Teo Kian Leong v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Securities Industry Act Violations
Teo Kian Leong appealed against the High Court's decision to order his six-month imprisonment sentence for Securities Industry Act violations to commence after the expiration of his existing 12-month sentence. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's decision. The court found that a cumulative sentence of 18 months was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offences, considering the aggravating factors of the case.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed; the trial judge's decision was affirmed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against the trial judge’s decision to order a subsequent term of imprisonment to commence after the expiration of the appellant’s existing term.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teo Kian Leong | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Lim Tse Haw |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Decision Affirmed | Won | Ivan Chua Boon Chwee |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Tse Haw | Harry Elias Partnership |
| Ivan Chua Boon Chwee | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- Teo Kian Leong faced 11 charges under s 102(b) of the Securities Industry Act for securities fraud.
- He was convicted on eight charges and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.
- The prosecution agreed to proceed on only one of the three remaining charges.
- Teo Kian Leong pleaded guilty to the remaining charge.
- He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment to commence after the existing 12-month sentence.
- The total amount of loss for all 11 charges was approximately $500,000.
- Teo Kian Leong abused the trust reposed in him by 11 different individuals.
5. Formal Citations
- Teo Kian Leong v Public Prosecutor, MA 319/2001, [2002] SGHC 43
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Prosecution proceeded on eight of eleven charges against Teo Kian Leong under s 102(b) of the Securities Industry Act. | |
| Teo Kian Leong pleaded guilty to one charge and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. | |
| Appeal dismissed and the decision of the trial judge affirmed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that the total sentence of 18 months was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Commencement of sentencing
- Disproportionate sentencing
- Related Cases:
- [1989] 2MLJ 404
- [1992] 1 SLR 81
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of s 102(b) of the Securities Industry Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Securities Regulation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teo Kian Leong v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 147 | Singapore | The appellant’s conviction and sentence relating to the eight charges was subsequently affirmed by this court when brought up on appeal before me. |
| Peter Tham Wing Fai v PP | N/A | Yes | [1989] 2MLJ 404 | N/A | Held that the sentencing discretion should be exercised judiciously. |
| R v Ames, R v Carey | N/A | No | [1938] 1 ALL ER 515 | N/A | Distinguished on the ground that the subsequent charge in that case was similar to the earlier charge which was not so in the case before him. |
| Kanagasuntharam v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 81 | Singapore | Adopted the one transaction rule and the totality principle. |
| Mohd Akhar Hussain v Assistant Collector of Customs | N/A | Yes | A.I.R 1988 S.C 2143 | N/A | Sentencing judge should have regard to whether the subsequent offence arose in the same transaction as the earlier offence(s), and also to the totality of the sentence to be served. |
| Millen | N/A | Yes | (1980) 2 Cr App R (S) 357 | N/A | If all the offences had been before him, would he still have passed a sentence of similar length? |
| Watts | N/A | Yes | (2000) 1 Cr App R (S) 460 | N/A | If all the offences had been before him, would he still have passed a sentence of similar length? |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 234(1) | Singapore |
| Securities Industry Act (Cap 289) s 102(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Securities Industry Act
- Sentencing
- Consecutive sentence
- Concurrent sentence
- Totality principle
- One transaction rule
- Sentencing discretion
15.2 Keywords
- securities fraud
- sentencing appeal
- criminal procedure
- securities industry act
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Securities Law
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Securities Law