PP v Ng Teck Lee: CDSA Confiscation Order & Third-Party Interests in Misappropriated Funds
In Public Prosecutor v Ng Teck Lee, the High Court of Singapore addressed the application by the Public Prosecutor for a confiscation order against Ng Teck Lee (NTL) under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA), due to NTL's misappropriation of funds from Centillion Environment & Recycling Ltd. NTL had absconded, leading to a deemed conviction. The court also considered claims from Centillion, Ung Yoke Hooi (UYH), and Thor Beng Huat (TBH), who asserted interests in properties the PP sought to realize. The court granted the confiscation order, dismissed TBH and UYH's claims, and partially allowed Centillion's claim, recognizing their beneficial interest under a constructive trust in certain properties.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Confiscation order granted against Ng Teck Lee; third-party claims by Ung Yoke Hooi and Thor Beng Huat dismissed; Centillion's claim partially allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case concerning a confiscation order under the CDSA against Ng Teck Lee for misappropriating funds, and third-party claims to realisable properties.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Confiscation order granted | Won | Lee Lit Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Teo Guan Siew of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ching Sann of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gordon Oh Chun Wei of Attorney-General’s Chambers Stanley Kok of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Centillion Environment & Recycling Ltd (formerly known as Citiraya Industries Ltd) | Applicant | Corporation | Beneficial interest under constructive trust declared | Partial | |
| Ung Yoke Hooi | Intervener, Applicant | Individual | Monies in bank accounts declared not realisable property | Won | |
| Ng Teck Lee | Respondent | Individual | Confiscation order granted against | Lost | |
| Thor Beng Huat | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Thor Chwee Hwa | Other | Individual | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kan Ting Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Lit Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Teo Guan Siew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ching Sann | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gordon Oh Chun Wei | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Stanley Kok | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Nandwani Manoj Prakash | Gabriel Law Corporation |
| Liew Hwee Tong Eric | Gabriel Law Corporation |
| Kertar Singh s/o Guljar Singh | Kertar & Co |
| Anil Singh Sandhu s/o Kertar Singh | Kertar & Co |
| Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh | Kirpal & Associates |
4. Facts
- Ng Teck Lee (NTL) was the CEO of Citiraya Industries Ltd (later Centillion), a company involved in recycling electronic scrap.
- NTL misappropriated electronic scrap sent to Citiraya for destruction and sold it to buyers in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
- NTL received US$51,196,938.52 from the sale of the misappropriated chips, which was deposited into bank accounts held by Pan Asset International Limited.
- NTL absconded from Singapore and was deemed to be convicted of a serious offence under the CDSA.
- The Public Prosecutor applied for a confiscation order against NTL for the benefits derived from his criminal conduct.
- Centillion, Ung Yoke Hooi, and Thor Beng Huat asserted interests in properties that the PP sought to realize.
- Centillion obtained a default judgment against NTL for $51,196,938.52.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Ng Teck Lee (Centillion Environment & Recycling Ltd (formerly known as Citiraya Industries Ltd) and another, other parties) (Ung Yoke Hooi, intervener) and another matter, Originating Summons No 785 of 2008, [2011] SGHC 205
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Complaint received by Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau regarding Ng Teck Lee's conduct. | |
| Ng Teck Lee left Singapore. | |
| Immigration stoplist issued for Ng Teck Lee. | |
| Police Gazette issued for Ng Teck Lee. | |
| Singapore Warrant of arrest issued for Ng Teck Lee. | |
| International Warrant of Arrest issued through Interpol for Ng Teck Lee. | |
| S$4,517,143.40 paid into court from sale of 49A Binjai Park. | |
| S$1,112,522.85 paid into court from sale of 97 Paya Lebar Crescent. | |
| Affidavit filed by Fong Wai Kit of CPIB. | |
| Centillion asserted interest in properties. | |
| Thor Beng Huat asserted interest in properties. | |
| Centillion obtained default judgment against Ng Teck Lee for $51,196,938.52. | |
| Confiscation order made. | |
| Ung Yoke Hooi asserted interest in properties. | |
| Affidavit filed by Tok Thiam Soon Frederick of CPIB. | |
| Judgment delivered by Kan Ting Chiu J. | |
| Appeals allowed in part by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Confiscation of Benefits
- Outcome: The court granted the confiscation order against Ng Teck Lee.
- Category: Substantive
- Third-Party Interests in Realisable Property
- Outcome: The court dismissed the claims of Thor Beng Huat and Ung Yoke Hooi, and partially allowed Centillion's claim, recognizing their beneficial interest under a constructive trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court found that NTL held certain properties on constructive trust for Centillion.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1994] 1 AC 324
- [1994] 3 SLR(R) 312
- [2002] 1 BCLC 162
8. Remedies Sought
- Confiscation Order
- Realisation of Property
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Misappropriation of Funds
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Asset Recovery
- Trusts and Estates
11. Industries
- Recycling
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Appeals Nos 114 and 115 of 2011 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 65 | Singapore | Editorial note referencing the appeals to this decision. |
| Attorney-General of Hong Kong v Charles Warwick Reid and others | Privy Council | Yes | [1994] 1 AC 324 | Hong Kong | Cited as authority for the principle that a principal is entitled to assert a beneficial interest in a bribe received by an agent or fiduciary. |
| Thahir Kartika Ratna v PT Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 312 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the principle that a principal is entitled to assert a beneficial interest in a bribe received by an agent or fiduciary. |
| J J Harrison (Properties) Ltd v Harrison | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 BCLC 162 | England and Wales | Cited to distinguish between trusts where property is entrusted to the wrongdoer from the outset and trusts that arise when bribes are received by a fiduciary. |
| Phipps v Boardman | House of Lords | Yes | [1967] 2 AC 46 | England and Wales | Cited to demonstrate the strictness with which equity regards the conduct of a fiduciary and the extent to which equity is willing to impose a constructive trust on property obtained by a fiduciary by virtue of his office. |
| Paragon Finance plc v D B Thakerar & Co | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 All ER 400 | England and Wales | Cited to explain the difference in character between a director who disposes of company property in breach of fiduciary duties and a stranger. |
| United Pan-Europe v Deutsche Bank | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 BCLC 461 | England and Wales | Cited to support the principle that the object of imposing a constructive trust is to ensure that the defaulting fiduciary does not retain the profit, not to compensate the beneficiary for any loss. |
| Baxendale-Walker v Law Society | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 WLR 426 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a regulatory body should be protected from having to pay costs unless they are proved to have acted in bad faith or are guilty of gross dereliction. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 1279 | Singapore | Discussed and applied the principle enunciated in Baxendale-Walker. |
| R (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 WLR 1506 | England and Wales | Dealt with costs in proceedings for the forfeiture of property under the English Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed), O 59 r 3(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), s 408 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed), s 32(c) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed), s 112 | Singapore |
| Solicitors Act 1974 (c 47) (UK), s 47(2) | United Kingdom |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed), s 96(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed), s 96(4) | Singapore |
| Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c 29) (UK) | United Kingdom |
| Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (c 43) (UK), s 64(1) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Confiscation Order
- Realisable Property
- Benefits Derived from Criminal Conduct
- Constructive Trust
- Misappropriation
- CDSA
- Gift Caught by the Act
- Scheme of Arrangement
- Judgment Creditor
- Tracing
15.2 Keywords
- Confiscation
- CDSA
- Constructive Trust
- Misappropriation
- Asset Recovery
- Criminal Breach of Trust
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Asset Confiscation
- Trusts
- Equity