Low Siew Hwa Kenneth v PP: Criminal Breach of Trust & Cheating Appeal
Low Siew Hwa Kenneth appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for four counts of criminal breach of trust under section 409 of the Penal Code and one count of cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments and no manifest excessiveness in the original sentence. The case involved misappropriation of funds from Romar Group companies and a cheating incident related to the sale of a welding machine.
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
Appeal against conviction and sentence for criminal breach of trust and cheating. Appeal dismissed due to lack of merit and excessive 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 | Eddy Tham of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Low Siew Hwa Kenneth | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eddy Tham | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Edmond Pereira | Edmond Pereira & Partners |
4. Facts
- The appellant was a director of RT and GETS until September 1999.
- The appellant was convicted of four counts of criminal breach of trust and one count of cheating.
- The appellant misappropriated $80,000 from GETS on or about 23 September 1997.
- The appellant misappropriated $23,100 from RPE on or about 11 June 1997.
- The appellant misappropriated $90,000 from RT on 25 June 1997.
- The appellant deceived Geraldine into believing that a welding machine belonged to Romindo when it belonged to RPE.
- The appellant misappropriated $18,000 from RT on or about 27 January 1998.
5. Formal Citations
- Low Siew Hwa Kenneth v Public Prosecutor, MA 316/2002, [2003] SGHC 193
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jonathan Lim Keng Hock started travelling very frequently because of large overseas projects. | |
| Appellant misappropriated $23,100 from RPE. | |
| Appellant misappropriated $90,000 from RT. | |
| Appellant misappropriated $80,000 from GETS. | |
| Appellant misappropriated $18,000 from RT. | |
| Sin Ek Engineering rented a welding machine from RPE. | |
| Appellant was terminated from Romar Group. | |
| Appellant returned $18,000 through his solicitors. | |
| Case was filed with case number MA 316/2002 | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for criminal breach of trust, finding that the appellant was entrusted with property and dishonestly misappropriated it.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Dishonest misappropriation
- Entrustment of property
- Cheating
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for cheating, finding that the appellant had the dishonest intention to induce Geraldine to deliver property, and that Geraldine was deceived and delivered the property as a result.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Dishonest intention to induce
- Deception
- Delivery of property
- Impeachment of Credit
- Outcome: The court held that there is no requirement for a trial judge to make a formal impeachment ruling, and that the trial judge had properly considered the discrepancies in the appellant's and Kelly's testimonies.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Discrepancies in testimony
- Inconsistent statements
- Appeal - Findings of Fact
- Outcome: The court held that an appellate court will not disturb a lower court's findings of fact unless they were clearly reached against the weight of evidence or they were plainly wrong.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Weight of evidence
- Credibility of witnesses
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court held that an appellate court will not generally interfere with the sentence passed by a trial court unless there was some error of fact or principle, or the sentence was manifestly excessive or unjust.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Manifestly excessive sentence
- Error of fact or principle
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Cheating
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- White Collar Crime
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Chong Siew Chin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 117 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb a lower court’s findings of fact unless they were clearly reached against the weight of evidence or they were plainly wrong. |
| PP v Poh Oh Sim | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] SLR 1047 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court, if it wishes to reverse the trial judge’s decision, has to not merely entertain doubts whether the decision was right but has to be convinced that it was wrong. |
| Azman Bin Abdullah v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 704 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court, if it wishes to reverse the trial judge’s decision, has to not merely entertain doubts whether the decision was right but has to be convinced that it was wrong. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in examining the evidence, an appellate court has to bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and has to pay due regard to the trial judges’ findings and their reasons. |
| Soh Lip Hwa v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 198 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in examining the evidence, an appellate court has to bear in mind that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses and has to pay due regard to the trial judges’ findings and their reasons. |
| Jimina Jacee d/o C D Athananasius v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that due weight should be accorded to a trial judge’s assessment of a witness’ credibility based on demeanour in court. |
| Loganatha Venkatesan & Ors v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 677 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no requirement that the trial judge must, at any stage of the trial, make a ruling on whether the credit of a witness is impeached. |
| PP v Somwang Phatthanasaeng | High Court | No | [1992] 1 SLR 138 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that just because the credit of an accused person has been impeached does not necessarily mean that all his evidence must be disregarded. |
| PP v Mohammed Faizal Shah | High Court | No | [1998] 1 SLR 333 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that just because the credit of an accused person has been impeached does not necessarily mean that all his evidence must be disregarded. |
| Tan Koon Swan v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1986] SLR 126 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not generally interfere with the sentence passed by a trial court unless there was some error of fact or principle, or the sentence was manifestly excessive or unjust. |
| Lim Poh Tee v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 674 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not generally interfere with the sentence passed by a trial court unless there was some error of fact or principle, or the sentence was manifestly excessive or unjust. |
| Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh v PP | High Court | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 762 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that convictions under s 409 of the Penal Code are more serious than simple criminal breach of trust cases. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 409 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
| s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal breach of trust
- Cheating
- Misappropriation
- Fictitious invoice
- Impeachment of credit
- Pre-signed cheque
- Payment voucher
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal breach of trust
- Cheating
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Conviction
- Sentence
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing