Shapy Khan v PP: Criminal Breach of Trust & Securities Industry Act Violation

In Shapy Khan s/o Sher Khan v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Shapy Khan against his conviction by the district court for offences under s 102(b) of the Securities Industry Act and s 409 of the Penal Code. The charges involved unauthorized trading in a client's account and misappropriating funds from another client's account to cover losses. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Shapy Khan was convicted of criminal breach of trust and violating the Securities Industry Act for unauthorized trading and misappropriating funds. The High Court dismissed his appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyJudgment UpheldWon
Kan Shuk Weng of Deputy Public Prosecutor
Shapy Khan s/o Sher KhanAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Yeo Woei KuenOtherIndividual
Mok Weng SunOtherIndividual

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kan Shuk WengDeputy Public Prosecutor
Foo Cheow MingSant Singh Partnership
Sant SinghSant Singh Partnership

4. Facts

  1. The appellant, a dealer, was charged with unauthorized trading in Yeo's account.
  2. The appellant deposited Mok's $40,000 cheque into Yeo's account instead of Mok's.
  3. The $40,000 was used to cover losses from unauthorized trades in Yeo's account.
  4. Yeo did not authorize the trades in Tekala, Ulbon, and SP Setia shares.
  5. Mok realized his cheque was not credited to his account only after a significant time lag.
  6. The appellant had three other accounts with substantial losses nearing their trading limits.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Shapy Khan s/o Sher Khan v Public Prosecutor, MA 293/2002, [2003] SGHC 116

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mok issued a DBS cheque for $40,000 as partial payment towards losses.
Appellant deposited Mok's cheque into Yeo's trading account.
The sum of $40,000 was credited into Yeo’s trading account.
The company issued a cheque for the sum of $8,800.33 which was credited directly into Yeo’s United Overseas Bank (UOB) account.
Date between which the first charge occurred.
Yeo issued a UOB cheque for $5,088.06 to pay the company to cover the contra losses arising from the purchase and sale of the SP Setia shares.
Mok realised that his cheque of $40,000 had not been credited into his account.
Case heard in District Court.
District judge Hoo Sheau Peng convicted the appellant.
Appellant appealed against conviction and sentence.
High Court dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Criminal Breach of Trust
    • Outcome: The court upheld the conviction, finding that the appellant deliberately deposited Mok's cheque into Yeo's account, constituting criminal breach of trust.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Dishonest misappropriation of funds
      • Abuse of position of trust
  2. Violation of Securities Industry Act
    • Outcome: The court upheld the conviction, finding that the appellant engaged in unauthorized trading in Yeo's account, which operated as a fraud upon the company.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unauthorized trading
      • Deception in securities transactions
    • Related Cases:
      • [2002] 1 SLR 147

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Criminal Breach of Trust
  • Violation of Securities Industry Act

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Securities Litigation

11. Industries

  • Financial Services
  • Securities Trading

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Teo Kian Leong v PPHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR 147SingaporeCited to support the argument that a dealer stands to gain from unauthorized trading, even if direct profit is not immediately apparent.
Ng Kwee Leong v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 942SingaporeCited to support the principle that human fallibility in observation, retention, and recollection should be considered when weighing testimony, especially after a lapse of time.
Chean Siong Guat v PPUnknownYes[1969] 2 MLJ 63MalaysiaCited in Ng Kwee Leong v PP [1998] 3 SLR 942 to support the principle that human fallibility in observation, retention, and recollection should be considered when weighing testimony, especially after a lapse of time.
Lee Kwang Peng v PPHigh CourtNo[1997] 3 SLR 278SingaporeCited regarding the prosecution's burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no real risk of collusion when the defendant alleges the complainant told a deliberate untruth.
Kiew Foo Mui v PPUnknownNo[1995] 3 MLJ 505MalaysiaCited to support the argument that an incorrect finding of fact was prejudicial to the appellant.
Loh Shak Mow v PPHigh CourtNo[1986] SLR 358SingaporeCited to support the argument that an incorrect finding of fact was prejudicial to the appellant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 409Singapore
Securities Industry Act (Cap 289, 1985 Ed) s 102(b)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Unauthorized trading
  • Criminal breach of trust
  • Securities Industry Act
  • Dealer's representative
  • Contra losses
  • Trading account
  • Misappropriation
  • Deception

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal breach of trust
  • Securities Industry Act
  • Unauthorized trading
  • Misappropriation
  • Singapore High Court
  • Appeal
  • Financial crime

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Breach of Trust90
Securities Law80
Criminal Law75
White Collar Crime60
Company Law25
Banking and Finance20
Contract Law15

16. Subjects

  • Securities Fraud
  • Financial Crime
  • Agency Law