Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v PP: Abetment, Cheating & Amendment of Charges
Hwa Lai Heng Ricky appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for conspiring with Roger Cheong Sing Whee and Joyce Tia Hui Yee to cheat the Development Bank of Singapore Ltd (DBS). Yong Pung How CJ amended the charge to abetment by intentional aiding and dismissed the appeal against conviction, reducing the sentence to 18 months' imprisonment. The case involved a loan disbursement to Yamazaki Mazah Singapore Pte Ltd based on a false confirmation letter.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; sentence reduced to 18 months' imprisonment after amendment of charge.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Hwa Lai Heng Ricky appeals conviction for conspiring to cheat DBS. The High Court amends the charge to abetment by intentional aiding and reduces the sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction upheld | Won | Han Ming Kuang of Deputy Public Prosecutors Lee Jwee Nguan of Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Hwa Lai Heng Ricky | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Han Ming Kuang | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Lee Jwee Nguan | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| K R Manickavasagam | T U Naidu and Co |
| T U Naidu | T U Naidu and Co |
4. Facts
- Appellant prepared a letter (P64) stating Yamazaki received $1.293m from Sin Yuh as down payment.
- Sin Yuh had not paid Yamazaki $1.293m as down payment for the 31 machines.
- DBS disbursed $1.94m to Yamazaki based on the appellant's representation in P64.
- Sin Yuh defaulted on the DBS loan repayment.
- Appellant was an assistant sales manager at Yamazaki.
- Cheong was a majority shareholder and Managing Director of Sin Yuh Industries Pte Ltd.
- Joyce was Sin Yuh’s Finance Manager.
5. Formal Citations
- Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v Public Prosecutor, MA 97/2005, [2005] SGHC 195
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sin Yuh purchased 47 machines from Yamazaki. | |
| Sin Yuh secured financing with Arab-Malaysian and Tokyo Leasing. | |
| DBS agreed to finance Sin Yuh $1.94m. | |
| Joyce sent an e-mail to the appellant requesting a letter to DBS. | |
| Appellant prepared and signed a letter to DBS. | |
| Cheong requested DBS's solicitors for loan disbursement. | |
| DBS transferred $1.94m to Yamazaki's bank account. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Cheating
- Outcome: The court found that the elements of cheating had been satisfied.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deception
- Inducement
- Dishonest intention
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 3 SLR 969
- [1999] 2 SLR 542
- [2004] SGHC 98
- Abetment by Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that there was no conspiracy between Cheong, Joyce, and the appellant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Agreement
- Common intention
- Related Cases:
- [1994] 2 SLR 867
- [1999] 1 SLR 25
- [1999] 2 SLR 542
- Abetment by Aiding
- Outcome: The court amended the charge to abetment by intentionally aiding the commission of the offence of cheating.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intentional aiding
- Facilitation of offence
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 1 SLR 205
- Amendment of Charge
- Outcome: The court found that amending the charge would not cause prejudice to the appellant or the Prosecution.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Prejudice to appellant
- Substance of evidence
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 1 SLR 401
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Cheating
- Abetment
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Banking
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gunasegeran s/o Pavadaisamy v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 969 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish the offence of cheating under s 420 read with s 415 of the Penal Code. |
| Chua Kian Kok v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 542 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish the offence of cheating under s 420 read with s 415 of the Penal Code. |
| Rukiah bte Ismail v PP | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 98 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish the offence of cheating under s 420 read with s 415 of the Penal Code. |
| Seaward v PP | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 369 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inducement need not be the sole reason for the delivery of property by the deceived party. |
| Chow Dih v PP | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 203 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is immaterial that the victim may have had additional reasons for making the transfer if influenced by the false pretense. |
| Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdul Kadir v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 788 | Singapore | Cited to endorse the principle in Chow Dih v PP that it was sufficient that the complainant was partly and materially influenced by the false pretences of the accused. |
| R v Lince | N/A | Yes | (1873) 12 Cox CC 451 | England and Wales | Cited in Gour’s Penal Code of India as good law, supporting the principle that the false pretense need not be the only reason why the victim parted with his property. |
| PP v Teo Cheng Kiat | High Court | Yes | [2000] SGHC 129 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that cheating offences frequently occur because the victim is naïve, less cautious, or more trusting of others. |
| PP v Chia Teck Leng | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 68 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that cheating offences frequently occur because the victim is naïve, less cautious, or more trusting of others. |
| Teo Ai Choo v Leong Sze Hian | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1986] SLR 75 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of the appellate court in assessing findings of fact by the trial judge. |
| PP v Yeo Choon Poh | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 867 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'conspiracy' and the elements of abetment by conspiracy. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of abetment by conspiracy. |
| Er Joo Nguang v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 645 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that conspiracy is generally a matter of inference. |
| Johnson v Youden | N/A | Yes | [1950] 1 KB 544 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that mens rea is an essential ingredient in conspiracy. |
| Nomura Taiji v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited to endorse the holding in Johnson v Youden that mens rea was only an essential ingredient in conspiracy. |
| Jimina Jacee d/o C D Athananasius v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in a charge of abetment by aiding, the intention should be to aid an offence or to facilitate the commission of an offence. |
| Garmaz s/o Pakhar v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 401 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's power to amend charges under s 256(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Tan Koon Swan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1986] SLR 126 | Singapore | Cited for the circumstances under which an appellate court might interfere with the sentence. |
| Lim Poh Tee v PP | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 674 | Singapore | Cited for the circumstances under which an appellate court might interfere with the sentence. |
| Ong Ah Tiong v PP | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR 587 | Singapore | Cited for the circumstances under which an appellate court might interfere with the sentence. |
| PP v Cheong Sing Whee | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 124 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the sentencing of the co-accused, Cheong Sing Whee. |
| N/A | District Court | Yes | [2005] SGDC 157 | Singapore | Cited for the trial judge's finding that the appellant had played an active role in facilitating the cheating scam. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 420 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 415 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 24 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 23 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 107(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 107(c) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 79 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 52 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 256(b)(ii) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cheating
- Abetment
- Conspiracy
- Inducement
- Dishonest intention
- Loan disbursement
- False representation
- Regionalisation Finance Scheme
- Letter of Offer
- Down payment
15.2 Keywords
- Cheating
- Abetment
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Loan
- DBS
- False Representation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Fraud and Deceit | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Abetment by Aiding | 80 |
| Abetment by conspiracy | 70 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Company Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Banking Law