A winding-up order against Lamipak was made on 1 October 1985.

The appellant was arrested by the Commercial Crime Division, CID on 17 October 1985 and was kept in custody for two days. He was granted bail on 19 October 1985 and thereafter he daily reported to CID six days a week for 18 months. Subsequently, the Commercial Affairs Department took over the investigation. There followed a period of further investigation by the Commercial Affairs Department and discussion between the prosecution and the defence, which resulted in the charge against the appellant under s 406(a) of the Companies Act. The complaint in respect of which the appellant was arrested is unrelated to the charge. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of nine months. Against that sentence, this appeal is now brought.

It is urged by Mr Sherrard on behalf of the appellant that, first, in all the circumstances of this case, financial penalty, ie a fine, would be adequate and no custodial sentence is necessary, and, secondly, and failing the first plea, a short custodial sentence in this case would be a very severe punishment to the appellant, and in connection with this second plea, he relies on what is generally known in England the `clang of prison gates` principle, to which I shall revert shortly.

Until the commission of the offences,...