Wu Guo Hao Max v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Conviction for Furnishing False Information

Wu Guo Hao Max appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for four charges of knowingly furnishing false information to the Controller of Work Passes, in violation of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. The charges related to false applications for "EntrePasses" submitted on behalf of four Chinese nationals. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had properly made findings of fact sufficient to prove the charges and that allegations of bias and prejudice against the trial judge were unfounded.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Wu Guo Hao Max appeals against his conviction for providing false information to the Controller of Work Passes. The High Court dismisses the appeal, finding no merit.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wu Guo Hao MaxAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedWonFrancis Ng, Gregory Gan

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Francis NgAttorney-General's Chambers
Gregory GanAttorney-General's Chambers

4. Facts

  1. The appellant submitted four applications for an “Entrepass” with accompanying business plans to the Ministry of Manpower.
  2. The applications were purportedly made by four Chinese nationals who wished to start a business in Singapore.
  3. The four persons were Zhao Guo An, Sha You Bing, Lu Jun Cai and Li Jian Hua.
  4. The appellant was charged with four counts of knowingly furnishing false information to the Controller of Work Passes.
  5. The prosecution proved that none of the four Chinese nationals had the intention of setting up the business described in their applications.
  6. The information and applications were submitted by the appellant through his company HobLink Business Coauthor Pte Ltd.
  7. The four persons each paid the company $1,500 for the submission of these applications.
  8. The appellant knew that the four persons had no intention of setting up a business.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wu Guo Hao Max v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 266 of 2012, [2013] SGHC 255

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Magistrate's Appeal No 266 of 2012 filed
Criminal Motions No 17 & 39 of 2013 filed
Criminal Revision No 16 of 2013 filed
Appeal fixed for hearing
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Furnishing False Information
    • Outcome: The court upheld the conviction, finding that the appellant knowingly furnished false information.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Bias and Prejudice of Trial Judge
    • Outcome: The court found the allegations of bias and prejudice against the trial judge to be unfounded.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction and sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Violation of s 22(1)(d) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) s 22(1)(d)Singapore
Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) s 22(1)(ii)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Entrepass
  • False Information
  • Controller of Work Passes
  • Employment of Foreign Manpower Act
  • Bias
  • Prejudice

15.2 Keywords

  • Employment
  • Foreign Manpower
  • False Information
  • Criminal Appeal
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Employment Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law
  • Employment Law