Whang Sung Lin v PP: Abetment of Illegal Kidney Transplant Arrangement
Whang Sung Lin appealed against the decision of a District Judge for his conviction under the Human Organ Transplant Act and the Penal Code for abetting an illegal kidney transplant arrangement between Tang Wee Sung and Wang Chin Sing. The High Court, while amending the charge from abetment by instigation to abetment by aiding, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from eight months to four months, balancing the need for general deterrence with parity in sentencing. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal against sentence in part.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Whang Sung Lin appealed his conviction for abetting an illegal kidney transplant. The court amended the charge but upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whang Sung Lin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part | Partial | |
| PP | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal against sentence allowed in part | Partial | Chay Yuen Fatt of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sharon Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sunil Sudheesan | M/S Khattarwong |
| Subhas Anandan | M/S Khattarwong |
| Chay Yuen Fatt | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sharon Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Appellant's wife's uncle, Tang Wee Sung, suffered from renal failure.
- Appellant knew Wang Chin Sing could source kidney donors for a fee.
- Appellant informed Tang that Wang may be able to help him source a kidney donor.
- Appellant gave Wang's contact number to Tang.
- Tang and Wang agreed Tang would pay $300,000 for a kidney.
- Wang approached Sulaiman Damanik, who agreed to sell his kidney to Tang.
- Appellant received two $10,000 payments from Wang.
5. Formal Citations
- Whang Sung Lin v PP, MA No 177 of 2009 (DAC 31396 of 2008), [2010] SGHC 53
- PP v Whang Sung Lin, , [2009] SGDC 308
- Public Prosecutor v Sulaiman Damanik, , [2008] SGDC 175
- Public Prosecutor v Tang Wee Sung, , [2008] SGDC 262
- Public Prosecutor v Wang Chin Sing, , [2008] SGDC 268
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arrangement between appellant and Wang Chin Sing to introduce Tang Wee Sung for kidney transplant | |
| Tang Wee Sung contacted Wang Chin Sing | |
| Appellant called Tang Wee Sung and gave Wang's contact number | |
| Tang paid $50,000 to Wang | |
| Wang issued a cash cheque for $10,000 to the appellant | |
| Tang paid $75,000 to Wang | |
| Sulaiman Damanik arrived in Singapore | |
| Wang issued another cash cheque for $10,000 to the appellant | |
| Police raid on Wang's apartment | |
| District Judge's decision in PP v Whang Sung Lin | |
| High Court decision on appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Abetment
- Outcome: The court amended the charge from abetment by instigation to abetment by aiding but upheld the conviction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Abetment by instigation
- Abetment by aiding
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 4 SLR(R) 249
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court reduced the sentence from eight months to four months, balancing the need for general deterrence with parity in sentencing.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- General deterrence
- Parity in sentencing
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 1 SLR(R) 870
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment of Offence under s 14(2) read with s 14(1) of the Human Organ Transplant Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang Chin Sing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 870 | Singapore | Cited for establishing that general deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration for middlemen in organ trading. |
| Moganaruban s/o Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 121 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate judge must defer to the findings of fact made by the trial judge unless they are clearly wrong or wholly against the weight of the evidence. |
| Balakrishnan S v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 249 | Singapore | Cited to define 'abetment by instigation' as requiring 'active suggestion, support, stimulation or encouragement' of the offence. Distinguished on facts. |
| Ng Kwee Leong v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 281 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts give adequate allowance for the fallibility of human memory. |
| Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the extent of the accused person’s role in the offence is a relevant consideration for sentencing. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] SGCA 57 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has to assess how much weight to accord to each sentencing principle in each case. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court is entitled to correct a sentence where the sentencing judge has erred as to the proper factual basis for the sentence. |
| Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deterrence must be tempered by proportionality in relation to the severity of the offence committed as well as by the moral and legal culpability of the offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ramlee | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where two or more offenders are to be sentenced for participation in the same offence, their sentences should be similar unless there is relevant difference in their culpability for the offence or in their personal circumstances. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Human Organ Transplant Act (Cap 131A, 2005 Rev Ed) s 14 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 107 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Oaths and Declarations Act (Cap 211, 2001 Rev Ed) s14(1)(a)(ii) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Kidney transplant
- Abetment
- Instigation
- Aiding
- Valuable consideration
- Organ trading
- General deterrence
- Parity in sentencing
15.2 Keywords
- Human Organ Transplant Act
- Penal Code
- Abetment
- Kidney Transplant
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Human Organ Transplant Act | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Oaths and Declarations Act | 50 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Transplant Law