Yuen Chun Yii v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 04 June 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 151
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 311 of 1996
• Date: 04 June 1997
• Year: 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Cheng Yew (Tan Cheng Yew & Partners)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 151
• Defendant Counsel: Amarjit Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Presumption of corruption,Evidence of close relationship between giver and recipient,Corruption,ss 161 & 163 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1990 Ed),Refreshing of memory,Examination,ss 6(a) & 8 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),Public officer,Evidence,Defence entitlement to view statement if so requested,Use of previous inconsistent statement to refresh memory,Whether presumption rebutted,Receipt of gratification,Witnesses,Statutory offences,Criminal Law

The appellant appealed against his conviction in a district court on the following charge:

You, Yuen Chun Yii, NRIC No S6927917A, male/26 years are charged that you, on or about the 2nd day of January 1996, in Singapore, being an agent, to wit, an Industrial Properties Officer in the employ of the Housing & Development Board and attached to the Industrial Properties Department, did corruptly accept a gratification of five thousand dollars for yourself from one Chia Chiow Kuan, the managing partner of Azonic Insurance Agency as a reward for doing acts in relation to your principal`s affairs, to wit, processing the applications for assignments of tenancy at Blk 79A Indus Road of units [num ]06-412, [num ]06-414, [num ]06-416 and [num ]06-418 from the said Chia Chiow Kuan to Lim Eng Teck, TMP Engineering Contract & Services, Gainswell Trading Pte Ltd and Solmac Media Pte Ltd respectively and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).

Upon his conviction, he was sentenced to three months` imprisonment and ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000, as required under s 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (`PCA`). I allowed his appeal for the reasons set out below.

The prosecution`s case

The offence was allegedly committed by the appellant while he was employed with the Housing and Development Board (`HDB`) as an Industrial Properties Officer. The prosecution`s case was that Chia Chiow Kuan (`Chia`) had obtained the assistance of the appellant in processing four applications for assignments of four units of industrial property (`the properties`) to the various assignees named in the charge. In turn, the appellant corruptly accepted a reward of $5,000 as a gratification. The complaint was laid to the CPIB by an anonymous call.

The prosecution`s case hinged on Chia`s evidence. Chia testified that he first met the appellant about four years ago when the latter was still studying at the National University of Singapore (`NUS`). Chia was a part-time insurance agent with Keppel Insurance then. The appellant was introduced to Chia by a mutual friend during a social gathering. Chia later recruited the appellant as a part-time insurance agent. They continued to meet regularly on a social basis. Chia said that the appellant was `like a younger brother` to him.

Chia had taken over the tenancy of the properties from Meditec Electronics Pte Ltd (`Meditec`) in November 1995. He felt that he could make a profit from subsequently reassigning the four units. In respect of one unit ([num ]06-412), he managed to secure a tenant immediately, one Lim Eng Teck (`Lim`). Lim took over this unit directly from Meditec. Thus, there was no prior actual assignment from Meditec to Chia. Instead, Chia was paid $20,000 by Lim for his role as a middleman. In respect of the remaining three units, Chia was unable to find prospective tenants immediately. On 1 December 1995, Chia took over the units from Meditec. He paid the HDB one month advance rental, in addition to one month rental for each unit for December 1995.

Chia elaborated that when he was making inquiries into taking over the properties, he knew that the appellant was working in HDB. He only found out by chance that the appellant was with HDB`s industrial property department when he made a telephone enquiry to that department and was referred to the appellant. Chia enquired about the procedure involved in getting the properties transferred. The appellant told him that he would be processing his application after it had been submitted.

Within some two weeks, Chia managed to find tenants for the remaining three units. He said that he wanted to secure tenants as soon as possible and reassign the units before the end of December 1995 in order to avoid paying rental for January 1996. In any case, the tenants had intended to occupy the units as soon as possible. The applications for processing the reassignment were submitted by 15 December 1995, and Chia told the appellant that the parties intended to have the tenancies commence with effect from 1 January 1996. By the end of December 1995, all four units were assigned to the tenants.

Chia eventually made a profit of some $30,000 to $40,000 from the reassignments. He met the appellant for tea on 2 January 1996 at their usual meeting place, a coffeeshop along Henderson Road near the Delta Sports Complex. He then gave the $5,000 to the appellant. Chia knew that the appellant, having just graduated from the university, was servicing his student loans and had other financial commitments. The appellant had also previously mentioned to Chia that he was using his year-end bonus to settle his credit card bills and overdraft and that he intended to change his car to one which had a lower rate of depreciation.

As he had just made a profit, Chia `felt generous` and gave the appellant the $5,000 even though he did not ask for it. He had gone to the bank to withdraw $15,000, from which he gave $10,000 to his mother and $5,000 to the appellant. His mother knew about his intention to give the appellant the $5,000. Before doing so, Chia had told the appellant that he was relieved to have assigned the properties and made money. He told the appellant that he was grateful for his advice and for being very patient with him. The appellant asked what the money was for and did not want to accept it initially. Chia gave it to him nevertheless. He said that he did not tell the appellant anything about his role in respect of the transfer of the units.

The prosecution then drew Chia`s attention to a statement which he had given to the CPIB on 29 March 1996 (`the CPIB statement`). The CPIB statement was used by the prosecution ostensibly to refresh Chia`s memory. It was not shown to the defence nor was it formally admitted in evidence at that juncture. On being referred to [para ] 25 of the statement, Chia noted that he had said that he was relieved, he had made money and was grateful for the appellant`s advice. He had also said that the sum of $5,000 was for the appellant`s help in the assignment of the tenancies. Chia explained that what he meant was that he had made a profit and he `felt generous to give him the money`. As the appellant was `like a younger brother` to him, it was `just natural for [Chia] to have this affection for him`.

Chia further testified that the appellant had contacted him on 29 March 1996 to arrange a meeting at Marina South. When they met, the appellant looked very distressed. He told Chia that the $5,000 was a loan. Chia said that `it was the same feeling` as he `never felt the sum [he] gave him could result in such a big "hoo-haa"`. Chia told the appellant that the $5,000 was a gift. The appellant said he took it as a loan. To Chia, it was immaterial whether the money was returned. The next morning, the appellant returned Chia the $5,000 by a cheque payment dated 30 March 1996. On its reverse, it was written `being repayment of loan`. Chia did not bank in the cheque. As he was told by the Investigating Officer to hand over anything given to him by the appellant, he duly handed over the cheque to the CPIB.

In cross-examination, Chia reiterated that his relationship with the appellant was very close, and they were `like brothers`. The appellant reminded him very much of himself when he was at the university, having to work to pay for his fees and being `self-supporting`. They would meet together with their circle of mutual friends very often. Owing to work commitments, they met less frequently in recent times, perhaps once every fortnight. They would go to the movies, to pubs, or watch videos or play mahjong. They also went on holidays together to places like Malaysia or Indonesia. The appellant had been to Chia`s house many times and knew Chia`s entire family.

Chia confirmed that there was never any understanding that he would give or lend the appellant any money, nor was there any pressure on him to do so. After Christmas in 1995, he recalled chit-chatting with the appellant, who mentioned changing cars to one with a higher PARF value. The appellant did bring up the matter of a loan as downpayment for the car but as he had put it in a joking manner, Chia did not take it seriously. Apart from that instance, the appellant had never asked for any loan. Chia supported the appellant`s idea of changing cars since it was a form of forced saving.

Chia confirmed that he had given loans to the appellant on many occasions as well as gifts of money. The appellant had always returned the money eventually. If he did not return the money, Chia did not mind. The appellant would repay the money in instalments by both cheque and cash payments. More than 90% of the repayments were made in cash.

It was also put to Chia that when the appellant was an undergraduate at NUS, Chia had given him a sum of $3,875. Chia explained that he gave the appellant the $3,875 voluntarily. He knew the appellant`s family was not well-off and he did not want to bother his family to foot his school fees. Therefore, he gave the appellant the $3,875 with no expectation for him to repay it. The appellant did repay the $3,875 in instalments, although Chia did not keep track of the payments.

It was further put to Chia that he had given the appellant a sum of $4,000 in cash on or about 16 August 1994. Chia explained that the appellant, who had just started working, had bought a car and was short of the downpayment. Thus, he gave him $4,000, which was repaid in a few days. There were also several other sums of money given to the appellant, mostly in cash, and amounting to anything between $100 to $900. He gave the money to the appellant as he treated him as his younger brother. Their relationship was such that they trusted and confided in each other, even about their financial affairs.

Upon the conclusion of Chia`s cross-examination, the prosecution applied to refer Chia to his CPIB statement and in...