Fong Ser Joo William v PP: Corruption, Police Officer, Accepting Gratification
Fong Ser Joo William, a Probationary Inspector of Police, was convicted in the District Court on two charges under Section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for corruptly accepting gratification to inquire into police investigations. The High Court, with Yong Pung How CJ presiding, dismissed Fong's appeal against both conviction and sentence, finding that he had accepted money as an inducement to show favour, with an objectively corrupt element and guilty knowledge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Fong Ser Joo William, a police officer, was convicted of corruption for accepting money to inquire into police investigations. The High Court dismissed his appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Kan Shuk Weng of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Fong Ser Joo William | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kan Shuk Weng | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Vinit Chhabra | Edmond Pereira & Partners |
| Edmond Pereira | Edmond Pereira & Partners |
4. Facts
- Appellant, a police officer, received money from Chua Tiong Tiong.
- The payments were delivered to the appellant's letterbox.
- Appellant made inquiries into police investigations in which Chua was interested.
- Appellant was friends with Chua, who was involved in money-lending activities.
- Appellant initially denied receiving money and making inquiries.
- Appellant claimed the money was from World Cup bets.
5. Formal Citations
- Fong Ser Joo William v Public Prosecutor, MA 20/2000, [2000] SGHC 179
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant accepted gratification from Chua Tiong Tiong | |
| Appellant accepted gratification from Chua Tiong Tiong | |
| Raid carried out at a flat in Geylang East Avenue 3 | |
| High Court dismissed the appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Corruption
- Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of corruption under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Acceptance of gratification
- Inducement to show favour
- Objectively corrupt element
- Guilty knowledge
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR 592
- [2000] 3 SLR 791
- [1957] 1 WLR 165
- [1989] SLR 696
- [1989] 3 MLJ 272
- [1978] 68 Cr App Rep 154
- [1997] 2 SLR 426
- [1979] 2 MLJ 58
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Corruption
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Government
- Law Enforcement
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | Cited for the four elements required to establish charges under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. |
| Hassan bin Ahmad v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 791 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that it is not necessary to prove a nexus between each receipt and a particular act, but only that the payments were not made innocently. |
| R v Carr | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1957] 1 WLR 165 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that one can be guilty of taking a bribe even if it is not proved that he has shown favour. |
| Krishna Jayaram v PP | High Court | Yes | [1989] SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that one can be guilty of taking a bribe even if it is not proved that he has shown favour. |
| Krishna Jayaram v PP | High Court | Yes | [1989] 3 MLJ 272 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that one can be guilty of taking a bribe even if it is not proved that he has shown favour. |
| R v Mills | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1978] 68 Cr App Rep 154 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that one can be guilty of taking a bribe even if it is not proved that he has shown favour. |
| Chan Wing Seng v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 426 | Singapore | Cited for the objective inquiry to ascertain the appellant’s intention in the light of the factual matrix. |
| Mohamed Ali bin Mohamed Iqbal v PP | High Court | Yes | [1979] 2 MLJ 58 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether a payment is corruptly obtained and accepted is a question of fact to be determined by the court in the light of the circumstances of each case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6(a) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act s 9(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gratification
- Inducement
- Favour
- Corruption
- Police officer
- Guilty knowledge
- Objectively corrupt
- Money-lending
15.2 Keywords
- Corruption
- Police
- Gratification
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act | 95 |
| Offences | 60 |
| Criminal Law | 50 |
| Gratification | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Abuse of Power