Teo Chu Ha v PP

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Vincent Hoong J
• Judgment Date: 09 May 2023
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeals Nos 9011 and 9012 of 2021/01, Magistrate's Appeals Nos 9011 and 9012 of 2021/02 and Criminal Motion No 3 of 2023
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Teo Chu Ha (alias Henry Teo)

and

Public Prosecutor and other appeals

[2023] SGHC 130

Vincent Hoong J

Magistrate's Appeals Nos 9011 and 9012 of 2021/01, Magistrate's Appeals Nos 9011 and 9012 of 2021/02 and Criminal Motion No 3 of 2023

General Division of the High Court

Criminal Law — Complicity — Criminal conspiracy — Offender charged for conspiring to launder benefits of their own criminal conduct — Whether s 44(1) Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) could be read with s 109 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) to encompass persons who laundered benefits of their own criminal conduct — Section 44(1) Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) — Section 109 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Mutual legal assistance — Seal affixed to bundle containing multiple statements — Whether s 42 of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed) allowed for collective authentication of documents — Section 42 Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Appeals — Offence under s 5(a)(i) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) — Whether framework in Goh Ngak Eng v PP[2022] SGHC 254 applied to offences under s 5 Prevention of Corruption Act — Sections 5 and 5(a)(i) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Appeals — Offence under s 44(1)(a) Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) — Whether sentence was manifestly excessive — Section 44(1)(a) punishable under s 44(5)(a) Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act — Sections 44(1)(a) and 44(5)(a) Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed)

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Penalties — Penalty order imposed under s 13 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) — Whether penalty order under s 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act could be enforced by way of attachment order — Section 13 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)

Evidence — Admissibility of evidence — Hearsay — Notice of evidence given under s 32(1) of Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) served on same day evidence was sought to be admitted — Whether s 32(4) of Evidence Act prescribed minimum period of notice — Sections 32(1) and 32(4) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed))

Statutory Interpretation — Construction of statute — Purposive approach — Offender charged for conspiring to launder benefits of their own criminal conduct — Whether s 44(1) Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) encompassed persons who laundered benefits of their own criminal conduct — Section 44(1) Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed)

Held, dismissing the appellants' appeal against their convictions and sentences, and partially allowing the Prosecution's appeal against sentence:

(1) The DJ had jurisdiction to try Henry and Judy on the PCA Charges and the CDSA Charge. There was no evidence that Henry and Judy conceived the conspiracy subject of the PCA Charges entirely outside Singapore. Further, there was no basis for interpreting s 37(1) of the PCA as a provision constrained by ss 108A and 108B of the Penal Code such that either the act of abetment or the predicate offence had to occur in Singapore: at [48] to [50].

(2) Section 44(1) of the CDSA only applied to secondary offenders (persons who did not commit the offence from which the proceeds were originally derived but laundered the proceeds of another person's crime) and not primary offenders (person who laundered the benefits of their own criminal conduct). This was consistent with the text of provision, the purpose of the CDSA, and the inclusion of having reasonable grounds to believe as sufficing for the mens rea of the offence: at [64] to [69].

(3) Notwithstanding that s 44(1) of the CDSA only applied to secondary offenders, a primary offender and secondary offender who had conspired to enter into an arrangement to facilitate the secondary offender's control of the benefits of the primary offender's criminal conduct could both be charged under s 44(1)(a) of the CDSA read with s 109 of the Penal Code: at [77] and [78].

(4) Authentication under s 42 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed) (“MACMA”) could encompass a situation where a foreign official collectively authenticated a number of documents, such as where a seal was affixed to a bundle containing multiple statements: at [86].

(5) Section 32(4) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) (“EA”) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Notice Requirements to Admit Hearsay Evidence) Regulations 2012 did not prescribe a minimum period of notice, but merely required that notice be provided before evidence was given, contain certain information and be presented in a certain form. Any allegation that notice was served shortly before evidence was given should be assessed under the court's discretionary jurisdiction to exclude hearsay evidence under s 32(3) of the EA: at [89].

(6) The sentencing framework for offences under s 6 of the PCA outlined in Goh Ngak Eng v Public Prosecutor[2022] SGHC 254 (“Goh Ngak Eng”) should not be extended wholesale to offences under s 5 of the PCA. As explained in Goh Ngak Eng, classification of the severity of offending conduct for offences under s 5 of the PCA was “unworkable” under a framework shared with s 6 of the PCA because there would be many offence-specific factors that did not apply to the former: at [151] and [152].

(7) The present case was a situation where a case brought under s 5 of the PCA could have been brought under s 6 of the PCA. It involved Henry, an agent, subordinating his loyalty to his principal in furtherance of his (and Judy's) interests, and would have otherwise been a typical case under s 6 but for the recipient of the payment being Judy rather than Henry. Drawing from Song Meng Choon Andrew v Public Prosecutor[2015] 4 SLR 1090 and Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals[2019] 5 SLR 926, the following approach applied to cases where there was such an overlap: First, the court would consider the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors that were present on the facts of the case, including both offence-specific and offender-specific factors. Second, the court will consider the relevant sentencing precedents, having regard to the nature and factual circumstances of the offence. Post-Goh Ngak Eng, this would involve applying the Goh Ngak Eng framework to the facts of the case, in addition to looking at relevant s 5 and post-Goh Ngak Eng s 6 cases. Third, in calibrating the eventual sentence, the court should consider the relative weight to be given to the relevant precedents and the notional sentence under the Goh Ngak Eng framework. This assessment should take into account both the helpfulness of the available precedents and the limitations of the Goh Ngak Eng framework, such as whether there were offence-specific factors that were not captured within the framework: at [154] and [157].

(8) There were no helpful precedents under s 5 of the PCA and most of the offence-specific sentencing considerations happened to be captured under the Goh Ngak Eng framework. No modification to the notional sentence yielded by application of the Goh Ngak Eng framework was thus necessary: at [190].

(9) Judy had handed over a cashier's order to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau for the sum of the Penalty soon after the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal. In the circumstances, no further order for attachment to enforce the Penalty was necessary: at [199].

Case(s) referred to

Abdul Aziz bin Mohamed Hanib v PP [2022] SGHC 101 (folld)

Ang Jeanette v PP [2011] 4 SLR 1 (refd)

BSD v AG [2019] SGHC 118 (refd)

Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619; [1999] 1 SLR 25 (refd)

Chan Kum Hong Randy v PP [2008] 2 SLR(R) 1019; [2008] 2 SLR 1019 (refd)

Esben Finance Ltd v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil [2021] 3 SLR 82 (refd)

Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd [2015] 2 SLR 686 (refd)

Goh Ngak Eng v PP [2022] SGHC 254 (distd)

Huang Ying-Chun v PP [2019] 3 SLR 606 (folld)

La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v Zhang Lan [2022] SGHC 89 (refd)

Logachev Vladislav v PP [2018] 4 SLR 609 (refd)

Pram Nair v PP [2017] 2 SLR 1015 (refd)

PP v Ang Seng Thor [2011] 4 SLR 217 (refd)

PP v Boon Kiah Kin [1993] 2 SLR(R) 26; [1993] 3 SLR 639 (refd)

PP v BZT [2022] SGHC 91 (refd)

PP v Choi Guo Hong Edward [2007] 1 SLR(R) 712; [2007] 1 SLR 712 (refd)

PP v Lee Seng Kee [2018] SGDC 230 (refd)

PP v Lu Sang [2017] SGDC 199 (refd)

PP v Marzuki bin Ahmad [2014] 4 SLR 623 (refd)

PP v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] 5 SLR 799 (refd)

PP v Syed Mostofa Romel [2015] 3 SLR 1166 (refd)

PP v Tan Kok Ming Michael [2019] 5 SLR 926 (refd)

PP v Taw Cheng Kong [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489; [1998] 2 SLR 410 (refd)

PP v Teo Chu Ha @ Henry Teo [2021] SGDC 196 (refd)

PP v Toh Hong Huat [2016] SGDC 198 (refd)

PP v UI [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500; [2008] 4 SLR 500 (refd)

PP v Wong Chee Meng [2020] 5 SLR 807 (refd)

R v Anwoir [2009] 1 WLR 980 (distd)

R v W(N) [2009] 1 WLR 965 (distd)

Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786 (refd)

Song Meng Choon Andrew v PP [2015] 4 SLR 1090 (refd)

Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] 2 SLR 850 (folld)

Tan Seng Kee v AG [2022] 1 SLR 1347 (refd)

Tey Tsun Hang v PP [2014] 2 SLR 1189 (refd)

Toh Eng Tiah v Jiang Angelina [2021] 1 SLR 1176 (refd)

Viswanathan Ramachandran v PP [2003] 3 SLR(R) 435; [2003] 3 SLR 435 (refd)

WBL Corp Ltd v Lew Chee Fai Kevin [2012] 2 SLR 978 (refd)

...