PP v Li Weiming: Criminal Case Disclosure, Intent to Defraud, Falsification of Accounts
The Public Prosecutor filed a criminal reference to the Court of Appeal of Singapore regarding four questions of law arising from a High Court decision in Li Weiming v Public Prosecutor. The questions concerned the Criminal Case Disclosure Conference (CCDC) regime under the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically regarding the provision of particulars in a summary of facts for a charge under section 477A of the Penal Code (falsification of accounts). The Court of Appeal answered the questions, clarifying the scope of the CCDC procedures and the requirements for proving intent to defraud, and set aside the High Court's orders for particulars.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Orders for particulars set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies criminal case disclosure procedures and intent to defraud in falsification of accounts case involving Li Weiming.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant | Government Agency | Orders for particulars set aside | Partial | Tan Ken Hwee, Alan Loh, Kenneth Wong, Tan Zhongshan |
| Li Weiming | Respondent | Individual | Orders for particulars set aside | Partial | Lok Vi Ming, Derek Kang, Joseph Lee, Tan Jin Sheng |
| Lim Ai Wah | Respondent | Individual | Orders for particulars set aside | Partial | Lai Yew Fei, Alec Tan, Lee Hui Yi |
| Thomas Philip Doehrman | Respondent | Individual | Orders for particulars set aside | Partial | Julian Tay, Marcus Foong, Jacqueline Chua, Jonathan Cho |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Ken Hwee | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Alan Loh | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Kenneth Wong | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Tan Zhongshan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Lok Vi Ming | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Derek Kang | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Joseph Lee | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Tan Jin Sheng | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Lai Yew Fei | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Alec Tan | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Lee Hui Yi | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Julian Tay | Lee & Lee |
| Marcus Foong | Lee & Lee |
| Jacqueline Chua | Lee & Lee |
| Jonathan Cho | Lee & Lee |
4. Facts
- Li Weiming was an employee of ZTE Corporation.
- ZTE was awarded a $35m contract for a community college programme in Papua New Guinea.
- Questzone Offshore Pte Ltd was allegedly set up to receive commissions from ZTE for the award of the Project.
- Lim Ai Wah was a director of Questzone.
- Thomas Philip Doehrman assisted the Papua New Guinea government under a trust for the Project.
- Respondents were charged with conspiracy to falsify accounts and acquiring benefits of criminal conduct.
- The High Court ordered the PP to provide further particulars regarding the identity of the defrauded party.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Li Weiming and others, Criminal Reference No 1 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 7
- Li Weiming v Public Prosecutor and other matters, , [2013] 2 SLR 1227
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Papua New Guinea government awarded ZTE a $35m contract for a community college programme. | |
| Respondents were each charged with six charges. | |
| PP filed and served the Case for the Prosecution on the respondents. | |
| Decision from which this appeal arose is reported at [2013] 2 SLR 1227. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Court of Appeal decision date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Case Disclosure Conference (CCDC) Procedures
- Outcome: The court held that s 169 of the CPC 2010 does not preclude directions or orders that the court may make in relation to compliance with the requirements for the filing of the Cases.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-compliance with CCDC procedures
- Power of court to order particulars
- Intent to Defraud
- Outcome: The court held that any charge under s 477A may be proven by establishing a general intent to defraud.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- General intent vs specific intent
- Requirements for proving intent
- Revisionary Jurisdiction of the High Court
- Outcome: The court held that the High Court’s exercise of its powers to revise orders made at CCDCs under s 404 of the CPC 2010 is subject to the threshold of 'serious injustice'.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Threshold for intervention
- Correctness, legality, propriety or regularity
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal charges and penalties
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to falsify accounts
- Acquiring, possessing, using, concealing or transferring benefits of criminal conduct
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Telecommunications
- Information Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited for the cumulative requirements specified in s 397(1) of the CPC 2010 for a criminal reference. |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and other applications | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 966 | Singapore | Cited for the cumulative requirements specified in s 397(1) of the CPC 2010 for a criminal reference. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] SGCA 59 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that the PP had to satisfy the court that the question had arisen in the matter and the determination of which by the Judge had affected the case. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the court's residual powers were not superseded or circumscribed by the CCDC framework. |
| R v Smithson | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 WLR 1052 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that the judge could order amendments to the contents of the Prosecution’s case statement as part of the judge’s overall case management powers. |
| R v Rochford | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 WLR 534 | England and Wales | Cited for the court's reasoning that contrasts an order that is 'no more than an emphatic articulation of the statutory obligation' with an 'extra-statutory sanction'. |
| Selvarajan James v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 946 | Singapore | Cited as contrary to the view that it is not for the court to impose a duty of disclosure on the Prosecution. |
| Bedico Ma Teresa Bebango v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 122 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the discretionary powers of revision should be exercised 'sparingly'. |
| Ang Poh Chuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold requirement of 'serious injustice' for the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction. |
| R v Henry Hodgson | House of Lords | Yes | (1856) Dears & Bell 3 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that the effect of a section setting out the contents of a charge went only to the formal aspects of the charge and not the legal elements of the offence. |
| Welham v Director of Public Prosecutions | House of Lords | Yes | [1961] AC 103 | United Kingdom | Cited for the explanation of 'with intent to defraud' meaning 'with intent to practise a fraud' on someone or other. |
| Tatlock v Harris | Court of King's Bench | Yes | (1789) 3 Term Reports 174 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that an intention to defraud must have been present at the time that the forgery was committed, not that a specific intention to defraud any particular person must have been proven. |
| R v Robert Powell | Court of King's Bench | Yes | (1771) 2 Blackstone W 787 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that an intention to defraud must have been present at the time that the forgery was committed, not that a specific intention to defraud any particular person must have been proven. |
| In re Doraiswami | High Court of Madras | Yes | AIR 1951 Mad 894 | India | Cited for the proposition that the consequences or effect of the act should be distinguished from the intent to defraud, which may exist even if the accused’s intended end does not come to fruition. |
| Ram Chand Gurvala v King Emperor | High Court of Lahore | Yes | AIR 1926 Lahore 385 | India | Cited as an example of a general intent to defraud. |
| R v Charles Nash | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | (1852) 2 Den Cr 493 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that it is not necessary that some person was actually defrauded or that there was some person who could possibly have been defrauded. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Nor’ain bte Abu Bakar | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 753 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of fraudulent conduct. |
| Seet Soon Guan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1955] MLJ 223 | Malaysia | Cited for the proposition that the intent to defraud could be proven by an intention to obtain an advantage without being at the expense of anyone in particular. |
| S Harnam Singh v The State | Supreme Court | Yes | (1976) 2 SCC 819 | India | Cited for the proposition that 'intent to defraud' contained two elements viz. deceit and injury. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 477A | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) s 47(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 60 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 29(1) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 8(b)(ii) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33A | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 1900 (Ordinance No 21 of 1900) s 312 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 268 | Singapore |
| Penal Code Amendment Ordinance 1902 (Ordinance 12 of 1902) s 25 | Singapore |
| Indian Penal Code 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) s 477A | India |
| Indian Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1895 (Act 3 of 1895) s 4 | India |
| Falsification of Accounts Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict c 24) s 1 | United Kingdom |
| Falsification of Accounts Act 1875 (38 & 39 Vict c 24) s 2 | United Kingdom |
| Indictments Act 1915 (5 & 6 Geo 5 c 90) | United Kingdom |
| Theft Act 1968 (c 60) s 17 | United Kingdom |
| Criminal Procedure Act 1851 (14 & 15 Vict c 100) s 8 | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Case Disclosure Conference
- Intent to defraud
- Falsification of accounts
- Summary of facts
- General intent
- Specific intent
- Revisionary jurisdiction
- Serious injustice
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Case Disclosure Conference
- Intent to defraud
- Falsification of accounts
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Penal Code
- Singapore
- Criminal Reference
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Disclosure
- Fraud
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Criminal Law
- Falsification of Accounts