Lim Teck Chye v PP: Abetment by Conspiracy in Bunkering Industry

Lim Teck Chye, a director of Coastal Bunkering Services Pte Ltd (CBS), was convicted in the High Court of Singapore on April 14, 2004, for six counts of abetting corruption by conspiring with Henry Low and other CBS employees to bribe marine surveyors. The Chief Justice Yong Pung How dismissed Lim Teck Chye's appeals against his conviction and sentence, finding that he had facilitated illicit 'buy-back' transactions by paying surveyors to falsely certify the quantity and quality of marine oil supplied to vessels.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Lim Teck Chye, a director at CBS, was convicted of abetting corruption by conspiring to bribe marine surveyors. The court dismissed his appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal against conviction dismissedWon
James Lee of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Eddy Tham of Deputy Public Prosecutors
Lim Teck ChyeAppellantIndividualAppeal against conviction dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
James LeeDeputy Public Prosecutors
Eddy ThamDeputy Public Prosecutors
Davinder SinghDrew and Napier LLC
Tey Tsun HangDrew and Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The appellant was a director of CBS and in charge of its operations and financial matters.
  2. CBS's business included the trading of bunker oil, marine diesel oil, and marine gas oil.
  3. The appellant was convicted of abetting, by conspiracy, one Henry Low and other employees of CBS to corruptly pay gratification to marine surveyors.
  4. The gratification was to falsely certify that CBS had supplied the correct quantity and quality of marine oil to vessels of CBS’s customers.
  5. The appellant was sentenced to a total of six months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay $240,000 in fines.
  6. The marine surveyors facilitated illicit 'buy-back' transactions by providing false certifications in their survey reports.
  7. The appellant knew about the buy-backs and gains and had also pegged the work performance of the bunker clerks to the amount they could short supply.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lim Teck Chye v Public Prosecutor, MA 198/2003, [2004] SGHC 72

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Geopotes X bunkered
El Greco bunkered
Ocean Ranger bunkered
Ocean Ranger bunkered
Madre Deus bunkered
Madre Deus bunkered
Hanjin Kwangyang bunkered
Hanjin Elizabeth bunkered
Appellant diagnosed with an acute eye disease
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Abetment by Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellant had engaged in a conspiracy to abet corruption.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Agreement to commit an illegal act
      • Act or illegal omission in pursuance of conspiracy
  2. Power of Appellate Court to Reverse Findings of Fact
    • Outcome: The court held that it would not overturn the trial judge's findings of fact unless they were clearly against the weight of the evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Assessment of witness credibility
      • Weight of evidence
  3. Sentencing Principles for Corruption Offences
    • Outcome: The court found that the principle of equal culpability was not breached and that a custodial sentence was warranted due to aggravating factors.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Equal culpability between giver and receiver
      • Commercial context vs. public service context
      • Deterrence

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Abetment by conspiracy
  • Corruption

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Criminal Law

11. Industries

  • Maritime
  • Bunkering

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
PP v Yeo Choon PohCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR 867SingaporeCited for the definition of 'conspiracy' in the context of abetment by conspiracy.
Ang Ser Kuang v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 909SingaporeCited to explain that there need not be communication between each conspirator, provided that there is a common design.
Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PPCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR 25SingaporeCited for the three essential elements of abetment by conspiracy.
Kwan Peng Hong v PPHigh CourtYes[2000] 4 SLR 96SingaporeCited regarding the duty of the trial judge to lay down in a detailed and clear way the factors, evidence, and considerations taken into account in arriving at findings of fact.
Shamsul bin Abdullah v PPHigh CourtYes[2002] 4 SLR 176SingaporeCited to explain the standard required of the district judge’s scrutiny of the evidence and the witnesses before him.
Chua Keem Long v PPHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR 510SingaporeCited to explain that the courts are generally reluctant to draw an adverse inference against the Prosecution.
Lim Ah Poh v PPHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR 713SingaporeCited regarding the appellate intervention on a trial judge’s findings of fact.
Yap Giau Beng Terence v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 656SingaporeCited regarding the reluctance of an appellate court to overturn a trial judge’s findings of fact, especially where it hinges upon an assessment of the credibility and veracity of the witnesses.
Ameer Akbar v Abdul HamidHigh CourtYes[1997] 1 SLR 113SingaporeCited regarding the appellate court does not have the advantages of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and as such it will defer to those findings.
Kong See Chew v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR 94SingaporeCited regarding the appellate court does not have the advantages of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and as such it will defer to those findings.
Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdul Kadir v PPHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 788SingaporeCited regarding the heavy burden to show that the district judge was plainly wrong in his assessment of the credibility and veracity of Henry Low.
De Silva v PPUnknownYes[1964] 1 MLJ 81MalaysiaCited for the proposition that contradictions, discrepancies and falsehoods in the evidence of a witness are not sufficient reasons for rejecting the whole of the evidence of such a witness.
Leo Fernando v RUnknownYes[1959] 1 MLJ 157MalaysiaCited discrepancies in the accounts given by various prosecution witnesses as “a matter which might well be thought to be in favour of their truthfulness rather than the reverse”.
Khoon Chye Hin v PPUnknownYes[1961] 1 MLJ 105MalaysiaCited that even if a witness is found to have lied on a matter, it does not necessarily affect his credibility as a whole.
Samad bin Kamis v PPHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR 340SingaporeCited that even if a witness is found to have lied on a matter, it does not necessarily affect his credibility as a whole.
PP v Kalpanath SinghHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR 564SingaporeCited that even if a witness is found to have lied on a matter, it does not necessarily affect his credibility as a whole.
Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v PPHigh CourtYes[1997] 3 SLR 464SingaporeCited that even if a witness is found to have lied on a matter, it does not necessarily affect his credibility as a whole.
Triptipal Singh v PPUnknownYes[1974] 1 MLJ 59MalaysiaCited that if an appellant seeks to reverse a judgment below by challenging findings of credibility on the ground that there are discrepancies in the testimonial evidence, the appellate court will consider that if the trial judge had drawn attention to the discrepancies and considered them, there can be no further ground for complaint.
R v PanayiotouUnknownYes[1973] 3 All ER 112England and WalesCited that if an appellant seeks to reverse a judgment below by challenging findings of credibility on the ground that there are discrepancies in the testimonial evidence, the appellate court will consider that if the trial judge had drawn attention to the discrepancies and considered them, there can be no further ground for complaint.
PP v Victor RajooHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR 417SingaporeCited that the appellant may still incline an appellate court to re-assess a finding of credibility even if the trial judge had adverted to the discrepancies, but only if he can show that any advantage enjoyed by the trial judge by reason of having seen and heard the witnesses could not be sufficient to explain and justify the trial judge’s conclusions as to credibility, thus rendering the verdict against the weight of the evidence.
Vinit Sopon v PPHigh CourtYes[1994] 2 SLR 226SingaporeCited that discrepancies in the evidence are inevitable in cases involving complicated factual details and that immaterial discrepancies ought to be disregarded if these are not of such a nature as to impair the strength of the prosecution case.
Ong Ah Tiong v PPHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR 587SingaporeCited regarding the appellate court may only interfere with sentence if it is satisfied that (a) the sentencing judge made the wrong decision as to the proper factual basis for sentence; (b) there was an error on the part of the trial judge in appreciating the material placed before him; (c) the sentence was wrong in principle; or (d) the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.
Tan Koon Swan v PPHigh CourtYes[1986] SLR 126SingaporeCited regarding the appellate court may only interfere with sentence if it is satisfied that (a) the sentencing judge made the wrong decision as to the proper factual basis for sentence; (b) there was an error on the part of the trial judge in appreciating the material placed before him; (c) the sentence was wrong in principle; or (d) the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.
Lim Poh Tee v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR 674SingaporeCited regarding the appellate court may only interfere with sentence if it is satisfied that (a) the sentencing judge made the wrong decision as to the proper factual basis for sentence; (b) there was an error on the part of the trial judge in appreciating the material placed before him; (c) the sentence was wrong in principle; or (d) the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate.
Chua Tiong Tiong v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR 425SingaporeCited regarding the giver of gratification bears equal culpability to that of the receiver.
Meeran bin Mydin v PPHigh CourtYes[[1998] 2 SLR 522]SingaporeCited regarding acts of corruption must be effectively and decisively dealt with.
PP v Chew Suang HengHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR 692SingaporeCited regarding corruption offences involving law enforcement officers or other public servants attract harsher penalties and custodial sentences as compared to similar offences committed in commercial dealings and in the private sector.
PP v Tan Fook SumHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR 523SingaporeCited regarding whether a custodial sentence is warranted in a particular case is determined upon a careful consideration of sentencing principles such as the public interest and other policy considerations, as well as the gravity of the offence including the particular facts and circumstances thereof.
Soong Hee Sin v PPHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR 253SingaporeCited regarding the regime of sentencing is a matter of law which involves a hotchpotch of such varied and manifold factors that no two cases can ever be completely identical in this regard.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v PPHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR 720SingaporeCited regarding the appellant has not provided such distinguished public service or services of substantial value to the community that should stand him in any better stead here.
Wan Kim Hock v PPHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR 410SingaporeCited regarding these matters were not of sufficient weight to offset the aggravating factors present and the fact that the appellant had been convicted of multiple offences.
Chen Weixiong Jerriek v PPHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR 334SingaporeCited regarding these matters were not of sufficient weight to offset the aggravating factors present and the fact that the appellant had been convicted of multiple offences.
Rupchand Bhojwani Sunil v PPHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR 596SingaporeCited regarding a potential offender should never be afforded the opportunity to ponder that he could cheat others of large sums of money and still “get away lightly” by being fined up to only a certain statutory limit.
PP v Yeoh Hock LamDistrict CourtYes[2001] SGDC 212SingaporeThe district judge’s statements above did not stand for the proposition that corruption in a commercial context cannot be punished with imprisonment, although it usually is adequate.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 29 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 107 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 157(c) of the Evidence ActSingapore
Section 116 illustration (g) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bunkering
  • Marine surveyor
  • Gratification
  • Buy-back
  • Bunker delivery receipt
  • Stock movement report
  • Short supply
  • Conspiracy
  • Abetment
  • Marine oil

15.2 Keywords

  • Corruption
  • Abetment
  • Bunkering
  • Marine Surveyors
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Commercial Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Prevention of Corruption Act95
Criminal Law90
Abetment90
Criminal conspiracy85
Criminal Procedure80
Sentencing75
Commercial Crime50
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Corruption
  • Commercial Law
  • Sentencing