Tjong Mark Edward v Public Prosecutor: Corruption involving Agent and Reward for Appointment
In Tjong Mark Edward v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard cross-appeals regarding the District Judge's decision in a corruption case. Tjong Mark Edward, Director of Business Development at ST Electronics, was charged with corruptly obtaining gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was convicted on one charge and acquitted on another. The High Court dismissed Tjong's appeal against conviction and sentence on the first charge and allowed the Prosecution’s cross-appeal on the second charge, convicting him on both charges.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence on the first charge dismissed; Prosecution’s cross-appeal on the second charge allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tjong Mark Edward was convicted of corruption for obtaining gratification as an agent. The High Court dismissed his appeal and allowed the Prosecution's cross-appeal, convicting him on a second charge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Appellant | Government Agency | Cross-appeal on the second charge allowed | Won | Ang Siok Chen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lynn Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tjong Mark Edward | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal against conviction and sentence on the first charge dismissed; convicted on the second charge | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Siok Chen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lynn Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shashi Nathan | KhattarWong LLP |
| Jeremy Pereira | KhattarWong LLP |
| Tania Chin | KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- Tjong was the Director of Business Development of ST Electronics.
- Mujibur was the managing director of a Bangladeshi firm.
- Mujibur was appointed as STE’s agent in Bangladesh to secure a contract with the Bangladesh Police Department.
- The agency agreement provided Mujibur a commission of 7% of the contract price.
- STE’s tender for the Project was successful.
- Mujibur handed two signed blank cheques to Tjong.
- Tjong filled in the dates and amounts on the cheques.
- The cheques were deposited into the bank account of Ho Su Ling, Tjong’s then-girlfriend, now his wife.
- Tjong received these amounts by way of two cheques issued by Ho.
5. Formal Citations
- Tjong Mark Edward v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, Magistrate's Appeal No 167 of 2014/01-02, [2015] SGHC 79
- Public Prosecutor v Tjong Mark Edward, , [2014] SGDC 304
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tjong was introduced to Mujibur Rahman | |
| Mujibur was appointed as STE’s agent in Bangladesh | |
| STE’s tender for the Project was successful | |
| Cheque was deposited into Mujibur’s Citibank account | |
| Tjong met Mujibur at the Pan Pacific Hotel in Dhaka | |
| C1 was cleared | |
| Tjong received $57,386.00 from Ho | |
| C2 was cleared | |
| Tjong received $30,000.00 from Ho | |
| District Judge's decision in Public Prosecutor v Tjong Mark Edward | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Corruption
- Outcome: The High Court found that Tjong contemplated a reward for facilitating Mujibur’s appointment as agent and that he accepted the two cheques as a reward for recommending Mujibur to STE.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Objective corrupt element
- Gratification as inducement or reward
- Guilty knowledge
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211
- [2014] 4 SLR 1264
- Objective Corrupt Element
- Outcome: The High Court found that there was an objective corrupt element in the transaction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention of giver or receiver
- Whether intention tainted transaction
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR(R) 119
- [1997] 1 SLR(R) 721
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Penalty
9. Cause of Actions
- Corruption
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Technology
- Government
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Tjong Mark Edward | District Court | Yes | [2014] SGDC 304 | Singapore | The judgment being appealed from. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the proceedings below would have taken the same course and that the evidence would have been the same. |
| Public Prosecutor v Donohue Enilia | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 220 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Tjong would not be prejudiced by the amendment of charges. |
| Garmaz s/o Pakhar and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that fresh consent is not needed if consent has been given for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered charge is based. |
| Lee Yuen Hong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 604 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court may intervene on a question of law if an error of law has occurred in the court below. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the role of the appellate court in an appeal against conviction or acquittal. |
| PP v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court will interfere only if the finding of fact can be shown to be plainly wrong or against the weight of evidence. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court will interfere only if the finding of fact can be shown to be plainly wrong or against the weight of evidence. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court may also intervene, if, after taking into account all the advantages available to the trial judge, it concludes that the verdict is wrong in law and therefore unreasonable. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of a s 6(a) offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Leng Kah Poh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1264 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of a s 6(a) offence. |
| Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the second and third elements are part of the same factual enquiry. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Tiong Choon | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 119 | Singapore | Cited for the two-part framework in establishing an objective corrupt element. |
| Chan Wing Seng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 721 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether a transaction has a corrupt element is an objective inquiry that is essentially based on the ordinary standard of the reasonable man. |
| Regina v Andrews-Weatherfoil Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1972] 1 WLR 118 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 covers receipt of money for a past favour without any antecedent agreement. |
| Yuen Chun Yii v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 209 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not corrupt to reward someone for doing what he was already supposed to do. |
| Sairi bin Sulaiman v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 794 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must be some advantage gained or hoped to be gained by the giver. |
| Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that only a real or reasonable doubt entitles an accused to an acquittal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gratification
- Agent
- Principal
- Reward
- Objective corrupt element
- Profit-sharing scheme
- Bangladesh Police Department
- ST Electronics
- Commission
15.2 Keywords
- Corruption
- Agent
- Gratification
- Reward
- Appointment
- Bangladesh
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Agency