PP v Ang Seng Thor: Corruption Offences, Prevention of Corruption Act, Corporate Governance
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentences imposed on Ang Seng Thor by a District Judge for two charges of corruptly giving gratification to agents, contrary to s 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ang, the CEO of AEM-Evertech Holdings Ltd, had given bribes to an assistant engineer at Seagate Technology International and a director at Infineon Technologies Malaysia Sdn Bhd to secure business for AEM. The High Court allowed the appeal, varying the sentence to a term of six weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $25,000 per charge, with both imprisonment terms to run consecutively.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ang Seng Thor, CEO of AEM, was sentenced for corruption. The High Court allowed the appeal, imposing imprisonment and fines, emphasizing deterrence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | G Kannan, Edmund Lam, Ng Yiwen |
| Ang Seng Thor | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Varied | Lost | Wendell Wong, Tay Eu-Yen, Choo Tse Yun |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| G Kannan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Edmund Lam | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Ng Yiwen | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Wendell Wong | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Tay Eu-Yen | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Choo Tse Yun | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Ang Seng Thor was the CEO and joint managing director of AEM-Evertech Holdings Ltd.
- Ang gave kickbacks to Ho Sze Khee, an assistant engineer at Seagate, in exchange for Seagate ordering goods from AEM.
- Ang and Tok Kian You agreed to offer a bribe of $50,000 to Tan Gek Chuan, a director of Infineon, to secure the sale of inspection machines.
- Ang wrote a letter to AEM's board of directors disclosing alleged wrongdoings by Tok and others.
- AEM terminated Ang's employment and appointments.
- Ang made disclosures to ST Microelectronics Group about its employees taking bribes from AEM.
- CPIB commenced investigations into AEM and its officers based on Ang's disclosures.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Ang Seng Thor, Magistrate's Appeal No 365 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 134
- Public Prosecutor v Ang Seng Thor, , [2010] SGDC 454
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| AEM-Evertech Holdings Ltd listed on the mainboard of the Singapore Exchange | |
| AEM wanted to sell four inspection machines to Infineon Technologies Malaysia Sdn Bhd | |
| Ang Seng Thor introduced to Ho Sze Khee | |
| Ang gave Ho gratification of $24,650.10 | |
| Ang gave Ho gratification of $35,700 | |
| Ang handed Ho $97,158 in cash | |
| Ang wrote a letter to the chairman of AEM’s board of directors | |
| AEM sent a letter to Ang terminating his employment | |
| Ang sent follow-up letters to AEM’s board | |
| AEM engaged Ernst & Young to investigate the allegations made by Ang | |
| Letters exchanged between Drew & Napier LLC and Allen & Gledhill LLP | |
| Ang made a series of disclosures to ST Microelectronics Group | |
| Ang provided ST Micro with information about its employees who took bribes from AEM | |
| Ang interviewed by CPIB | |
| District Arrest Case Nos 20434 and 20435 of 2010 | |
| High Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence | |
| Ang to commence his sentence |
7. Legal Issues
- Corruption
- Outcome: The High Court found Ang Seng Thor guilty of corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Giving gratification to agents
- Breach of duty of good faith
- Undermining fair competition
- Related Cases:
- [2004] 2 SLR(R) 525
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 515
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The High Court clarified the sentencing principles applicable to corruption offences, emphasizing deterrence and punishment, and correcting the District Judge's errors in applying these principles.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of public-private distinction
- Distinction between givers and receivers of bribes
- Mitigating factors (whistleblowing, cooperation)
- Aggravating factors (position of authority, size of bribes)
- Related Cases:
- [2004] 2 SLR(R) 525
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 127
- [2010] 1 SLR 874
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Fine
- Disqualification from acting as a director
9. Cause of Actions
- Corruption
- Breach of Statutory Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- White Collar Crime
- Corporate Governance
11. Industries
- Semiconductor Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Teck Chye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited to clarify the distinction between public and private sector corruption offences and the application of the public service rationale in sentencing. |
| Chua Tiong Tiong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 515 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that eradicating corruption is of primary concern and for the proposition that givers and receivers of bribes generally bear equal culpability. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chew Suang Heng | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 127 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that corruption offences involving law enforcement officers or other public servants attract harsher penalties and custodial sentences. |
| Zhao Zhipeng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 879 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the custody threshold is breached based on the mischief or likely consequence of the bribe and for the relevance of personal greed in assessing culpability. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the standard for appellate intervention in sentencing decisions. |
| Wong Teck Long v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 488 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that loss of confidence in a strategic industry such as the bunkering and maritime industry forms a separate aggravating factor justifying general deterrence. |
| Chua Kim Leng Timothy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 513 | Singapore | Cited to support a consistent approach to sentencing in both private and public sector corruption cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wang Ziyi Able | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 1082 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that fines for the well-heeled often fail to amount to sufficient or meaningful deterrence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | Cited for the discussion of harm and culpability as basic sentencing factors. |
| Public Prosecutor v Siew Boon Loong | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 611 | Singapore | Cited for the mitigating value in an offender surrendering himself to the authorities even before investigations have caught up with him. |
| Soong Hee Sin v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 475 | Singapore | Cited for the statement that sentencing involves a “hotchpotch” of varied factors. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case involving a small number of charges and/or small amounts of gratification given or received that tended to be punished with fines. |
| Public Prosecutor v Subramaniam s/o Muneyandi | District Court | Yes | [2003] SGDC 259 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case involving a small number of charges and/or small amounts of gratification given or received that tended to be punished with fines. |
| Public Prosecutor v Fong Kit Sum | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 58 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case involving a small number of charges and/or small amounts of gratification given or received that tended to be punished with fines. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chang Kar Yang | District Court | Yes | [2006] SGDC 85 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where sentences of imprisonment were imposed where the offences were committed over a long period of time. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tang See Meng | District Court | Yes | [2001] SGDC 161 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent involving a similar amount of gratification. |
| Wong Loke Cheng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 522 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent involving a similar amount of gratification. |
| Regina v Gordon Foxley | Court of Appeal | Yes | Regina v Gordon Foxley (1995) 16 Cr App R (S) 879 | England and Wales | Cited for the main sentencing considerations in corruption cases are deterrence and punishment |
| R v Wong Tat-Sang & ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | R v Wong Tat-Sang & ors [1985] HKCA 196 | Hong Kong | Cited for the purposes of sentencing, it could not “for a moment accept the suggestion that bribery in the private sector is in any way to be regarded as less culpable than bribery in the public sector |
| HKSAR v Lau Yee Lai | Court of Appeal | Yes | HKSAR v Lau Yee Lai [1999] HKEC 351 | Hong Kong | Cited for support for a consistent approach to sentencing in both private and public sector corruption cases |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6(b) | Singapore |
| Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) s 57(1)(k) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 154(1) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 154(4)(a) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 154(4)(b) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 34 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Corruption
- Gratification
- Kickbacks
- Bribes
- Whistleblower
- Deterrence
- Public service rationale
- Corporate governance
- CEO
- AEM-Evertech Holdings Ltd
- Seagate Technology International
- Infineon Technologies Malaysia Sdn Bhd
15.2 Keywords
- Corruption
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Sentencing
- Corporate Governance
- Bribery
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Corporate Governance
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Corruption Law
- Sentencing
- Corporate Law