MAS v Wang Boon Heng: Civil Penalties for Unauthorized Share Trading
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) appealed the District Judge's decision to impose civil penalties on Wang Boon Heng and Foo Jee Chin for unauthorized share trading under the Securities and Futures Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, increasing Wang Boon Heng's penalty to $150,000 and Foo Jee Chin's to $75,000, citing errors in the District Judge's assessment and the need for deterrence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) appealed against the District Judge's decision regarding civil penalties for unauthorized share trading.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monetary Authority of Singapore | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Vincent Leow, Daryl Xu |
| Wang Boon Heng | Respondent | Individual | Civil Penalty Increased | Lost | Robert Raj Joseph, Aaron Christian |
| Foo Jee Chin | Respondent | Individual | Civil Penalty Increased | Lost | Robert Raj Joseph, Aaron Christian |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vincent Leow | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Daryl Xu | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Robert Raj Joseph | Gravitas Law LLC |
| Aaron Christian | Gravitas Law LLC |
| Kenneth Chua | Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC |
4. Facts
- Wang Boon Heng, an undischarged bankrupt, conducted 573 instances of share trading.
- Trades were executed on four trading accounts opened in the names of Foo Jee Chin and Tay Ah Thiam.
- Foo Jee Chin consented to Wang Boon Heng carrying out 407 trades on accounts opened in her name.
- The trades were unauthorized, done without the consent of the brokerage firms.
- A remisier at UOBKH, Chean Ah Loo, suffered a loss of $136,000 due to the unauthorized trades.
- Respondents initially denied Wang Boon Heng's involvement, later claiming his deceased brother conducted the trades.
5. Formal Citations
- Monetary Authority of Singapore v Wang Boon Heng and another, District Court Appeal No 6 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 268
- Monetary Authority of Singapore v Wang Boon Heng and another, , [2016] SGDC 345
- Monetary Authority of Singapore v Wang Boon Heng and another, , [2017] SGDC 61
- Tan Chong Koay and another v Monetary Authority of Singapore, , [2011] 4 SLR 348
- Public Prosecutor v UI, , [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500
- Tan Koon Swan v Public Prosecutor, , [1985–1986] SLR(R) 976
- Ang Lilian v Public Prosecutor, , [2017] 4 SLR 1072
- Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik, , [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601
- Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor, , [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1
- Public Prosecutor v Ng Sae Kiat and other appeals, , [2015] 5 SLR 167
- Lee Chee Keet v Public Prosecutor, , [2016] 4 SLR 1316
- Public Prosecutor v Ong Ker Seng, , [2001] 3 SLR(R) 134
- Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor, , [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hearing of the parties | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| District Judge found that on a balance of probabilities, the Respondents had contravened s 201(b) of the SFA and were liable to pay civil penalties under s 232(3) of the SFA. |
7. Legal Issues
- Unauthorized Share Trading
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents engaged in unauthorized share trading.
- Category: Substantive
- Quantum of Civil Penalties
- Outcome: The court increased the civil penalties imposed on both respondents.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 4 SLR 348
- Standard of Review on Appeal
- Outcome: The court clarified the standard of review applicable to appeals against the quantum of civil penalties.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Civil Penalties
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of s 201(b) of the Securities and Futures Act
10. Practice Areas
- Securities Law
- Civil Penalties
11. Industries
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Chong Koay and another v Monetary Authority of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 348 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for determining the quantum of civil penalties, but distinguished due to the different circumstances and culpability of the parties involved. |
| Monetary Authority of Singapore v Wang Boon Heng and another | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 345 | Singapore | District Judge’s decision on liability is recorded |
| Monetary Authority of Singapore v Wang Boon Heng and another | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 61 | Singapore | District Judge’s decision on the quantum of civil penalties |
| Securities and Exchange Commission v Michael G. Sargent | US Court of Appeal for the First Circuit | Yes | 329 F 3d 34 (1st Cir, 2003) | United States | Cited for the standard of review in an appeal against the quantum of civil penalty ordered. |
| Securities and Exchange Commission v Ed Johnson | Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit | Yes | 174 Fed Appx 111 (3rd Cir, 2006) | United States | Cited for declining to intervene with the quantum of penalty imposed by the district court because it considered that the district court had “considered the relevant factors” |
| Tan Boon Heng v Lau Pang Cheng David | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 718 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of review for appeals involving assessment of damages |
| Davis v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1942] AC 601 | United Kingdom | Cited for articulating the rationale behind the Damages Standard: an assessment of damages often involves “entirely matters of impression and of common sense”. |
| Doyle v Australian Securities & Investments Commission | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [2005] WASCA 17 | Australia | Cited for stating that the appellate court is not entitled to intervene on a penalty imposed merely because it would have exercised the discretion in a manner different from that of the trial judge. |
| Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler and others | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2002] 42 ACSR 80 | Australia | Cited for stating that the imposition of a civil penalty, like the quantification of damages, is not a “mechanical exercise” but inherently an exercise of discretion |
| Securities and Exchange Commission v Lybrand | District Court of the Southern District of New York | Yes | 281 F Supp 2d 726 (SDNY, 2003) | United States | Cited for stating that the imposition of a civil penalty, like the quantification of damages, is not a “mechanical exercise” but inherently an exercise of discretion |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of review in appeals against sentence imposed in criminal cases |
| Tan Koon Swan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1985–1986] SLR(R) 976 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of review in appeals against sentence imposed in criminal cases |
| Ang Lilian v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1072 | Singapore | Cited for referring to both the Sentencing Standard and s 394 of the CPC (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) in determining the standard of review. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Liton Mohammed Syeed Mallik | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 601 | Singapore | Cited for stating that the court, in deciding on sentence, is similarly exercising judicial discretion which requires the fine balancing of a myriad of considerations |
| Costa v Public Trustee of New South Wales | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] NSWCA 223 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the quantum of civil penalty imposed by the judge was “plainly wrong”, such as a decision that was “clearly outside what could be justified by correct reasoning” |
| Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for stating that sentencing is neither a science nor an administrative exercise and that sentences cannot be determined with mathematical certainty. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Sae Kiat and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 167 | Singapore | Cited for stating that the purposes of the SFA are to (a) protect investors; (b) protect public confidence in the market and (c) ensure that the operation of the market is not distorted |
| Securities and Exchange Commission v Brethen | United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio | Yes | [1992] Brethen Fed Sec L Rep 97 | United States | Cited for stating that the provision was a congressional response to prominent insider trading cases in the US, and aimed to enhance deterrence against insider trading and to augment detection and punishment of these violations |
| Securities and Exchange Commission v Yun | United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida | Yes | 148 F Supp 2d 1287 (MD Florida, 2001) | United States | Cited for stating that the provision was a congressional response to prominent insider trading cases in the US, and aimed to enhance deterrence against insider trading and to augment detection and punishment of these violations |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam Huat | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 123 | Singapore | Cited for stating that culpability is the measure of “the degree of relative blameworthiness disclosed by an offender’s actions” |
| Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 185 | Singapore | Cited for stating that the appropriate civil penalty to be imposed is the product of a “fact-sensitive exercise of discretion” |
| Mehra Radhika v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited for stating that the court should consider “the range of conduct that may be captured at either end of the [penalty] range”, and then determine where in that spectrum the conduct that is before the court falls |
| Chan Chun Hong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 465 | Singapore | Cited for stating that the absence of an aggravating factor should not be viewed as a mitigating factor |
| Lee Chee Keet v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1316 | Singapore | Cited for adopting a similar approach in Lee Chee Keet v Public Prosecutor [2016] 4 SLR 1316 at [38]. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ong Ker Seng | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 134 | Singapore | Cited for stating that personal financial hardship may not be relied on in mitigation except in the most exceptional cases |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 | Singapore | Cited for stating that the “whole purpose of the law is to maintain order and discipline, and that is most necessary precisely when the citizen might be inclined to act to the prejudice of good order” |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed) s 201(b) | Singapore |
| Securities and Futures Act s 232 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Unauthorized Share Trading
- Civil Penalties
- Securities and Futures Act
- District Judge
- Monetary Authority of Singapore
- Remisier
- Brokerage Firms
15.2 Keywords
- securities
- trading
- civil penalty
- unauthorized
- MAS
- SFA
16. Subjects
- Securities Law
- Financial Regulation
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Financial and Securities Markets
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals