Tan Puay Boon v Public Prosecutor: Falsification of Accounts under Penal Code s 477A
In Tan Puay Boon v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Tan Puay Boon against her conviction and sentence in the District Court on eight charges under section 477A of the Penal Code for falsification of accounts while working at A-P Engineering Pte Ltd. The High Court, led by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of 36 months' imprisonment.
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
Tan Puay Boon was convicted of falsifying accounts under s 477A of the Penal Code. The High Court dismissed her appeal against conviction and sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Tan Wen Hsien of Deputy Public Prosecutors David Chew Siong Tai of Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Tan Puay Boon | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Wen Hsien | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| David Chew Siong Tai | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Vinit Chhabra | C H Chan & Chhabra |
| M Ravi | M Ravi & Co |
4. Facts
- The appellant was an officer of A-P Engineering Pte Ltd (APE).
- The appellant made false entries on salary rolls and payment vouchers.
- The false entries included fictitious names and inflated salaries.
- The appellant claimed she acted under the instructions of Hsu Tien Fou.
- Hsu Tien Fou denied authorizing the false entries.
- The trial judge found the appellant's gross salary was $1,500, not $3,200 as claimed.
- The appellant initiated a change of auditors after discrepancies were queried.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Puay Boon v Public Prosecutor, MA 306/2002, Cr M 13/2003, [2003] SGHC 186
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| A-P Engineering Pte Ltd (APE) was set up. | |
| A-P Precision Plastics Ptd Ltd (APP) was set up. | |
| False entries made on salary roll (Charge A and Charge B). | |
| False entries made on salary roll (Charge C and Charge D). | |
| False entry made on payment voucher (Charge E). | |
| Appellant promoted to Finance and Administration Executive in APE and appointed a director of APP. | |
| False entry made on payment voucher (Charge F). | |
| False entry made on payment voucher (Charge G). | |
| False entry made on payment voucher (Charge H). | |
| Appellant resigned. | |
| Case Number : MA 306/2002 | |
| Case Number : Cr M 13/2003 | |
| Decision Date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Falsification of Accounts
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for falsification of accounts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False entries on salary rolls
- False entries on payment vouchers
- Intention to defraud
- Adducing Fresh Evidence
- Outcome: The court denied the motion to adduce fresh evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-availability of evidence
- Relevance of evidence
- Reliability of evidence
- Miscarriage of justice
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 3 SLR 338
- [2001] 4 SLR 198
- [1954] 3 All ER 745
- [1998] 2 SLR 693
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court upheld the original sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Deterrence
- Rehabilitation
- Proportionality
- Related Cases:
- PP v Lim Lee Eng Jansen (MA 154/2001/01)
- Sabastian s/o Anthony Samy v PP (MA 343/85)
- Gan Tion Keng v PP (MA 141/81)
- [1999] 4 SLR 307
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Falsification of accounts
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Juma`at bin Samad v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 338 | Singapore | Cited for the threefold test to determine the admission of fresh evidence pursuant to section 257(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Soh Lip Hwa v PP | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 198 | Singapore | Cited for following the threefold test from Ladd v Marshall for determining the admission of fresh evidence. |
| Ladd v Marshall | N/A | Yes | [1954] 3 All ER 745 | N/A | Cited for the threefold test to determine the admission of fresh evidence: non-availability, relevance, and reliability. |
| Chung Tuck Kwai v PP | High Court | No | [1998] 2 SLR 693 | Singapore | Cited to qualify that in exceptional cases the court might allow fresh evidence to be adduced even if the evidence was available at the time of the trial, if it could be shown that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. |
| Ang Jwee Herng v PP | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to overturn findings of fact and assessments of witnesses’ credibility by the trial judge. |
| PP v Hendricks Glen Conleth | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 426 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will be slow to overturn findings of fact and assessments of witnesses’ credibility by the trial judge. |
| Teo Keng Pong v PP | High Court | No | [1996] 3 SLR 329 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the appellant could not be faulted for not being able to explain her bare denials, in cases concerning sexual offences. |
| Khoo Kwoon Hain v PP | High Court | No | [1995] 2 SLR 767 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in situations of one person’s word against another’s during a trial, it was not for the accused to show why the complainant was falsely accusing the accused, but for the prosecution to show that the complainant had no reason to falsely accuse, in cases concerning sexual offences. |
| Nadasan Chandra Secharan v PP | High Court | No | [1997] 1 SLR 723 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that the prosecution relied almost entirely on circumstantial evidence, which could only be relied on if it led to one inference and one only. |
| Chou Kooi Pang v PP | N/A | Yes | (1998) 3 SLR 593 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that expert opinion is only required for matters outside the ordinary experience and knowledge of the court, and should not substitute the court in drawing inferences that a layman can draw. |
| Golpalkrishnam Vanitha v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 307 | Singapore | Cited as a case in point for breach of trust by a servant, where a secretary had misused pre-signed cheques to overpay herself and the court held that where large sums like $30,000 were involved, the tariff should be between nine and 15 months’ imprisonment. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 477A Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| s 257(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| Section 47(1) of the Evidence Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Falsification of accounts
- Mens rea
- Intention to defraud
- Fresh evidence
- Circumstantial evidence
- Expert opinion
- Salary rolls
- Payment vouchers
- IR8A forms
- Yann Ding Pte Ltd (YD)
15.2 Keywords
- Falsification
- Accounts
- Penal Code
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Falsification of Accounts | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Evidence | 70 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Falsification of Accounts