Ong Boon Kheng v PP: Securities & Futures Act - Misleading Statements & Criminal Procedure
Ong Boon Kheng, as CEO of Informatics Holdings Ltd, was convicted in the Subordinate Courts on four charges under the Securities and Futures Act for consenting to the commission by a company of making a misleading statement. He appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal. Ong then filed a Criminal Motion seeking to reserve six questions of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed by the High Court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Criminal Motion dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ong Boon Kheng, CEO of Informatics, was convicted of consenting to misleading statements. The High Court dismissed his appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Motion Upheld | Won | Lau Wing Yum of Deputy Public Prosecutors David Chew Siong Tai of Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Ong Boon Kheng | Applicant | Individual | Criminal Motion Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lau Wing Yum | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| David Chew Siong Tai | Deputy Public Prosecutors |
| Josephine Low | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Michael Khoo, SC | Michael Khoo & Partners |
4. Facts
- Ong Boon Kheng was the Chief Executive Officer of Informatics Holdings Ltd.
- Informatics released financial statements via MASNET that overstated net profit before tax.
- The overstatements occurred in the first three quarters of FY2004.
- Informatics issued a profit warning on MASNET on 14 April 2004.
- Trading of Informatics shares was suspended for 3 weeks after the profit warning.
- Ong Boon Kheng was convicted on four charges under the Securities and Futures Act.
- The District Judge did not formally amend the 2nd and 3rd charges to reflect lower figures.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong Boon Kheng v Public Prosecutor, Cr M 26/2008, [2008] SGHC 199
- , , [2008] SGDC 3
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Informatics released unaudited first quarter financial statement via MASNET. | |
| Informatics released unaudited second quarter financial statement via MASNET. | |
| Informatics' unaudited third quarter financial statement period ended. | |
| Informatics released unaudited third quarter financial statement via MASNET. | |
| Informatics issued a profit warning on MASNET. | |
| Magistrates’ Appeal No. 151 of 2007 lodged. | |
| Appeal hearing before Tay Yong Kwang J. | |
| Decision date of the High Court. |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Charges
- Outcome: The court found that the procedural flaw of not formally amending the charges did not occasion a failure of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to amend charges to reflect lower amounts of overstatement
- Amendment of charges after the close of the prosecution's case
- Evaluation of Prosecution Evidence
- Outcome: The court applied the test laid down in Haw Tua Tau and found that the DJ was correct in calling upon the applicant to enter his defence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Minimum evaluation of evidence at the close of the prosecution case
- Application of the principles in Haw Tua Tau
- Related Cases:
- [1981] 2 MLJ 149
- [1980-1981] SLR 73
- Public Interest in Questions of Law
- Outcome: The court found that the questions of law posed in the application did not satisfy the criterion of public interest.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the questions raised are of public interest or merely of personal importance
- Whether the questions raised are questions of law or of fact
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 2 SLR 247
- [1990] SLR 301
8. Remedies Sought
- Reservation of questions of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Section 331(1) read with Section 199(b)(ii) of the Securities & Futures Act
- Violation of Section 331(1) read with Section 199(c)(ii) of the Securities & Futures Act
- Violation of Section 330 of the Securities & Futures Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Securities Regulation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haw Tua Tau v PP | Privy Council | Yes | [1981] 2 MLJ 149 | N/A | Cited for the test to be applied by a trial judge at the close of the prosecution case. |
| Haw Tua Tau v PP | Privy Council | Yes | [1980-1981] SLR 73 | N/A | Cited for the test to be applied by a trial judge at the close of the prosecution case. |
| Ng Theng Shuang v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 36 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the 'minimum evaluation of the evidence' test. |
| Ong Beng Leong v PP (No. 2) | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 247 | Singapore | Cited for the court's discretion in reserving questions for the Court of Appeal. |
| Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 301 | Singapore | Cited for guidelines concerning the scope of section 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Johari bin Kanadi and another v PP | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR 422 | Singapore | Cited to caution against disguising appeals as applications under section 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. |
| Wong Hong Toy and another v PP | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1986] 1 MLJ 453 | Singapore | Cited for the legal position that no appeal lies against the High Court’s refusal to reserve questions of law under s 60 SCJA. |
| JB Jeyaretnam v Law Society of Singapore | Privy Council | Yes | [1988] 3 MLJ 425 | N/A | Cited for acknowledging that no appeal lies against the High Court’s refusal to reserve questions of law under s 60 SCJA. |
| Ng Ai Tiong v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 358 | Singapore | Cited for the essence of s 60(1) of the SCJA remaining unchanged. |
| Ng Chye Huey and another v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 106 | Singapore | Cited for holding that a Criminal Motion heard by the High Court is an exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| Securities & Futures Act (Cap 289, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 331(1) of the Securities & Futures Act | Singapore |
| Section 199(b)(ii) of the Securities & Futures Act | Singapore |
| Section 204(1) of the Securities & Futures Act | Singapore |
| Section 199(c)(ii) of the Securities & Futures Act | Singapore |
| Section 330 of the Securities & Futures Act | Singapore |
| s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| s 180(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 180(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 180(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| s 29A(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Misleading statement
- Securities & Futures Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- MASNET
- Overstatement of revenue
- Profit warning
- Public interest
- Minimum evaluation of evidence
- Amendment of charges
15.2 Keywords
- Securities and Futures Act
- Misleading Statements
- Criminal Procedure
- Singapore
- Financial Statements
- Criminal Motion
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Securities | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Companies Act | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Securities Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure