Loo Weng Fatt v Public Prosecutor: Abetment by Conspiracy & Penal Code s 34 Complicity
In Loo Weng Fatt v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the conviction and sentence of Loo Weng Fatt, who was initially charged with cheating under section 420 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. The charge stemmed from a fraudulent scheme involving Wong Seng Toong, a project officer at the Ministry of the Environment, and a 20th progress payment made to Eng Tat Engineering Pte Ltd, where Loo Weng Fatt was a director. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, substituting the conviction under section 34 with a conviction for abetment by conspiracy under section 107(b) of the Penal Code, while dismissing the appeal against the sentence and the prosecution's cross-appeal for enhancement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Loo Weng Fatt was convicted of cheating under s 420 read with s 34 of the Penal Code. The High Court revised the conviction to abetment by conspiracy.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Appellant | Government Agency | Cross-appeal dismissed | Lost | Jill Tan of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Loo Weng Fatt | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Conviction altered | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jill Tan | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Wee Pan Lee | Wee Tay & Lim |
4. Facts
- The Ministry of the Environment was carrying out a project involving the replacement of sewerage pipes.
- The Ministry awarded the main contract to Eng Tat Engineering Pte Ltd.
- The appellant was a director of Eng Tat.
- The Ministry made periodic progress payments to Eng Tat.
- A 20th progress payment of $220,000 was made to Eng Tat after the project was completed.
- The prosecution's case was that the 20th progress payment was made as a result of a fraudulent scheme.
- The appellant paid Wong $100,000 after the $220,000 was credited to Eng Tat's account.
5. Formal Citations
- Loo Weng Fatt v Public Prosecutor, MA 9/2001, [2001] SGHC 188
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Project completed | |
| 19th progress payment made | |
| Wong arranged to meet the appellant at Aljunied Road | |
| Appellant charged with cheating | |
| Ministry made a 20th progress payment | |
| Appellant met Wong on two occasions near Bedok MRT station | |
| Appellant prepared a draft final bill of quantities | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Complicity
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant did not participate in the criminal act as required under s 34.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1972-1974] SLR 73
- [1972-1974] SLR 213
- [1999] 4 SLR 688
- [1998] 3 SLR 736
- Abetment by Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant was guilty of abetment by conspiracy.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1971] Cr LJ 793
- Substitution of Conviction
- Outcome: The court exercised its revisionary powers to substitute the conviction.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 1 SLR 401
- [2000] 1 SLR 205
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Cheating
- Abetment
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Conspiracy
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Mimi v PP | High Court | Yes | [1972-1974] SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that accomplices can be held liable even if they did not harbor the specific intention to do the criminal act. |
| PP v Neoh Bean Chye | High Court | Yes | [1972-1974] SLR 213 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that accomplices can be held liable even if they did not harbor the specific intention to do the criminal act. |
| Ong Chee Hoe v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 688 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the criminal act must have been in furtherance of the common intention. |
| PP v Gerardine Andrew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 736 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Section 34 demands a closer association with the actual commission of the offence, as compared to abetment where the person is punished for aiding or abetting the principal. |
| Edmund Nathan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 782 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the case where the appellant solicitor clearly participated in the criminal act. |
| Er Joo Nguang v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 645 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deduced from certain acts of the accused parties. |
| Garmaz s/o Pakhar v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 401 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the scope of such power allows the court in appropriate cases, where it finds that the accused did not commit the offence with which he was charged but had committed an offence on which no charge has been preferred against him to alter the finding below and in consequence to substitute a conviction of the latter offence for that under appeal. |
| Jimina Jacee d/o CD Athananasius v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that prejudice will generally not arise if substitution of the conviction under one offence for a conviction under another will not affect the substance of the evidence given in the proceedings below. |
| Varatharajalu v PP | High Court | Yes | [1960] MLJ 158 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the act of abetment by aiding must thus be performed before or at the time of commission of the offence, and not after. |
| NMMY Momin | Supreme Court of India | Yes | [1971] Cr LJ 793 | India | Cited for the principle that criminal conspiracy postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 107 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 420 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 34 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 109 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 256 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Abetment by conspiracy
- Common intention
- Progress payment
- Fraudulent scheme
- Criminal act
- Participation
- Revisionary powers
15.2 Keywords
- abetment
- conspiracy
- cheating
- criminal law
- criminal procedure
- fraud
- Singapore
- Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Cheating | 95 |
| Criminal conspiracy | 92 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Abetment
- Conspiracy
- Cheating