PP v Kong Hoo: Endangered Species Act & Rosewood Import
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the acquittals of Kong Hoo (Private) Limited and Wong Wee Keong in the High Court of Singapore for offences under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. The High Court allowed the appeals, convicting the respondents. The case involved the illegal import of a large quantity of rosewood. The court sentenced Wong to imprisonment and a fine, and Kong Hoo to a fine, ordering forfeiture of the rosewood.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision (Sentence)
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Kong Hoo & Wong Wee Keong convicted under the Endangered Species Act for importing rosewood without a permit. The court imposed fines and imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kwek Mean Luck, Tan Wen Hsien, Sarah Shi, Zhuo Wenzhao |
| Kong Hoo (Private) Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Fine of $500,000 | Lost | K Muralidharan Pillai, Paul Tan, Jonathan Lai, Choo Zheng Xi |
| Wong Wee Keong | Respondent | Individual | Imprisonment and Fine | Lost | K Muralidharan Pillai, Paul Tan, Jonathan Lai, Choo Zheng Xi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kwek Mean Luck | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wen Hsien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Shi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zhuo Wenzhao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| K Muralidharan Pillai | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Paul Tan | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Jonathan Lai | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low LLC |
4. Facts
- The Respondents imported 29,434 logs of Rosewood into Singapore.
- The Rosewood was valued between $15-20 million or $135 million.
- The Respondents did not have a permit to import the Rosewood.
- The cargo manifests described the cargo as “logs, sawdust, wood charcoal”.
- The Rosewood was stored in the hold of the Vessel.
- The Respondents elected to remain silent and offered no testimony in support of their defence.
- The Rosewood was legally exported from Madagascar.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Kong Hoo (Pte) Ltd and another appeal, Magistrate’s Appeal Nos 9192 and 9193 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 129
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rosewood listed as a protected species in the Annex to CITES. | |
| Rosewood seized. | |
| Rosewood added to the list of protected species in Hong Kong. | |
| First hearing. | |
| Decision to allow the Prosecution’s appeals against their acquittals and convict them for offences under s 4(1) of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. | |
| Final disposal of this matter. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Import of Scheduled Species without Permit
- Outcome: The court held that the respondents were guilty of importing scheduled species without a permit.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of 'Scheduled Species' in Endangered Species Act
- Outcome: The court held that the fine should be computed on a 'per specimen' basis rather than a 'per species' basis.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing Considerations for Offences under Endangered Species Act
- Outcome: The court considered the quantity and value of the rosewood, the lack of evidence of deliberate concealment, and the impact of forfeiture in determining the appropriate sentence.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction of the Respondents
- Imposition of deterrent sentences
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of s 4(1) of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- Trading
- Manufacturing
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Kong Hoo (Pte) Ltd and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 65 | Singapore | Sets out the decision in respect of the Prosecution’s appeals against the acquittals granted to the Respondents at the close of trial. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wong Wee Keong and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 965 | Singapore | Sets out the decision on the Prosecution’s appeals against the District Judge’s decision that the Respondents had no case to answer. |
| Lee Foo Choong Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 292 | Singapore | Cited in support of the submission that the manner in which the Respondents had conducted their case evinced their lack of remorse. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sustrisno Alkaf | District Court | Yes | [2006] SGDC 182 | Singapore | Cited in support of the Respondents’ case. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the broad steps required by s 9A of the Interpretation Act. |
| Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ld v Boarland (Inspector of Taxes) | House of Lords | Yes | [1955] AC 667 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an expression may bear different meanings at different parts of a statute. |
| Magnum Finance Bhd v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 159 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose that forfeiture can be a form of punishment. |
| R v James Henry Sargeant | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1974) 60 Cr App R 74 | England and Wales | Cited with approval by our Court of Appeal in Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok Hing for the four classical principles of sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok Hing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 684 | Singapore | Cited for the four classical principles of sentencing. |
| R v Craig | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2009] 1 SCR 762 | Canada | Cited for the decision to allow forfeiture can be considered by the sentencing judge in crafting a fit sentence. |
| R v Brough | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 NZLR 419 | New Zealand | Cited for the approach to focus on the particular statute under which forfeiture is being ordered. |
| R v McLeod | Victorian Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 16 VR 682 | Australia | Cited for the distinction between forfeiture of the proceeds of crime and forfeiture of other forms of property. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Lee Yin and another appeal | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR 824 | Singapore | Cited for the task for the court is to properly balance the four classical principles of sentencing. |
| K Saravanan Kuppusamy v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 88 | Singapore | Cited for where a material fact that either aggravates or mitigates the offence is put forward at the sentencing stage, it is incumbent upon the party relying on it to prove that that fact exists. |
| Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 22 | Singapore | Cited for where a material fact that either aggravates or mitigates the offence is put forward at the sentencing stage, it is incumbent upon the party relying on it to prove that that fact exists. |
| Shell Eastern Petroleum Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament does not legislate in vain. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 37 | Singapore | Cited for every accused has a constitutional right to plead not guilty and to claim trial to a charge. |
| Luong Thi Trang Hoang Kathleen v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 707 | Singapore | Cited for the usual circumspection should be applied for unreported cases. |
| Macri v Western Australia | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [2006] WASCA 63 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the property sought to be forfeited is the fruits of crime to which the offender can lay no legitimate claim and therefore should be divested of. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 4(1) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2(1) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 11(4) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 15(1) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 15(7) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 15(8) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 15(9) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 15(10) | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 28(2) | Singapore |
| Animals and Birds Act (Cap 7, 2002 Rev Ed) s 42(1)(e) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 420 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rosewood
- Endangered Species Act
- CITES
- Import Permit
- Scheduled Species
- Forfeiture
- Transnational Organised Wildlife Crime
- Per Specimen
- Per Species
15.2 Keywords
- Endangered Species
- Rosewood
- Import
- Permit
- Singapore
- Wildlife
- CITES
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Environmental Law
- Wildlife Trade
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
- Endangered Species Act