Zhao Zhipeng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong CJ
• Judgment Date: 06 August 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGHC 125
• Citation: [2008] SGHC 125
• Defendant Counsel: Christopher Ong (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Published date: 12 August 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: Raymond Lye and Cheryl-Ann Yeo (Pacific Law Corporation)
• Date: 06 August 2008
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 34 of 2008
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Corruption or match-fixing offences,Committing offence out of fear not personal greed,Sentencing,Professional footballer approached by manager having effective control of employment,Mitigation,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Factors to consider in sentencing,Internationalisation of S.League

6 August 2008

Chan Sek Keong CJ:

Introduction

1 The appellant, a professional footballer who played for the Liaoning Guangyuan Football Club (“LGFC”) in the S.League, Singapore’s professional football league, was charged with the following charges under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) (“PCA”) for what is colloquially called “match-fixing” of a number of football games:

1^st charge

Zhao Zhipeng
…

are charged that you, on or about a day in the month of October 2007, at Block 157B, Tamarind Road, Serenity Park, #02-08, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a professional footballer in the employ of [LGFC], did corruptly accept for yourself a gratification of a sum of $2,000/- (Two Thousand Dollars) from one Wang Xin, the Team Manager of [LGFC], as a reward for having done an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, having assisted to lose the match by at least 3 goals during the S‑League football match played between Geylang United Football Club and [LGFC] on 3^rd October 2007, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

2^nd charge

Zhao Zhipeng
…

are charged that you, on a day between 1^st November 2007 and 12^th November 2007, at Block 157B, Tamarind Road, Serenity Park, #02-08, Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a professional footballer in the employ of [LGFC], did corruptly accept for yourself a gratification of a sum of $2,000/- (Two Thousand Dollars) from one Wang Xin, the Team Manager of [LGFC], as a reward for having done an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, having assisted to lose the match by at least 3 goals during the S-League football match played between Gombak United Football Club and [LGFC] on 1^st November 2007, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

3^rd charge:

Zhao Zhipeng
…

are charged that you, on or about 12^th November 2007, in Singapore, being an agent, to wit, a professional footballer in the employ of [LGFC], did corruptly agree to accept for yourself a gratification of an unspecified sum from one Wang Xin, the Team Manager of [LGFC], as an inducement for doing an act in relation to your principal’s affairs, to wit, losing the match by at least 2 goals during the S-League football match played between Albirex Niigata Football Club and [LGFC] on 12^th November 2007, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chapter 241.

2 He pleaded guilty to the second charge and consented to the two other charges (“the TIC charges”) being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. The punishment for each of these charges is a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine not exceeding $100,000 or both.

3 The district judge sentenced the appellant to seven months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay a penalty of $4,000 which represented the sums he had received from Wang Xin. The appeal before me was against the custodial sentence and not against the penalty. The appellant sought either a replacement of the jail term by an appropriate fine or a reduction in the length of the imprisonment.

4 I allowed the appeal and reduced the custodial sentence to five months (with the penalty remaining intact). I now give my reasons.

The facts

Background

5 The appellant is a People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) national. He was a professional footballer in China with the Shanghai Shenghua Football Club. In June 2007, he arrived in Singapore on loan to LGFC, to compete in the S.League 2007 season. The S.League 2007 season, which began in March 2007 and ended in November 2007, was LGFC’s debut season in Singapore.

6 LGFC is a joint venture between Liaoning Football Club and the Guangyuan Real Estate Company (“GREC”), both based in China. It was formed in late 2006 by a PRC national, Liu Jun, the director of GREC. After the formation of LGFC, Liu Jun appointed one Wang Xin, also a PRC national, as the general manager of LGFC. As general manager, Wang Xin had the power to select and sack players, coach and manage the staff of LGFC. The chairman of LGFC is a PRC national named Gu Wei who was the manager of GREC.

7 Sometime in mid-2006, one Steven Lee Thong How (“Steven Lee”), the Chairman of Paya Lebar Punggol Football Club (another club in the S.League), was in China to look for potential women soccer players. While he was there, he met Gu Wei, who expressed an interest in LGFC participating in the S.League 2007 season. Subsequently, Steven Lee assisted Gu Wei in recommending the team to the Football Association of Singapore (“FAS”), which is the governing body of football in Singapore and which had set up the S.League. After several meetings between LGFC and FAS, FAS invited LGFC to participate in the S.League 2007 season.

8 LGFC players and officials came to Singapore sometime in February 2007. Wang Xin had appointed a PRC national, Ding Zhe, as the head coach. Steven Lee was appointed by Gu Wei as the local vice-president of LGFC as he was based in Singapore and it was envisaged that he would oversee the accommodation and welfare of the PRC players. The players and officials, including Wang Xin, were housed in various units in Serenity Park Condominium at Tamarind Road.

9 It should be noted that, under the rules contained in The S.League Football Association of Singapore Official Handbook: Rules of the S.League & Laws of The Game 2007 (Football Association of Singapore, 2007) (“the S.League Rules”), the LGFC players were required to sign an FAS-approved contract, which incorporated the Players’ Code of Conduct and Professional Ethics (“Code of Conduct”), when they joined the S.League (see below at [41]). It was not disputed that they were briefed on the contents of the Code of Conduct, which included a prohibition on soccer betting and bribery in para 5:

No payment or offer of (or attempt to offer) any payment of any kind or form or of whatever nature shall be received by or be made to the Player with the intention to influence the result of any match organised or sanctioned by FAS, and any such communication received shall be reported immediately to, among others, the Club.

In the appellant’s case, Steven Lee had interpreted and explained the Code of Conduct to him.

10 At the end of October 2007, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (“CPIB”) received information that LGFC had not performed up to standard during an S.League match with Geylang United Football Club. This triggered investigations which led to the charges against the appellant.

Facts pertaining to the charges

11 Investigations revealed that Wang Xin had placed soccer bets on S.League matches through a PRC friend in China. This friend had used a PRC website “Huang Guan” to help Wang Xin bet on the matches. In order to ensure that the desired outcomes of the matches were achieved, Wang Xin enlisted the help of his team players. In the course of investigations, he was found to have approached eight players from LGFC to fix the score line for LGFC matches. Wang Xin would approach the players individually before the match and tell them to lose the match by a certain number of goals. If the desired outcome was achieved, Wang Xin would give the players a sum of money as a reward.

12 Wang Xin had approached the appellant on three occasions. The first occasion (forming the subject of the first charge) was prior to a match between Geylang United Football Club and LGFC played on 3 October 2007. It appears that Wang Xin instructed the appellant not to play to the best of his ability such that LGFC would lose the match by at least three goals. It was not denied that the appellant followed Wang Xin’s instructions and a few days later was given a reward of $2,000 by Wang Xin in return.

13 The second occasion (forming the subject of the second charge) took place before a match against Gombak United Football Club played on 1 November 2007, for which the appellant had been selected to play in the first eleven as a centre forward. Before the match, Wang Xin approached the appellant and told him that they needed to lose the match by at least three goals. Although Wang Xin did not then mention how much the appellant would receive as a reward, it was not disputed that the appellant expected a reward similar to the one given on the first occasion. During the match, the appellant did not play to the best of his ability and LGFC lost by a score line of 5-0. A few days later, the appellant was given $2,000 by Wang Xin; it was not disputed that he knew the money was a reward for his contributing to the defeat in the match against Gombak United Football Club.

14 The third occasion (forming the subject of the third charge) was in respect of a match against Albirex Niigata Football Club played on 12 November 2007. Again, the appellant was approached and followed Wang Xin’s instructions (this time to lose the match by at least two goals) by not playing to the best of his ability. The appellant expected to receive a similar sum of $2,000 as a reward. However, payment was not in fact made as the appellant was arrested on 14 November 2007.

15 Wang Xin absconded from the jurisdiction before he could be arrested.

The mitigation plea before the district judge

16 The mitigating factors raised before the district judge were: (a) the young age of the appellant (he was 27 years old); (b) he was an only child; (c) his conviction meant that he would be barred from playing football professionally forever; (d) he had co-operated with the police and pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity; (e) he was a first-time offender; and (f) he did not gain financially from the $2,000 bribe as he was entitled to a $1,200 bonus if LGFC won a match in which he played and a further $1,200 if he played well. In effect, the appellant gave up $2,400 to play well in...