Ung Yoke Hooi v Attorney-General: Application for Release of Bank Accounts under Criminal Procedure Code
Ung Yoke Hooi applied to the High Court of Singapore for orders directing the Attorney-General to release certain bank accounts frozen under the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant alleged abuse of power and procedural impropriety. Tay Yong Kwang J struck out the application for declaratory orders, finding the High Court lacked the power to grant such orders under Order 53 of the Rules of Court. The court refused leave to apply for a mandatory order, holding that the applicant failed to establish an arguable case that the seizure of the accounts was illegal, unreasonable, or procedurally improper. The originating summons was dismissed with costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating summons dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for release of frozen bank accounts. The court struck out the application for declaratory orders and refused leave for a mandatory order.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Dismissed | Won | Stanley Kok of Attorney-General’s Chambers Eric Chin of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ung Yoke Hooi | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Stanley Kok | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Eric Chin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Singa Retnam | Kertar & Co |
| Amaladass | Kertar & Co |
4. Facts
- The applicant purchased 29% of the shares in Citiraya Technologies Sdn Bhd.
- Ng Teck Lee offered to purchase all the remaining shares in Citiraya Malaysia not owned by Citiraya Singapore.
- The applicant agreed to sell shares to Ng Teck Lee for S$4 million.
- The S$4 million was to be paid in 10 equal instalments.
- CPIB’s investigations against the management of Cititraya Singapore were made public.
- The applicant was unable to operate Account No. 1.
- Accounts No. 2, 3 and 5 were seized by the CPIB.
5. Formal Citations
- Ung Yoke Hooi v Attorney-General, OS 1415/2007, [2008] SGHC 139
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant purchased 29% of the shares in Citiraya Technologies Sdn Bhd. | |
| Ng Teck Lee offered to purchase all remaining shares in Citiraya Malaysia not owned by Citiraya Singapore. | |
| Negotiations effectively concluded; applicant agreed to sell shares to Ng Teck Lee for S$4 million. | |
| First instalment paid by OCBC cheque. | |
| Second instalment paid by transfer of monies from PAI to applicant’s Account No. 2. | |
| Third instalment paid by transfer of monies from PAI to applicant’s Account No. 2. | |
| Fourth instalment paid by transfer of monies from PAI to applicant’s Account No. 2. | |
| Fifth instalment paid by transfer of monies from PAI to applicant’s Account No. 2. | |
| Sixth instalment paid by transfer of monies from PAI to applicant’s Account No. 2. | |
| CPIB’s investigations against the management of Cititraya Singapore were made public. | |
| Various individuals were convicted of abetting Ng Teck Lee in bribery and falsifying accounts or for accepting bribes. | |
| Applicant found that he was unable to operate Account No. 1. | |
| Account No. 2 seized by CPIB. | |
| Account No. 3 seized by CPIB. | |
| Account No. 5 seized by CPIB. | |
| CPIB confirmed that Accounts No. 1 and 5 had been frozen. | |
| Account No. 4 was an investment account and it was redeemed. | |
| CPIB informed the applicant that Accounts No. 2 and 3 were also seized in addition to Account No. 5. | |
| CPIB seized the funds that were in Account No. 2. | |
| The three seized accounts were reported to the Magistrate. | |
| CPIB to write a letter to Standard Chartered Bank to confirm that Accounts No. 1 and 4 were not seized. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant had not adduced sufficient evidence to show that there might be an arguable case that the seizure of the accounts was in some way illegal or unreasonable or that there was procedural impropriety on the part of the investigating authority.
- Category: Substantive
- Illegality of Seizure of Bank Accounts
- Outcome: The court found that the seizure of the bank accounts under s 68 of the CPC was not illegal.
- Category: Substantive
- Unreasonableness of Seizure of Bank Accounts
- Outcome: The court found that the seizure of the accounts was not unreasonable.
- Category: Substantive
- Procedural Impropriety
- Outcome: The court found that there was no procedural impropriety in the seizing of the three accounts.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaratory order for release of bank accounts
- Mandatory order to direct the Attorney-General to release the accounts
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc | High Court | Yes | [1987] S.L.R. 505 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court does not have the power to grant declaratory orders under Order 53 of the Rules of Court. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin and Others v Minister for Information and the Arts | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 S.L.R. 609 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there was never any power to grant a declaration under the old English Order 53 because a declaration is not a prerogative order. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 S.L.R. 644 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of the application for leave. |
| Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical Council | Unknown | No | [2000] 2 S.L.R. 274 | Singapore | Cited regarding the test for whether the length of time for which the accounts were seized was reasonable. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 3 S.L.R. 507 | Singapore | Cited regarding abuse of power. |
| IRC v National Federation of Self-Employed | Unknown | Yes | [1981] 2 All ER 93 | England | Cited regarding the court should not go into the matter in any depth but rather make a quick perusal of the material then available. |
| Lloyd v McMahon | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] A.C. 625 | England | Cited regarding procedural impropriety. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 53 r 1(2) |
| Order 53 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crime (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Abuse of power
- Neglect of duty
- Confiscation
- Seizure of bank accounts
- Mandatory order
- Declaratory order
15.2 Keywords
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Judicial Review
- Mandatory Order
- Declaratory Order
- Seizure
- Bank Accounts
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Judicial Review