PP v Ong Eng Teck: Cheating; Skills Development Fund; False Employment; Penal Code s 420

The Public Prosecutor appealed against the District Judge's decision to acquit Ong Eng Teck of eight charges of cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code. Ong, the director of Integrative Therapy Centre Pte Ltd, was accused of deceiving the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) by submitting false subsidy claims for trainees who were purportedly employed and sponsored by three companies. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, convicting Ong on three of the eight charges, finding that he had knowledge that the trainees did not meet the Skills Development Fund subsidy requirements in those instances.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part. Ong Eng Teck was convicted on three of eight charges.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ong Eng Teck was convicted of cheating the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) by falsely claiming Skills Development Fund subsidies.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellantGovernment AgencyAppeal allowed in partPartial
David Chew of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Elena Yip of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ong Eng TeckRespondentIndividualConvicted on three chargesLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
David ChewAttorney-General’s Chambers
Elena YipAttorney-General’s Chambers
Wee Pan LeeWee, Tay & Lim LLP

4. Facts

  1. Ong was the director of Integrative Therapy Centre Pte Ltd (ITC), a training provider.
  2. ITC provided training courses in Ayurvedic massage and pharmacology.
  3. The Skills Development Fund (SDF) provided subsidies to companies for training their employees.
  4. Ong submitted subsidy claims for trainees who were purportedly employed by three companies.
  5. The prosecution alleged that the trainees were not actually employed by the companies.
  6. The companies and trainees testified that Ong had arranged for them to appear as employees for subsidy purposes.
  7. Ong claimed he believed the trainees were legitimately employed and relied on declarations made by the companies.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Ong Eng Teck, , [2012] SGHC 242

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Koh Chek Lian attended course between 2006-08-16 and 2007-01-27
Ng Meng Chye attended course between 2007-03-30 and 2008-01-15
Ong Eng Teck cheated the WDA by submitting a subsidy claim for Koh Chek Lian
M Vasanthi Pillay attended course between 2007-11-13 and 2008-04-02
Ong Eng Teck attempted to cheat the WDA by submitting a subsidy claim for M Vasanthi Pillay
District Judge Kessler Soh acquitted Ong Eng Teck of all eight charges
Judgment reserved
High Court decision

7. Legal Issues

  1. Cheating
    • Outcome: The court found that the elements of cheating were proven for three of the charges.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Deception
      • Inducement
      • Dishonest intention
    • Related Cases:
      • [1997] 2 SLR(R) 946
      • [1999] 1 SLR(R) 826
      • [1997] 3 SLR(R) 227
  2. Knowledge of False Information
    • Outcome: The court found that Ong had knowledge that the trainees did not meet the SDF subsidy requirements for three of the charges.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Awareness of trainees' ineligibility for SDF subsidy
      • Intent to deceive WDA
  3. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court found that the EasyNet printouts were admissible and reliable, and that the witnesses' testimonies were credible.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reliability of EasyNet printouts
      • Credibility of witnesses
      • Accomplice evidence
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45
      • [1999] 3 SLR(R) 826

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Conviction
  2. Fine
  3. Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code
  • Attempted cheating under s 420 read with s 511 of the Penal Code

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation

11. Industries

  • Education
  • Spa
  • Wellness

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gunasegaran s/o Pavadaisamy v PPUnknownYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 946SingaporeCited for the elements of an offence under s 420 of the Penal Code.
Chua Kian Kok v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 826SingaporeCited to indicate that the first two elements of the Gunasegaran formulation address the actus reus of the offence, while the third element addresses the mens rea.
Rahj Kamal bin Abdullah v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 227SingaporeCited for the element of deception pertaining to inducing a person to believe to be true something which is in fact false.
Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 45SingaporeCited for the observation that an appellate judge is as competent as a trial judge when it comes to assessing the material before drawing the necessary inferences of fact from the circumstances that the material reveals.
Jimina Jacee d/o C D Athananasius v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 826SingaporeCited for the presumption that an accomplice giving evidence against an accused is unworthy of credit does not arise automatically.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 420Singapore
Penal Code s 415Singapore
Penal Code s 511Singapore
Employment Act (Cap 91, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Skills Development Fund
  • SDF subsidy
  • EasyNet
  • Training provider
  • Applicant company
  • Employment requirement
  • Sponsorship requirement
  • Subsidy claim
  • Deception
  • Dishonest inducement

15.2 Keywords

  • Cheating
  • Skills Development Fund
  • False Employment
  • Subsidy Claims
  • Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Cheating90
Fraud and Deceit80
Criminal Law75
Contract Law25

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Cheating
  • Subsidies
  • Employment Law