Li Weiming v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Revision on Prosecution's Discovery Obligations
Li Weiming, Lim Ai Wah, and Thomas Philip Doehrman filed criminal revision applications in the High Court of Singapore, challenging a District Court order regarding the Prosecution's discovery obligations under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010. The dispute centered on the adequacy of the summary of facts provided by the Prosecution, specifically concerning charges of falsifying invoices and dealing with proceeds of criminal conduct. The High Court, presided over by Chao Hick Tin JA, allowed the applications in part, ordering the Prosecution to provide further particulars regarding the identity of the party allegedly defrauded and the reasons why a sub-contract was deemed fictitious.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Applications for particulars granted in part; further particulars ordered regarding the identity of the defrauded party and the fictitious sub-contract.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Criminal revision application concerning the extent of prosecution's discovery obligations under Criminal Procedure Code regarding particulars in support of a charge. High Court ordered further particulars on key issues.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Order for further particulars | Lost | Alan Loh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Dennis Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Li Weiming | Applicant | Individual | Application for particulars granted in part | Partial | |
| Lim Ai Wah | Applicant | Individual | Application for particulars granted in part | Partial | |
| Thomas Philip Doehrman | Applicant | Individual | Application for particulars granted in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Alan Loh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Dennis Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tang Jin Sheng | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Lok Vi Ming | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Kang Yu Hsien Derek | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Alec Tan | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Lai Yew Fai | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Tay Wei Loong Julian | Lee & Lee |
| Marcus Foong | Lee & Lee |
| Jacklyn Chan | Lee & Lee |
4. Facts
- Li Weiming was an employee of ZTE Corporation.
- Lim Ai Wah is the director of Questzone Offshore Pte Ltd.
- Thomas Philip Doehrman is Lim Ai Wah’s husband and assists the Papua New Guinea government under a trust.
- Each of the petitioners faces six charges, including falsifying a paper and dealing with benefits of criminal conduct.
- The charge under s 477A of the Penal Code relates to an alleged conspiracy to issue a false invoice.
- The CDSA charges pertain to payments made by Questzone to the petitioners out of the proceeds gained from the s 477A PC offence.
- The Prosecution alleged that Questzone was set up as a shell company to perpetuate the conspiracy.
5. Formal Citations
- Li Weiming and other matters v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Revision Nos 24, 25 and 26 of 2012, [2013] SGHC 69
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Questzone issued an invoice to ZTE. | |
| ZTE paid US$3.6 million to Questzone. | |
| Case for the Prosecution filed and served. | |
| Petitioners applied for discharge not amounting to an acquittal or further particulars. | |
| District Court dismissed the applications. | |
| High Court ordered further particulars. | |
| High Court granted a stay of order. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Sufficiency of Particulars in Summary of Facts
- Outcome: The court held that the omission of key particulars constitutes a failure to provide part of the summary of facts.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Omission of key particulars
- Failure to elaborate on charge
- Intent to Defraud
- Outcome: The court held that the Prosecution must present a specific case as to the nature of the accused’s fraudulent intention, including the person who was the object of the fraudulent intention.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- General vs. Specific Intent
- Deceit and Injury
- High Court's Revisionary Powers
- Outcome: The court held that the consequences of non-compliance as prescribed in s 169 cannot be exhaustive and that the High Court has broad revisionary jurisdiction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of Revision
- Consequences of Non-Compliance
8. Remedies Sought
- Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal
- Further Particulars
9. Cause of Actions
- Falsification of Accounts
- Dealing with benefits of criminal conduct
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Telecommunications
- Information Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should interpret a provision of written law in a manner which promotes the purpose or object underlying that written law. |
| Halki Shipping Corporation v Sopex Oils Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 WLR 726 | England and Wales | Cited for the presumption that Parliament does nothing in vain. |
| Regina v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex parte Watson; Regina v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Ex parte Armstrong; Regina v Manchester City Council, Ex parte Stennett; Regina v Harrow London Borough Council, Ex parte Cobham | Regina v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council, Ex parte Watson; Regina v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, Ex parte Armstrong; Regina v Manchester City Council, Ex parte Stennett; Regina v Harrow London Borough Council, Ex parte Cobham | Yes | [2001] QB 370 | England and Wales | Cited for the rule that Parliament does nothing in vain. |
| Wong Seng Kwan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 12 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament does nothing in vain. |
| Ramanathan Yogendran v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 471 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of statutory construction that words should be construed so as to give a sensible meaning to them. |
| The “Andres Bonifacio” | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 71 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should look at substance rather than form. |
| Panwah Steel Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 571 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should look at substance rather than form. |
| Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng) v Goh Jessiline | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 455 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should look at substance rather than form. |
| Ang Tin Yong v Ang Boon Chye and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 447 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should look at substance rather than form. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kwan Richard | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1968–1970] SLR(R) 846 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that relevant provisions should be applied in a complementary and harmonious fashion guided by the purpose of the statute. |
| Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 1012 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of harmonious construction of statutes. |
| Assathamby s/o Karupiah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 1030 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a charge must contain all the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. |
| Phang Wah and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 646 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the case where the dispute centered on whether the accused knew how much he would gain by his deception, and not on the identity of the party deceived. |
| Goh Kah Heng (alias Shi Ming Yi) v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the approach adopted in Public Prosecutor v Chow Wai Lam [2006] SGDC 1 at [47]–[52] regarding “intent to defraud”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chow Wai Lam | District Court | Yes | [2006] SGDC 1 | Singapore | Cited for the meaning of “intent to defraud” in the context of s 406(c) of the Companies Act. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Nor’ain bte Abu Bakar and others | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of acting fraudulently or with intent to defraud. |
| Seet Soon Guan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1955] MLJ 223 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of acting fraudulently or with intent to defraud. |
| S P Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath | Indian Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1994 SC 853 | India | Cited for the definition of acting fraudulently or with intent to defraud. |
| S Harnam Singh v The State | Indian Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1976 SC 2140 | India | Cited for the elements of 'intent to defraud' as deceit and injury. |
| Lee Yuen Hong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 604 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of abetment by conspiracy. |
| Tay Kok Poh Ronnie v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 545 | Singapore | Cited for the concern with rules intended to benefit accused persons being used in a manner which transformed them into a “procedural trap”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 404 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| s 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 477A of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 109 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 47(1)(b) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 9A of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Case Disclosure Conference
- Case for the Prosecution
- Summary of Facts
- Intent to Defraud
- Fictitious Sub-Contract
- Shell Company
- Criminal Revision
- Further Particulars
- Discovery Obligations
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Criminal Case Disclosure Conference
- Summary of Facts
- Intent to Defraud
- Falsification
- Discovery
- Criminal Revision
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Discovery
- Fraud
- Conspiracy