Goldring v PP: Cheating, Non-Reliance Clause & Inducement in Investment Scheme

Timothy Nicholas Goldring and John Andrew Nordmann, directors of Profitable Plots Pte Ltd, were convicted of conspiring to cheat investors through a fraudulent "Boron Scheme." The High Court dismissed their appeals against conviction and the Prosecution's cross-appeal against their sentences. The court found that the appellants made false representations to induce investments, and that non-reliance clauses in the investment agreements did not negate their fraudulent intent. The court upheld sentences of seven and eight years' imprisonment for Goldring and Nordmann, respectively.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

All appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Cross-appeals concerning a cheating conviction related to a fraudulent investment scheme. The court examines inducement, non-reliance clauses, and dishonesty.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyCross-Appeal DismissedNeutral
Kevin Yong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Nicholas Khoo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sandy Baggett of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Goldring, Timothy NicholasAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Geraldine Anthony ThomasOtherIndividualAcquittedWon
John Andrew NordmannAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kevin YongAttorney-General’s Chambers
Nicholas KhooAttorney-General’s Chambers
Sandy BaggettAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. The Appellants were directors and shareholders of Profitable Plots Pte Ltd (PPPL).
  2. PPPL introduced an investment scheme called the "Boron Scheme" in November 2008.
  3. Investors were promised a 12.5% return on their investment within six months.
  4. PPPL made false representations that the money invested would be used exclusively to finance the purchase of Boron Products.
  5. PPPL falsely represented that the Boron Products had been pre-sold to major corporations.
  6. Investors relied on these representations before investing in the Boron Scheme.
  7. The investors failed to receive their returns as promised.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Goldring, Timothy Nicholas v Public Prosecutor and other appeals, Magistrate's Appeals No 121-122 of 2014/01-02, [2015] SGHC 158
  2. Public Prosecutor v Timothy Nicholas Goldring, Geraldine Anthony Thomas and John Andrew Nordmann, , [2014] SGDC 422

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Profitable Plots Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore.
Profitable Plots Pte Ltd introduced Boron Products.
PPPL acquired Vawtech Ltd.
PPPL introduced the Boron Scheme.
James Hodgson removed as director of PPPL.
John Gaunt fired as CEO of PPPL.
District Judge's decision in Public Prosecutor v Timothy Nicholas Goldring, Geraldine Anthony Thomas and John Andrew Nordmann [2014] SGDC 422.
Oral Arguments
Oral Arguments
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Cheating
    • Outcome: The court found that the Appellants had committed the offence of cheating.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Deception
      • Inducement
      • Dishonest intent
      • Conspiracy to cheat
  2. Inducement
    • Outcome: The court held that the non-reliance clauses in the investment agreements did not negate the element of inducement because the representations were fraudulent.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reliance on representations
      • Effect of non-reliance clauses
  3. Dishonesty
    • Outcome: The court found that the Appellants acted dishonestly by making false representations and concealing material information from investors.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • False representations
      • Concealment of material information
  4. Sentencing
    • Outcome: The court upheld the sentences imposed by the District Judge, finding them to be neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Aggravating factors
      • Mitigating factors
      • Sentencing precedents

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Imprisonment
  2. Appeal against conviction
  3. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Conspiracy to cheat

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Financial Services
  • Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 874SingaporeCited for the appellate court's role in assessing findings of fact made by the trial court.
Rahj Kamal bin Abdullah v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 227SingaporeCited for the definition of dishonesty in the context of cheating.
Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties)High CourtYes[2014] SGHC 159SingaporeCited for the principle that the terms of a contract do not negate false representations.
S Pearson & Son, Limited v Lord Mayor, &c, of DublinHouse of LordsYes[1907] AC 351EnglandCited for the principle that a contract contemplates honesty and protects only against honest mistakes, not fraud.
Mentormophosis Pty Ltd and others v Phua Raymond and anotherHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 188SingaporeCited for the principle that one cannot contract out of one's own fraud.
Jiang Ou v EFG Bank AGUnknownYes[2011] 4 SLR 246SingaporeCited for the principle that a clause excluding liability for the fraud of a bank's employees would run counter to public policy.
HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd & Ors v Chase Manhattan Bank & OrsUnknownNo[2003] 1 CLC 358EnglandCited in relation to fraud by an agent, but distinguished as the present case involves fraud by the principal.
Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and another appealUnknownYes[2013] 4 SLR 886SingaporeCited for the principle that whether clauses purport to exclude liability is a question of substance and not of form.
Public Prosecutor v Singh KalpanathUnknownYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 158SingaporeCited for the principle that in a cheating charge, it is not necessary that the property must have been delivered in the Investor’s own name.
Phang Wah and others v Public ProsecutorUnknownNo[2012] 1 SLR 646SingaporeCited as a sentencing marker, but distinguished as the Boron Scheme investors did not receive any goods or services of value.
Public Prosecutor v UICourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 500SingaporeCited for the circumstances in which appellate intervention is warranted in an appeal against sentence.
Lim Hsien Wei v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2014] 3 SLR 15SingaporeCited for the rationale behind Section 148(1) of the CPC.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v PPUnknownYes[2014] 2 SLR 998SingaporeCited for the principle that stood down charges are irrelevant in determining the sentences for the charges that were proceeded with.
Chua Tiong Tiong v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 515SingaporeCited for the principle that stood down charges are irrelevant in determining the sentences for the charges that were proceeded with.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 523SingaporeCited for the principle that amounts invested which are not the subject of any charges cannot be considered in determining the sentence.
Public Prosecutor v Law Aik MengUnknownYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited as authority that the Court can take public disquiet into account.
Public Prosecutor v Wang Ziyi AbleUnknownYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 1082SingaporeCited as authority that the Court can take public disquiet into account.
Gunasegeran s/o Pavadaisamy v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 946SingaporeCited for the principle that the lack of restitution is an aggravating factor.
Kuek Ah Lek v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 766SingaporeCited for the principle that it is not an aggravating factor to claim trial.
Lee Foo Choong Kelvin v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 292SingaporeCited for the principle that it is an aggravating factor for an accused to defiantly maintain his position despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Wan Kim Hock v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2003] 1 SLR(R) 410SingaporeCited for the principle that it is an aggravating factor to prolong the trial unnecessarily.
Public Prosecutor v Lam Chen FongUnknownYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 599SingaporeCited as a sentencing precedent.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 420Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 394Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 148(1)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 148(5)Singapore
Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) s 11Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224) s 24Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Boron Scheme
  • Exclusive Use Representation
  • Pre-Sold Representation
  • Product Request Form
  • Transfer of Title form
  • Non-reliance clause
  • Inducement
  • Dishonesty
  • Money circulation scam

15.2 Keywords

  • cheating
  • fraud
  • investment scheme
  • non-reliance clause
  • inducement
  • criminal law
  • contract law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fraud and Deceit90
Criminal Law75
Contract Law75
Non-reliance clause60
Company Law50

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Contract Law
  • Fraud
  • Investment Schemes
  • Securities Law