Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor: Corruption, Gifts, and Academic Favoritism at National University of Singapore

Tey Tsun Hang, an associate professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS), appealed against his conviction on six charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act for corruptly receiving gratification from his student, Darinne Ko Wen Hui, as inducement for showing favour in his assessment of her academic performance. The High Court, with Justice Woo Bih Li presiding on 28 February 2014, allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions. The court found that the gifts and acts were not given or received with corrupt intent, and the prosecution failed to prove the necessary elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Written Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against conviction for corruption. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding no corrupt intent in the gifts exchanged between professor and student.

1.7 Decision Date

27 February 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Allowed	Lost	Andre Jumabhoy of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kok Shu-En of Attorney-General’s Chambers Yau Pui Man of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tey Tsun Hang	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Peter Cuthbert Low of Peter Low LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Andre Jumabhoy	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Kok Shu-En	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Yau Pui Man	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Peter Cuthbert Low	Peter Low LLC

4. Facts

Tey Tsun Hang was an associate professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
Darinne Ko Wen Hui was a student of Tey Tsun Hang at NUS.
Tey Tsun Hang was charged with six counts of corruption for receiving gratification from Darinne Ko.
The alleged acts of gratification included a Mont Blanc pen, tailor-made shirts, an iPod Touch, payment of a restaurant bill, and two instances of sexual intercourse.
Darinne Ko was in love with Tey Tsun Hang.
Tey Tsun Hang did not disclose his relationship with Darinne Ko to NUS.
Tey Tsun Hang received the acts of gratification from Darinne Ko.

5. Formal Citations

Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 114 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 39
PP v Tey Tsun Hang, , [2013] SGDC 165
PP v Tey Tsun Hang, , [2013] SGDC 166

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-01-01	Darinne Ko enrolled in Equity and Trusts class taught by Tey Tsun Hang at NUS.
2010-02-01	Tey Tsun Hang requested student volunteers for research assistance.
2010-04-08	Tey Tsun Hang selected ten students, including Darinne Ko, for research assistance.
2010-05-01	Tey Tsun Hang met with research assistants for briefing.
2010-05-01	Darinne Ko gave compiled research to Tey Tsun Hang.
2010-05-01	Tey Tsun Hang took Darinne Ko to lunch.
2010-05-26	Darinne Ko bought a Mont Blanc pen and pen pouch.
2010-05-31	Darinne Ko gave the Mont Blanc pen and pen pouch to Tey Tsun Hang.
2010-05-31	Tey Tsun Hang called Darinne Ko to inform her of her grades and class ranking.
2010-06-01	Tey Tsun Hang and Darinne Ko met every Saturday at his office.
2010-06-03	Darinne Ko emailed Tey Tsun Hang a travel itinerary for a trip to San Francisco.
2010-06-06	Tey Tsun Hang emailed a friend to ask about the cost of the Mont Blanc pen.
2010-06-07	Tey Tsun Hang emailed Darinne Ko a write-up on Chopin.
2010-06-08	Darinne Ko made an appointment at the USA Embassy for Tey Tsun Hang.
2010-06-12	Darinne Ko's boyfriend discovered emails between Darinne Ko and Tey Tsun Hang.
2010-06-12	Darinne Ko sent an email to Tey Tsun Hang to end the relationship.
2010-06-22	Darinne Ko and Tey Tsun Hang went to CYC The Custom Shop.
2010-06-22	Darinne Ko paid for two shirts for Tey Tsun Hang.
2010-06-01	Darinne Ko presented an iPod to Tey Tsun Hang.
2010-07-01	Tey Tsun Hang asked Darinne Ko to coordinate a thank you dinner.
2010-07-19	Darinne Ko booked Tey Tsun Hang's flights to visit her at Duke University.
2010-07-21	Thank you dinner took place at Garibaldi.
2010-07-21	Darinne Ko paid the Garibaldi bill.
2010-07-24	Tey Tsun Hang and Darinne Ko had sexual intercourse in his office.
2010-07-28	Tey Tsun Hang took Darinne Ko out for dinner to celebrate her birthday.
2010-07-28	Tey Tsun Hang and Darinne Ko had sexual intercourse in his office.
2010-08-01	Darinne Ko left for a fall semester exchange program in the USA.
2010-08-02	Darinne Ko wrote Tey Tsun Hang a farewell note.
2010-08-01	Darinne Ko found out she was pregnant.
2010-09-17	Tey Tsun Hang visited Darinne Ko in the USA.
2010-09-25	Tey Tsun Hang left the USA.
2011-01-01	Darinne Ko returned to Singapore.
2011-01-01	Darinne Ko requested Tey Tsun Hang to reimburse her for the Garibaldi Bill.
2011-01-01	Tey Tsun Hang reimbursed Darinne Ko $1,000.
2011-05-30	Darinne Ko emailed Tey Tsun Hang to ask about a review of her Partnership Law paper.
2011-08-08	Darinne Ko and Kenneth Teo approached Tey Tsun Hang to direct their research papers.
2011-08-15	Darinne Ko started taking a Personal Property Law class taught by Tey Tsun Hang.
2012-04-02	CPIB officers went to Tey Tsun Hang's residence and office.
2012-04-02	Tey Tsun Hang was brought to the CPIB for investigation.
2012-04-05	Tey Tsun Hang was discharged from Alexandra Hospital.
2012-04-05	Tey Tsun Hang gave a statement to the CPIB.
2012-04-10	Tey Tsun Hang gave a statement to the CPIB.
2012-05-17	Tey Tsun Hang gave a statement to the CPIB.
2012-05-18	Tey Tsun Hang gave a statement to the CPIB.
2012-05-24	Tey Tsun Hang gave a statement to the CPIB.
2012-07-26	Tey Tsun Hang gave six cautioned statements to the CPIB.
2013-09-17	Tey Tsun Hang was released from prison on home detention.
2013-10-05	Tey Tsun Hang completed his home detention.
2014-02-28	High Court allowed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The High Court found that the statements were admissible as evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Threats
  - Inducements
  - Oppression
  - Medical Condition
  - Psychoactive Medication
- Related Cases:
  - [1994] 2 SLR(R) 338
  - [1999] 1 SLR(R) 498
  - [1972] 1 WLR 260
  - [2003] SGCA 29
  - [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1044
Applicability of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
- Outcome: The High Court found that Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act applied, reversing the evidential burden of proof.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1978] 1 AC 43
  - (1980) 50 FLR 19
  - [2009] 6 MLJ 494
  - [1997] 4 MLJ 1
Elements of Corruption Offence
- Outcome: The High Court found that the elements of the corruption offence were not made out, specifically that the acts of gratification were not given or received as an inducement for academic favouritism.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Acceptance of Gratification
  - Inducement or Reward
  - Objective Corrupt Element
  - Guilty Knowledge
- Related Cases:
  - [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211
  - [2013] 2 SLR 1001
  - [1997] 2 SLR(R) 209
  - [2013] 4 SLR 869
  - [1997] 1 SLR(R) 721
  - [2013] 4 SLR 878

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against Conviction
Appeal against Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Corruption

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Litigation
Corruption Offences

11. Industries

Education

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Kwang Boon Keong Peter v PP	High Court	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 211	Singapore	Cited for setting out the elements of an offence under s 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
PP v Victorine Noella Wijeysingha	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 1001	Singapore	Cited to clarify that the actual act of showing favour is not necessary to establish the actus reus of the offence.
Yuen Chun Yii v PP	High Court	No	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 209	Singapore	Cited for the importance of the intention of the recipient and the giver, and the context of the gift, in determining mens rea. Distinguished on facts.
Teo Chu Ha v PP	High Court	No	[2013] 4 SLR 869	Singapore	Cited for examining the causal link between the gratification and the act of favour under the rubric of an objective corrupt element. Distinguished on facts.
Chan Wing Seng v PP	High Court	No	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 721	Singapore	Cited for elucidating the meaning of an objective corrupt element and the dictionary definition of corruption. Distinguished on facts.
Leng Kah Poh v PP	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 878	Singapore	Cited for the observation that dishonesty is a basic element in the offence of corruption.
R v Braithwaite (Frank Wilson)	Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)	Yes	[1983] 1 WLR 385	United Kingdom	Cited for explaining the effect of s 2 of the UK Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, which is substantially similar to s 8 of the Singapore Prevention of Corruption Act.
R v Mills (Leslie Ernest)	Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)	Yes	(1979) 68 Cr App R 154	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the recipient can rebut the presumption under s 8 by evidence of an innocent explanation, proven on a balance of probabilities.
Seow Choon Meng v PP	High Court	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 338	Singapore	Cited for referring to s 24 of the Evidence Act and s 122(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code collectively as the test of voluntariness.
Gulam bin Notan Mohd Shariff Jamalddin and another v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 498	Singapore	Cited for explaining the test of voluntariness and observing that the common law concept of involuntariness by oppression has been subsumed under s 24 of the Evidence Act.
R v Nicholas Anthony Prager	Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)	Yes	[1972] 1 WLR 260	England and Wales	Cited for the common law concept of oppression.
Yen May Woen v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] SGCA 29	Singapore	Cited for the remark that oppression may not strictly come under the rubric inducement, threat or promise.
R v Priestley (Martin)	Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)	Yes	[1966] 50 Cr App R 183	England and Wales	Cited for the roots of the common law concept of oppression.
Garnam Singh v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 1 SLR(R) 1044	Singapore	Cited for the test of whether the appellant's mind went with his statement when suffering from a medical condition or taking drugs.
DPP v Ping Lin	House of Lords	Yes	[1975] 3 All ER 175	United Kingdom	Cited for the court's approach should not be such so as to form a clog on the proper exercise by the police of their investigating function, and, indeed, on the administration of justice itself.
Yeo See How v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 277	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the person in authority does not have an obligation to remove all discomfort.
PP v Dahalan bin Ladaewa	High Court	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR(R) 124	Singapore	Cited as the only reported local case where the court found that the accused's medical condition affected the voluntariness of his statement.
Sakthivel Punithavathi v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 983	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court must not unquestioningly accept unchallenged evidence and that evidence must invariably be sifted, weighed and evaluated in the context of the factual matrix and in particular, the objective facts.
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101	Singapore	Cited for the limited power of review of an appellate court in respect of findings of fact based on the veracity and credibility of witnesses.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Holly	House of Lords	No	[1978] 1 AC 43	United Kingdom	Cited for the interpretation of public body, but distinguished as the definition and question before the House of Lords was substantially different.
Top of the Cross Pty Ltd and another v Federal Commissioner of Taxation	Supreme Court of New South Wales	No	(1980) 50 FLR 19	Australia	Cited for the scope of s 62A of the New South Wales Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, but distinguished because it concerned a facilitative provision, not a penal statute.
PP v Tan Sri Kasitah	High Court	Yes	[2009] 6 MLJ 494	Malaysia	Cited for the definition of public body, but distinguished as the reasoning of the court related to the extent of ministerial and government control.
United Malacca Rubber Estates Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Johor Bahru	High Court	Yes	[1997] 4 MLJ 1	Malaysia	Cited for the proposition that public utility should be interpreted widely, but distinguished as the provision in consideration did not concern a penal provision.
R v Newbould	Court of Criminal Appeal	Yes	[1962] 2 QB 102	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that penal provisions should be construed strictly.
PP v Ng Boon Gay	District Court	No	[2013] SGDC 132	Singapore	Cited for the finding that the existence of a mutually loving relationship between the accused and the giver of acts of gratification negates the presence of any corrupt element.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6(a)	Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 2	Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 8	Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 9(1)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, Act 15 of 2010) s 258(3)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Gratification
Corruption
Inducement
Objective Corrupt Element
Guilty Knowledge
Voluntariness
Oppression
Public Body
Mutually Loving Relationship

15.2 Keywords

Corruption
Gratification
Academic Favoritism
National University of Singapore
Criminal Law
Singapore
High Court
Appeal
Evidence
Statements
Undue Influence

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Prevention of Corruption Act	95
Criminal Law	60
Abuse of Power	50
Evidence Law	50
Conflict of Interest	40
Academic Dishonesty	30
Administrative Law	20
Professional Ethics	10
Employment Law	10
Corporate Law	5
Constitutional Law	5
Civil Procedure	5

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Corruption
Evidence
Criminal Procedure