Ung Yoke Hooi v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Property Seizure under Criminal Procedure Code
In Ung Yoke Hooi v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Ung Yoke Hooi's appeal against the High Court's decision to refuse leave for judicial review. Ung sought to unfreeze bank accounts seized under s 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court clarified the duties of Magistrates' Courts regarding seized property and held that while there was a breach of s 392(1) of the CPC, the High Court lacked the power to grant a mandatory order to unfreeze the accounts as they were under the control of the Magistrate's Court.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Ung Yoke Hooi's appeal for judicial review of seized bank accounts, clarifying procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Stanley Kok of Attorney-General’s Chambers Eric Chin of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ung Yoke Hooi | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Stanley Kok | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Eric Chin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Anand Kumar s/o Toofani Beldar | Frontier Law Corporation |
| Krishna Morthy SV | Frontier Law Corporation |
| Mohd Sadique Bin Ibrahim Marican | Frontier Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Appellant is a Malaysian citizen with business dealings in waste metals.
- Appellant operated four bank accounts at AA Bank and one at BB Bank.
- In 2002, Appellant purchased 29% of shares in Citiraya Technologies Sdn Bhd (CTM).
- Ng Teck Lee (NTL) took over control of SIM and offered to buy Appellant's shares.
- Appellant received installment payments from Pan Asset International.
- CPIB was investigating NTL for criminal breach of trust.
- CPIB seized several of Appellant's bank accounts under s 68 of the CPC.
5. Formal Citations
- Ung Yoke Hooi v Attorney-General, CA 56/2008, [2009] SGCA 15
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant purchased 29% of shares in Citiraya Technologies Sdn Bhd. | |
| Ng Teck Lee took over control of SIM and offered to buy Appellant's shares. | |
| First installment payment made to the Appellant. | |
| Second installment payment made to the Appellant. | |
| Third installment payment made to the Appellant. | |
| Fourth installment payment made to the Appellant. | |
| Fifth installment payment made to the Appellant. | |
| Sixth installment payment made to the Appellant. | |
| Appellant learned of CPIB investigation into SIM. | |
| Account No 2 seized by CPIB. | |
| Appellant called upon by CPIB to assist in investigations. | |
| Appellant unable to operate Account No 1. | |
| BB Bank notified Appellant that Account No 5 was frozen. | |
| CPIB reported seizures to a Magistrate's Court. | |
| Magistrate noted CPIB's report. | |
| Appellant sent letter to CPIB requesting to unfreeze accounts. | |
| CPIB rejected Appellant's request to unfreeze accounts. | |
| CPIB informed Appellant Accounts Nos 1 and 5 had been frozen. | |
| Appellant filed action for judicial review. | |
| CPIB informed Appellant that Accounts Nos 2 and 3 had also been seized. | |
| Hearing before the Judge. | |
| Public Prosecutor filed Originating Summons No 785 of 2008. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that the High Court lacked the power to grant a mandatory order to direct CPIB to unfreeze the bank accounts as they were then in the control and custody of the MC.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether court had power to grant leave for judicial review
- Related Cases:
- [2008] SGHC 139
- Seizure of Property
- Outcome: The court found that the failure to report the seizure of the Accounts 'forthwith' to a Magistrate's Court was a non-compliance that amounted to a procedural impropriety.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to report seizures forthwith
8. Remedies Sought
- Mandatory order to release bank accounts
- Declaratory orders
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ung Yoke Hooi v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 139 | Singapore | Cited as the decision under appeal, where the High Court refused to grant leave for judicial review. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 507 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that abuse of power would not be assumed in judicial review cases and that there must be sufficient evidence of a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion of bad faith. |
| Magnum Finance Bhd v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 523 | Singapore | Cited to support the interpretation of s 392(1) of the CPC and to clarify that it applies to property seized under s 68(1). |
| In re B Dasappa | Madras High Court | Yes | AIR 1916 Mad 1109 | India | Cited to illustrate the importance of reporting seizures to a superior officer and the consequences of failing to do so. |
| In re Shroff Bodanna | Madras High Court | Yes | AIR 1942 Mad 319(1) | India | Cited to emphasize the magistrate's duty to dispose of seized property within a reasonable time. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 68 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 392 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 393 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 394 | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 408 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Act No 45 of 1860) s 217 | India |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 112 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Seizure
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Magistrate's Court
- Procedural impropriety
- Confiscation
- CPIB
- Bank accounts
- Reporting forthwith
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial review
- Property seizure
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Singapore
- Bank accounts
- CPIB
- Magistrate's Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Judicial Review | 70 |
| Asset Recovery | 40 |
| Property Law | 30 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Judicial Review
- Property Seizure