Ahunbay v PP: Interpreting Section 370 CPC on Seized Property & Right to Be Heard
In Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed three questions of law regarding the interpretation of Section 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), concerning the procedure for dealing with property seized during criminal investigations. The court clarified the right to be heard for individuals claiming an interest in seized property, the extent of information they are entitled to, and the considerations for a Magistrate's Court in determining the relevance of seized property to ongoing investigations. The court held that individuals with a prima facie interest in the seized property have a right to be heard and to receive relevant information, balanced against the need to protect the integrity of police investigations.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Questions of law answered regarding the interpretation of Section 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal clarified the interpretation of Section 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding seized property and the right to be heard.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mustafa Ahunbay | Applicant | Individual | Questions of law answered | Neutral | N Sreenivasan, Rajaram Muralli Raja, Chong Wei-En Lisa |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Questions of law answered | Neutral | Mavis Chionh, Kevin Yong, Lynn Tan, Eugene Sng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| N Sreenivasan | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Rajaram Muralli Raja | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Chong Wei-En Lisa | Straits Law Practice LLC |
| Mavis Chionh | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Kevin Yong | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Lynn Tan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Eugene Sng | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- Moneys in three bank accounts were seized by the Commercial Affairs Department on 23 June 2011.
- The CAD seized the moneys pursuant to s 35(1) of the CPC.
- The bank accounts were registered under JJ Venture Ltd and Blue Lagoon Holdings Ltd.
- The moneys in the three bank accounts totalled US$13,686,741.93.
- The Companies were previously owned by Mr Mohamed Masood Sayed, who asked the Applicant to buy over his shares.
- Sheikh Faisal loaned the Applicant the money through Suisse Financial Services Limited.
- The Applicant, Mr Sayed and Suisse Financial entered into a settlement deed on 21 March 2012.
5. Formal Citations
- Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Reference No 1 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 10
- Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor, , [2013] 4 SLR 1049
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Moneys in three bank accounts seized by the Commercial Affairs Department | |
| Order obtained permitting the continued retention by CAD of the Seized Accounts for another year | |
| Applicant paid Mr Sayed the purchase price of US$49.6m | |
| Settlement deed entered into between the Applicant, Mr Sayed and Suisse Financial | |
| Straits Law informed that the accounts had been seized | |
| Straits Law wrote to the CAD to enquire about the seizure of the accounts | |
| CAD furnished a redacted copy of their latest investigation report dated 6 September 2011 | |
| Chao Hick Tin JA dismissed Criminal Motion No 60 of 2012 | |
| Hearing before DJ Joseph | |
| Hearing before DJ Joseph | |
| DJ Joseph made an order that the seizure of the Seized Accounts be continued for a further six months | |
| CAD officer appeared before DJ Tan and obtained a further extension | |
| Hearing before DJ Tan | |
| Choo Han Teck J gave judgment, declining to exercise his revisionary jurisdiction in Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor [2013] 4 SLR 1049 | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of Section 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal provided clarification on the interpretation of Section 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Procedure governing seizure of property
- Reporting requirements for seized property
- Magistrate's power to dispose of seized property
- Relevance of seized property to investigations
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 1049
- Right to be Heard
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that persons with a prima facie interest in seized property have a right to be heard.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Entitlement to notice of hearing
- Access to information
- Balancing individual rights and public interest
- Related Cases:
- [1962] AC 322
- Relevance of Seized Property
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal clarified the factors a Magistrate should consider when determining the relevance of seized property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Magistrate's discretion in determining relevance
- Considerations for determining relevance
- Impact of prolonged seizure
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1049 | Singapore | The judgment under review in the current criminal reference, concerning the interpretation of Section 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Sim Cheng Ho and another v Lee Eng Soon | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 190 | Singapore | Analysed the old s 392, noting that s 370 is operative only at the stage of investigations, and no further action is taken by the police to commence an inquiry or a trial. |
| Ung Yoke Hooi v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Interpreted the term 'forthwith' in the old s 392 to mean 'as soon as practicable, as the circumstances permit'. |
| Yunani bin Abdul Hamid v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 383 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that revision is warranted where there is something palpably wrong in the decision which thus undermines the exercise of judicial power. |
| Ang Poh Chuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that revision is warranted where there is something palpably wrong in the decision which thus undermines the exercise of judicial power. |
| Lloyd and others v McMahon | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] 1 AC 625 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the right to be heard depends on the character of the decision-making body, the kind of decision it has to make, and the statutory or other framework in which it operates. |
| Shyam M Sachdev v The State and another | High Court | Yes | (1991) 97 Cri LJ 300 | India | Held that the principles of natural justice are implicit in Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (India), requiring notice and opportunity to be heard for persons likely to be adversely affected by an order. |
| State Bank of India v Rajendra Kumar Singh and ors | High Court | Yes | (1969) Cri LJ 659 | India | Stated that the party adversely affected should be heard before the Court makes an order for return of the seized property. |
| Thai Chong Pawnshop Pte Ltd and others v Vankrisappan s/o Gopanaidu and others | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 113 | Singapore | Explained that even an order for disposal of seized property is not conclusive as to who has title over the property. |
| B Surinder Singh Kanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya | Privy Council | Yes | [1962] AC 322 | Malaysia | If the right to be heard is to be real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. |
| Conway v Rimmer and another | House of Lords | Yes | [1968] 1 AC 910 | United Kingdom | Balancing of competing considerations by the courts is not uncommon. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goldring Timothy Nicholas and others | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 586 | Singapore | Balancing of competing considerations by the courts is not uncommon. |
| Regina v Davis | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 WLR 613 | United Kingdom | Persons with the right to be heard will be informed that such an ex parte hearing is taking place. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Act No 15 of 2010) s 370 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Act No 15 of 2010) s 35(1) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) s 47(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 411 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Seized property
- Section 370 CPC
- Right to be heard
- Investigation report
- Relevance
- Prima facie interest
- Commercial Affairs Department
- Magistrate's Court
- Settlement Deed
- Special purpose vehicles
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Seized Property
- Right to be Heard
- Singapore Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Statutory Interpretation
- Administrative Law
- Natural Justice