Ow Yew Beng v Public Prosecutor: Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Property
Ow Yew Beng appealed against his conviction and sentence in the High Court of Singapore for dishonestly retaining stolen property, specifically cheques, under s 411 of the Penal Code. The prosecution argued that Ow Yew Beng had reason to believe the cheques were stolen from Welgoal Singapore Pte Ltd, where his wife worked. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed the appeal, finding that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ow Yew Beng was convicted of dishonestly retaining stolen cheques. The High Court dismissed his appeal, finding he had reason to believe the cheques were stolen.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ow Yew Beng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Irving Choh Thian Chee |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment upheld | Won | David Chew Siong Tai |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Irving Choh Thian Chee | CTLC Law Corporation |
| David Chew Siong Tai | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- The appellant's wife, DW 2, worked as an Assistant Sales Manager at Welgoal.
- Welgoal's director pre-signed blank cheques and entrusted them to DW 2.
- DW 2 used these cheques to issue cash cheques and cheques payable to herself and the appellant.
- The appellant cashed 40 such cheques over a 16-month period.
- The cheques cashed by the appellant were worth around $270,000.
- The appellant had no business dealings with Welgoal that would justify such payments.
- DW 2 was spending extravagantly during that period.
5. Formal Citations
- Ow Yew Beng v Public Prosecutor, MA No 30 of 2002, [2002] SGHC 301
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Cheques cashed from June 1998 | |
| Cheques cashed until October 1999 | |
| Appellant convicted on first 40 charges | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Dishonestly receiving stolen property
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant had reason to believe that the cheques were stolen and was therefore dishonest.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1980-1981] SLR 73
- [1993] 3 SLR 427
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Receiving stolen property
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haw Tua Tau v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1980-1981] SLR 73 | Singapore | Established the proposition that at the end of the prosecution’s case, the court assumes that all evidence of primary facts is true unless it is inherently incredible and that there will be nothing to displace inferences as to further facts or the state of mind of the accused which can reasonably be drawn from the primary facts in the absence of any further explanation. |
| Koh Hak Boon & Ors v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 427 | Singapore | Defined ‘Reason to believe’ as involving a lesser degree of conviction than certainty but a higher one than speculation. The test is whether a reasonable person, in the position of the appellant would have thought it probable that the property he retains is stolen property. |
| Maideen Pillay v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 161 | Singapore | The key consideration here was the application of the ‘totality principle’, i.e. whether the overall punishment meted out for the multiple charges was proportional to the overall gravity of his conduct, taking into account the circumstances in which he committed the offence and his previous records |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 24 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 408 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Stolen property
- Dishonestly
- Reason to believe
- Pre-signed cheques
15.2 Keywords
- stolen property
- dishonesty
- penal code
- criminal law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Receiving Stolen Property
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Property Law