Bachoo Mohan Singh v PP: Abetting False Claim, Cash Back Scheme, Lawyer's Knowledge
In Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against conviction and sentence for Bachoo Mohan Singh, who was charged with abetting a false claim. The case involved a cash back arrangement where the accused, a lawyer, knew that the price stated in the statement of claim was false and inflated. The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction but partially allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing the imprisonment term and adding a fine.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence partially allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Lawyer Bachoo Mohan Singh convicted of abetting a false claim. The case involved a cash back scheme and the lawyer's knowledge of the inflated price.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal against conviction upheld | Won | Kan Shuk Weng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Sing Lit of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed | Lost | Michael Hwang of Independent Practitioner Charis Tan En Pin of Independent Practitioner |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kan Shuk Weng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Sing Lit | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Michael Hwang | Independent Practitioner |
| Jacqueline Lee | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Charis Tan En Pin | Independent Practitioner |
4. Facts
- Hongs engaged Teo to sell their flat and find a new one, seeking a 'cash back' arrangement.
- Hongs agreed to purchase Kohs' flat for $390,000 with a cash back arrangement.
- Bank valued the flat at $490,000, which was inserted as the purported price in the Option to Purchase.
- Kohs declared the sale price of $490,000 to an HDB officer.
- Kohs signed a document stating $100,000 from the sale proceeds was to be paid to Kang.
- Koh approached the appellant for legal advice and explained the facts of the case.
- Appellant advised Koh to let him take over the matter from the law firm of M/s Rayney Wong and Eric Ng.
- Francis Hong informed the appellant that there was an agreement to purchase the flat for $390,000.
- Appellant replied that he did not care about the arrangement and informed the Hongs that he would sue on the price stated on the Option.
- Appellant sent letters to HDB and IRAS referencing the $100,000 being returned to the Hongs and the transaction price being $390,000.
- Appellant filed a writ of summons and statement of claim against the buyers for $490,000.
- Hongs and agents settled the claim for $70,000 due to concerns about the cash back scheme being revealed.
5. Formal Citations
- Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor, MA 134/2007, Cr M 5/2009, [2009] SGHC 125
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Kohs signed the Option to Purchase. | |
| First appointment at HDB. | |
| Koh’s statutory declaration stated that Koh had agreed to sell the flat at the price of $390,000. | |
| KK Yap meeting held. | |
| Appellant signed and sent two letters to the HDB and IRAS. | |
| Kohs signed an option to sell their flat for $380,000 to another buyer. | |
| Kohs explained to the HDB that the main reasons why they were selling their flat below valuation price. | |
| Appellant sent a letter of demand to the Hongs. | |
| Report on the cash back deal was published in the Straits Times and Marina Mandarin meeting held. | |
| Appellant filed a writ of summons and statement of claim against the buyers. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- False Claim
- Outcome: The court held that the claim was false because the selling price of the flat was $390,000 and not $490,000.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inflated price in statement of claim
- Cash back arrangement
- Appropriateness of Sentence
- Outcome: The court reduced the original sentence of three months imprisonment to one month imprisonment and added a fine of $10,000.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Mitigating factors
- First offender
- Contributions to charity and profession
- Reference to Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to reserve certain questions to the Court of Appeal, finding that no questions of law of public interest had arisen.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Questions of law of public interest
- Construction of words in statutory provisions
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages and Loss
- Interest
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Abetment of Making a False Claim
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PP v Bachoo Mohan Singh | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 211 | Singapore | Cited as the decision of the district court where the appellant was initially sentenced. |
| Bulaki Ram | Allahabad High Court | Yes | (1889) 10 AWN 1 | India | Cited to support the argument that a claim can be false even if part of it is valid. |
| Mitsubishi Corporation v Aristidis I Alafouzos | High Court of Justice | Yes | [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 191 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court will refuse to allow a party to rely on a contract drafted to deceive third parties. |
| Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 44 | Singapore | Cited regarding the immateriality of discrepancies in witness testimonies. |
| Chean Siong Guat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1969] 2 MLJ 63 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the immateriality of discrepancies in witness testimonies. |
| Loo See Mei v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 27 | Singapore | Cited regarding the assessment of witness credibility. |
| Cheong Siat Fong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 176 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's deference to the trial judge's findings of fact. |
| Awtar Singh s/o Margar Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 439 | Singapore | Cited for the test of knowledge and the concept of deliberately shutting one's eyes to the obvious. |
| Siah Ooi Choe v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1988] SLR 402 | Singapore | Cited regarding the 'clang of prison gates' principle in sentencing. |
| Tan Sai Tiang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 439 | Singapore | Cited regarding the 'clang of prison gates' principle in sentencing. |
| Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 301 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles pertaining to an application under s 60 SCJA. |
| Wong Sin Yee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 197 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles pertaining to an application under s 60 SCJA. |
| Ong Beng Leong v Public Prosecutor (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 247 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles pertaining to an application under s 60 SCJA. |
| Cigar Affair v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 648 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principles pertaining to an application under s 60 SCJA. |
| Ong Boon Kheng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGH 1999 | Singapore | Cited regarding there being no further recourse after the High Court dismisses an application under s 60 SCJA. |
| Ng Chye Huey v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR 106 | Singapore | Cited regarding there being no further recourse after the High Court dismisses an application under s 60 SCJA. |
| PP v Koo Pui Fong | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 266 | Singapore | Cited for the test of knowledge. |
| Chiaw Wai Onn v PP | High Court | Yes | [I 997] 3 SLR 445 | Singapore | Cited for the test of knowledge. |
| Nomura Taiji v PP | High Court | Yes | [I998] 2 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited for the test of knowledge. |
| Lim Ek Kian v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 58 | Singapore | Cited regarding lying in one’s personal capacity and lying in court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 209 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 60 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 24 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 25 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 20 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Cash back arrangement
- Option to Purchase
- Statement of Claim
- Inflated price
- Settlement
- Abetment
- False claim
- Guilty knowledge
- Dishonestly
- HDB
- IRAS
- Breach of contract
15.2 Keywords
- False claim
- Cash back
- Lawyer
- Abetment
- Criminal law
- Singapore
- Property
- Housing
- Fraud
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| False Claim | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 85 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Cash Back Arrangement | 75 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 15 |
| Corporate Law | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- False Claim
- Abetment
- Cash Back Scheme