Wong Teck Long v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 13 July 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 123
• Date: 13 July 2005
• Subject Matter: Whether significance of documentary evidence tendered by prosecution and defence wrongly assessed,Whether reference to seven credit applications in charge amounting to error in charge,Section 6(a) Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed),Charge,Whether evidence of prosecution witnesses wrongly accepted or preferred over that of defence witnesses,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Appellant sentenced to four months' imprisonment and penalty of $150,000, in default, 15 weeks' imprisonment for offence under s 6(a) Prevention of Corruption Act,Sentencing,Whether sentence and default sentence manifestly inadequate in light of aggravating factors and public interest considerations,Appeals,Weight of evidence,Evidence,Form of charge
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 24 of 2005
• Published date: 13 July 2005
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Kiat Pheng and Derek Kang Yu Hien (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wee Pan Lee (Wee, Tay and Lim)

13 July 2005

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 The appellant, Wong Teck Long, faced one charge under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (“PCA”). The charge read:

You, Wong Teck Long, are charged that you, on a day in 1997, did corruptly obtain for yourself from one Kong Kok Keong, an Executive Director of Innosabah Securities Sdn Bhd, Sabah, Malaysia, a gratification of a sum of RM300,000 to RM400,000 (Ringgit Malaysian Three Hundred Thousand to Ringgit Malaysian Four Hundred Thousand), as a reward for doing an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, recommending the grant of RM14.5 million in Revolving Short-Term Multi-Currency Loans each to the said Kong Kok Keong and the persons referred by him, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

At the trial below, the appellant was convicted of the charge, and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. A penalty of $150,000, in default, 15 weeks’ imprisonment, was also imposed on him under s 13(1) of the PCA. The appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence, but the appeal against sentence was effectively abandoned during the appeal. The Public Prosecutor cross-appealed against the sentence. Having dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, I now set out my reasons.

The relevant facts

2 At the material time in 1997, the appellant was working concurrently as an assistant vice-president and a manager of private banking with the Singapore branch of Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale, a bank incorporated in Munich, Germany (“the bank”). The Prosecution and the Defence offered different versions of events.

The Prosecution’s version of events

3 The Prosecution’s version of events was largely premised upon the evidence of Kong Kok Keong (“Kong”), the giver of the gratification. Kong testified that he needed RM100m in credit to buy some “hot” shares from one Datuk Joseph Ambrose Lee (“DW3”), with the option of selling the shares back to DW3 at a higher fixed sum or at the prevailing market rate, whichever was higher. DW3 was to help Kong obtain financing to buy the shares.

4 Subsequently, DW3 met up with the appellant, together with Kong, at a hotel lobby in Singapore, during which the subject of arranging for a quick RM100m loan from the bank was broached. Kong learnt from the appellant that the credit limit that could be approved locally for an individual account was only about RM14.5m. A single loan of RM100m would have to be approved by the bank’s head office in Germany and this would take time. When asked how this could be overcome, the appellant suggested opening more accounts, each to be operated by Kong as an authorised third party, so that he would have effective control of the combined sum in credit. The account-holders, however, had to be high-net-worth individuals.

5 To this end, Kong referred six persons closely associated with him to be account-holders and together, they applied to open seven accounts, each applying for RM14.5m in credit facilities. The letters of authority and the third-party specimen signature cards (“the third party instruments”) in relation to the six accounts were also completed together with the account opening forms to authorise Kong to operate the accounts. The six persons, however, were not high-net-worth individuals.

6 The appellant colluded with Kong in submitting false information to the bank’s management on the estimated net worth of these six persons. The appellant told Kong that he could submit any figures of personal net worth. At first, Kong submitted estimated net-worth figures that the appellant thought were too modest. Kong then re-submitted fictitious figures that the appellant had suggested would be appropriate for the purposes of the approval of the credit facilities. Without obtaining supporting documents to prove the applicants’ estimated net-worth, the appellant then recommended the grant of the credit facilities to Kong and the six persons referred by him. Subsequently, the bank approved the credit facilities and issued the loans within a week.

7 Previously, the appellant had also told Kong that it would take a lot of hard work to arrange for the loans within such a short period of time, to which Kong responded by assuring him that there would be due rewards. After the bank granted the credit facilities, Kong told the appellant that he had prepared his reward, which was a sum between RM300,000 and RM400,000. To prevent establishing any direct link with Kong, the appellant asked Tay Siew Choo (“PW3”), his elder sister-in-law, to open an Innosabah trading account (“Innosabah account”). He then arranged for Kong to pay the RM300,000 to RM400,000 for a certain quantum of a particular share counter (“YCS shares”) through the Innosabah account.

The Defence’s version of events

8 The Defence essentially led evidence to discredit Kong’s version of events. To explain the trading of YCS shares through PW3’s Innosabah account, the Defence also led evidence to show that Wong Teck Chong (“DW4”), the appellant’s elder brother, had traded in the shares through his wife’s (PW3’s) Innosabah account, and that he had personally arranged for the payment of those shares.

9 The Defence also denied that the appellant knew of the arrangement between Kong and the six other account-holders. According to the appellant, the third-party instruments in relation to the six accounts were never completed at the point of submission of the account opening forms. The Defence further relied on a transcript of a taped conversation between the appellant and Kong, wherein Kong asked for the appellant’s help to write a letter stating that the other account holders were actually his nominees. The appellant responded by saying that he did not want to get involved and further, that he did not derive any benefit. The Defence submitted that Kong did not refute the appellant’s statement and also never insisted that the appellant was aware that the persons he had introduced were actually his nominees during the taped conversation.

The decision below

10 After closely examining the evidence before him and carefully assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the trial judge chose to believe Kong’s version of events. He was satisfied that the Prosecution had proved all the elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he found the appellant guilty of the charge and duly convicted him (PP v Wong Teck Long [2005] SGDC 44).

The appeal

11 Counsel for the appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence. Before me, counsel effectively abandoned the appeal against sentence. Instead, he urged me not to disturb the sentence and penalty that the trial judge had imposed. The appeal against conviction was based on several grounds, none of which justified overturning the conviction. I deal with each in turn.

Error in the charge

12 Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was an error in the charge, which ought to have been amended before the trial judge convicted the appellant. According to counsel, the charge against the appellant was for doing a favour for Kong, viz, recommending the grant of loans of RM14.5m each to Kong and the six persons referred by him. Counsel argued that the appellant’s act against his principal’s affairs was not in recommending Kong’s application, but the applications of the six persons referred by Kong. This was because Kong, unlike the six other account-holders, was a person of high net worth, and he would have qualified for the opening of the account and the revolving credit facilities granted under the account. Counsel therefore submitted that the charge ought to have been amended, to make it clear that the appellant was convicted for corruptly obtaining gratification for doing Kong a favour in connection with six, not seven, applications for credit facilities.

13 In my view, however, the circumstances that surrounded the charge had to be viewed in its entirety and taken as a whole. It was artificial to divorce Kong’s application from the other six applications. The six applications, together with Kong’s own application, was to enable Kong to effectively have access to a RM101.5m loan amount within a short span of one week, which he would not have otherwise got through a single individual account. Such an enormous loan amount granted under a single account could only be approved by the bank’s head office in Germany, and would arguably take time. I was therefore not satisfied that the charge was erroneous as counsel had alleged.

14 In any event, even if there was an error in the charge, counsel conceded before me that his client had suffered no harm in that he was not misled by the error. That being so, it was not a material error: see s 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed). In the circumstances, it was unnecessary to amend the charge.

Evidence of Kong

15 Counsel also took issue with the fact that the trial judge had accepted Kong’s evidence in full. Even if Kong, being the giver of the gratification, would be regarded as an accomplice, the combined effect of s 135 and illus (b) to s 116 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) is that the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice can be...