Leong Wai Kay v Carrefour Singapore: Recovery of Bribes Under Prevention of Corruption Act

In Leong Wai Kay v Carrefour Singapore Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Leong Wai Kay's appeal on April 30, 2007, affirming Carrefour Singapore's right to recover bribes received by Leong under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that the criminal penalty imposed on Leong for accepting bribes does not bar Carrefour's civil action to recover the same amount.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Employee Leong Wai Kay's appeal against Carrefour Singapore was dismissed, affirming the company's right to recover bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Leong Wai KayAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Carrefour Singapore Pte LtdRespondentCorporationJudgment for RespondentWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeYes
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Harvindarjit Singh BathSurian & Partners
M MahendranSurian & Partners
Sadique MaricanSadique Marican & Z M Amin
Anand KumarSadique Marican & Z M Amin

4. Facts

  1. Leong Wai Kay was employed as the facilities manager of Carrefour Singapore Pte Ltd.
  2. Leong received bribes from companies providing services to Carrefour in return for awarding service contracts.
  3. Leong pleaded guilty to ten charges of receiving bribes under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
  4. Leong was ordered to pay a penalty of $292,800, being the amount of bribes received.
  5. Carrefour commenced proceedings under s 14(1) of the Act to recover the sum of $292,800.
  6. The assistant registrar dismissed Carrefour’s application for summary judgment, but the judge allowed the appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Leong Wai Kay v Carrefour Singapore Pte Ltd, CA 66/2006, [2007] SGCA 26

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant employed as facilities manager
Appellant's employment terminated
Lower court entered final judgment for the respondent
Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Recovery of Bribes
    • Outcome: The court held that the principal may recover as a civil debt the amount of the bribe from the agent, and no conviction or acquittal of the defendant in respect of an offence under the Act shall operate as a bar to proceedings for the recovery of that amount.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Double Recovery
    • Outcome: The court rejected the argument against double recovery, stating that the criminal proceedings under s 13 are distinct and separate from the civil recovery process under s 14.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Recovery of Bribes
  2. Monetary Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Civil Debt Recovery
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • White Collar Crime

11. Industries

  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Fawcett v WhitehouseChancery CourtsYesFawcett v Whitehouse (1829) 1 Russ & M 132; 39 ER 51England and WalesCited for the equitable principle that an agent must account to the principal for any secret advantage received.
Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Company v AnsellCourt of AppealYesBoston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Company v Ansell (1888) 39 Ch D 339England and WalesCited for the common law recognition of the principal's right to recover a bribe as an action for money had and received.
T Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers’ Co-operative Housing SocietyPrivy CouncilYesT Mahesan v Malaysian Government Officers’ Co-operative Housing Society [1978] 1 MLJ 149MalaysiaCited for the interpretation of Section 30 of the Malaysian Prevention of Corruption Act 1961, which is in pari materia with Section 14 of the Singapore Prevention of Corruption Act.
Tan Kwang Joo v PPHigh CourtYesTan Kwang Joo v PP [1989] SLR 496SingaporeCited for the object of Section 13(1) of the Act, which is to prevent corrupt wrongdoers from keeping or benefiting from the spoils of their crimes.
In re CunoCourt of AppealYesIn re Cuno (1889) 43 Ch D 12England and WalesCited for the principle of statutory interpretation that legislation is not presumed to take away existing rights except expressly or by necessary implication.
Lee Mun Foong v Public ProsecutorFederal CourtYesLee Mun Foong v Public Prosecutor [1976] 2 MLJ 16MalaysiaCited to support the view that Section 13 should operate independently of Section 30 of the Malaysian Act.
PP v Teng Cheow HingDistrict CourtYesPP v Teng Cheow Hing [2005] SGDC 38SingaporeCited by the appellant, but the court stated that it was not necessary to consider whether the reasoning and rulings of the district judge in that case were correct.
Carrefour Singapore Pte Ltd v Leong Wai KayHigh CourtYesCarrefour Singapore Pte Ltd v Leong Wai Kay [2006] 4 SLR 412SingaporeCited as the decision of the judge in the lower court, which was appealed against.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 14

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6(a)Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 13(1)Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 14(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 224(b)(iv)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bribes
  • Gratification
  • Prevention of Corruption Act
  • Civil Debt
  • Double Recovery
  • Facilities Manager
  • Service Contracts

15.2 Keywords

  • Corruption
  • Bribes
  • Prevention of Corruption Act
  • Civil Recovery
  • Singapore
  • Carrefour

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Prevention of Corruption Act95
Bribes90
Restitution70
Agency Law50
Contract Law30
Unjust Enrichment25
Civil Procedure15

16. Subjects

  • Corruption
  • Agency
  • Restitution