Centillion v Public Prosecutor: Confiscation Order Appeal Under CDSA

Centillion Environment & Recycling Ltd appealed against several High Court orders made under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA) concerning a confiscation order against Ng Teck Lee (NTL), Centillion's CEO, who misappropriated company funds. The Court of Appeal addressed issues including the definition of 'realisable property,' the rights of third parties, and the liability for costs. The court allowed the appeal in part, holding that properties held by NTL's wife were realisable, but upheld the lower court's decision regarding funds in Ung Yoke Hooi's bank accounts. The court also ruled on constructive trusts and cost allocation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning a confiscation order under the CDSA. The court addressed the definition of 'realisable property' and third-party rights.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondent, AppellantGovernment AgencyCross-appeal allowed in partPartial
Lee Lit Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Oh Chun Wei Gordon of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Centillion Environment & Recycling Ltd (formerly known as Citiraya Industries Ltd)Appellant, RespondentCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial
Ung Yoke HooiRespondentIndividualApplication successfulWon
Ng Teck LeeOtherIndividualConfiscation order against NTLLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Lit ChengAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jeffrey Chan Wah TeckAttorney-General’s Chambers
Oh Chun Wei GordonAttorney-General’s Chambers
Ang Cheng HockAllen & Gledhill LLP
Ramesh Kumar s/o RamasamyAllen & Gledhill LLP
Nandwani Manoj PrakashGabriel Law Corporation
Liew Hwee Tong EricGabriel Law Corporation
Shannon OngGabriel Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. NTL, Centillion's CEO, misappropriated electronic scrap and sold it overseas.
  2. NTL diverted US$51,196,938.52 to overseas accounts.
  3. NTL was assisted by Gan, Citiraya’s Chief Financial Officer.
  4. NTL left Singapore and was deemed convicted under the CDSA.
  5. The PP commenced proceedings for a confiscation order against NTL.
  6. Centillion intervened to assert its interests in certain properties.
  7. UYH claimed the monies in his bank accounts were part payment for shares.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Centillion Environment & Recycling Ltd (formerly known as Citiraya Industries Ltd) v Public Prosecutor and others and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 114 and 115 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 65
  2. 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, , [2011] 4 SLR 906

6. Timeline

DateEvent
NTL diverted 62 shipments of electronic scrap.
NTL's misdeeds were uncovered by CPIB.
NTL left Singapore.
Immigration stop-list issued for NTL.
Police Gazette issued for NTL.
Singapore Warrant of Arrest issued for NTL.
International Warrant of Arrest issued for NTL through Interpol.
PP commenced proceedings for a confiscation order against NTL.
Centillion filed suit against NTL for breach of fiduciary duties.
Centillion intervened in OS 785/2008.
UYH and TBH intervened in OS 785/2008.
Centillion obtained a default judgment against NTL.
Provisional Confiscation Order made against NTL.
CPIB Principal Special Investigator filed an affidavit.
Judge made orders on each party’s application.
Civil Appeals Nos 114 and 115 of 2011 were filed.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Definition of Realisable Property
    • Outcome: The court clarified the scope of 'realisable property' under the CDSA, particularly concerning gifts and properties held by donees.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Gifts caught by the Act
      • Properties held on trust
  2. Rights of Third Parties
    • Outcome: The court determined that a judgment creditor's interest does not fall under the ambit of s 13 of the CDSA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interest in property
      • Bona fide purchaser
  3. Constructive Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that certain properties were held on constructive trust for Centillion due to their traceability to illegal proceeds.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Traceability of funds
      • Breach of fiduciary duty
  4. Allocation of Costs
    • Outcome: The court ruled that the ordinary rule that costs follow the event does not apply to confiscation proceedings under the CDSA.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Public interest litigation
      • Reasonableness of conduct

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Confiscation Order
  2. Realisation of Property
  3. Account of Profits
  4. Equitable Compensation
  5. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Criminal Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Asset Recovery

11. Industries

  • Recycling
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Charles Warwick ReidN/AYes[1994] 1 AC 324Hong KongCited as authority for the principle that a principal was entitled to assert a beneficial interest in a bribe received by an agent or fiduciary on the basis of a constructive trust over the bribe.
Thahir Kartika Ratna v PT Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina)N/AYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 312SingaporeCited as authority for the principle that a principal was entitled to assert a beneficial interest in a bribe received by an agent or fiduciary on the basis of a constructive trust over the bribe.
J J Harrison (Properties) Ltd v HarrisonEnglish Court of AppealYes[2002] 1 BCLC 162England and WalesCited to distinguish between different forms of trust, specifically where property is entrusted to a wrongdoer from the outset.
Foskett v McKeown and othersN/AYes[2001] 1 AC 102N/ACited to explain the beneficiary's entitlement to assert beneficial ownership of proceeds or bring a personal claim against the trustee for breach of trust.
In re NorrisN/AYes[2001] 1 WLR 1388N/ACited to explain that 'confiscation orders' is a misnomer as the means adopted is value-based rather than property-based and the confiscation order itself operates in personam.
Director of Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings plc and anorEnglish Court of AppealYes[2009] QB 376England and WalesCited to show that an in personam judgment did not confer rights over property which could form the basis for varying a restraint order over assets that had been restrained pending the making of a confiscation order.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte LtdN/AYes[2011] 2 SLR 1279SingaporeCited for the principle that the default rule that costs follow the event should not apply when a party is performing a public duty.
Baxendale-Walker v Law SocietyEnglish Court of AppealYes[2008] 1 WLR 426England and WalesCited for the principle that the default rule that costs follow the event should not apply when a party is performing a public duty.
R (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and anotherEnglish Court of AppealYes[2010] 1 WLR 1508England and WalesCited to show that the court would be justified in ordering the police to pay the costs of a successful claimant if the police had conducted the proceedings unreasonably.
Customs & Excise Commissioners v AN/AYes[2003] 2 WLR 210N/ACited to show that the court may exercise its discretion to determine which claim should take priority in relation to competing claims for the enforcement of confiscation orders and the making of ancillary orders under matrimonial proceedings.
Webber v Webber and CPSN/AYes[2006] EWHC 2893N/ACited to show that the court may exercise its discretion to determine which claim should take priority in relation to competing claims for the enforcement of confiscation orders and the making of ancillary orders under matrimonial proceedings.
CPS v RichardsN/AYes[2006] EWCA Civ 849N/ACited to show that the court may exercise its discretion to determine which claim should take priority in relation to competing claims for the enforcement of confiscation orders and the making of ancillary orders under matrimonial proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) ActSingapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 408Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 59Singapore
Rules of Court O 89A r 2(4)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Realisable Property
  • Confiscation Order
  • Constructive Trust
  • Illegal Proceeds
  • Gift Caught by the Act
  • Interest in Property
  • Traceability
  • Judgment Creditor
  • Public Trustee
  • Beneficial Ownership

15.2 Keywords

  • CDSA
  • Confiscation
  • Realisable Property
  • Constructive Trust
  • Singapore
  • Appeal
  • Asset Recovery
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act95
Fiduciary Duties60
Trust Law55
Company Law40
Fraud and Deceit30
Corporate Governance Disputes20
Contract Law20
Civil Procedure15

16. Subjects

  • Confiscation of Benefits
  • Asset Recovery
  • Trusts
  • Criminal Law