Lau Cheng Kai v Public Prosecutor: Conspiracy to Bribe & Prevention of Corruption Act Interpretation
The Singapore High Court heard appeals by Lau Cheng Kai, Loh Hong Hoo, Samsudin Bin Rais, and Chua Yee Seng against their conviction and sentence for conspiracy to bribe chief engineers and surveyors of marine vessels under s 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Public Prosecutor cross-appealed against the sentences. The court dismissed the appeals against conviction but allowed the prosecution's appeals, increasing the sentences after determining that the lower court erred in its interpretation of s 31. The court held that conspirators should be punished as if they had committed the offense they conspired to commit.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Prosecution's appeals allowed. Sentences for all Appellants increased.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court addresses the interpretation of s 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act regarding sentencing for conspiracy to bribe.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lau Cheng Kai | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Sentence increased | Lost | Luke Lee Yoon Tet |
| Loh Hong Hoo | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Sentence increased | Lost | Shashi Nathan, Jeremy Pereira, Cathy Pereira |
| Samsudin Bin Rais | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Sentence increased | Lost | Wee Pan Lee |
| Chua Yee Seng | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Sentence increased | Lost | Chia Kok Seng |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Appellant | Government Agency | Appeals allowed | Won | Jiang Ke-Yue, Foo Shi Hao |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Luke Lee Yoon Tet | Luke Lee & Co |
| Shashi Nathan | KhattarWong LLP |
| Jeremy Pereira | KhattarWong LLP |
| Cathy Pereira | KhattarWong LLP |
| Wee Pan Lee | Wee, Tay and Lim LLP |
| Chia Kok Seng | KSCGP Juris LLP |
| Jiang Ke-Yue | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Foo Shi Hao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Loh, general manager of GMT, received US$30,000 to be used for GMT’s purposes.
- Chua proposed buy-back transactions to cover GMT’s loading losses.
- Loh agreed to the proposal and passed the US$30,000 to Chua.
- Chua instructed Lau to hold the money for bribes.
- Samsudin would inform Lau of potential buy-back transactions.
- Lau would seek approval from Chua for the bribe amount.
- Lau delivered US$6,000 to Samsudin for a buy-back transaction on October 29, 2013.
- A joint raid was conducted by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore and CPIB.
- No evidence of any actual buy-back transaction was adduced at trial.
5. Formal Citations
- Lau Cheng Kai and others v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9006–9009 of 2018/01, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9006–9009 of 2018/02, [2018] SGHC 218
- PP v Loh Hong Hoo and 3 others, , [2018] SGDC 92
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Loh received US$30,000 in cash from Ronnie Lau. | |
| Chua proposed buy-back transactions to Loh. | |
| Lau delivered US$6,000 to Samsudin for bribes. | |
| Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore and CPIB conducted a joint raid. | |
| Appeals against conviction dismissed. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of Section 31 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
- Outcome: The court held that s 31 should be interpreted to mean that offenders must be punished as though the PCA offense was committed pursuant to their criminal conspiracy, regardless of whether the offense was factually committed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of deeming provision
- Sentencing discretion for inchoate offenses
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
- Cross-appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Conspiracy
- Bribery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Maritime Law
11. Industries
- Maritime
- Bunkering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Teck Chye v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited as an example of corrupt buy-back transactions in the bunkering industry. |
| PP v Lam Tat Fei | District Court | Yes | [2014] SGDC 264 | Singapore | Cited as an example of corrupt buy-back transactions in the bunkering industry and used as a reference for sentencing. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a criminal agreement is an offense even if no step is taken to carry it out. |
| NMMY Momin v The State of Mahrashtra | N/A | Yes | (1971) Cri LJ 793 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a criminal agreement is an offense even if no step is taken to carry it out. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for principles relating to statutory interpretation. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Union of India v Jalyan Udyog | N/A | Yes | (1994) 1 SCC 318 | N/A | Cited for the principle that where a fiction is created by a provision of law, the court must give full effect to the fiction. |
| Chief Assessor v Glengary Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 339 | Singapore | Cited for the effect of a deeming provision. |
| Tan Khee Koon v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 404 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that attempts and commissions cannot overlap. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not ordinarily disturb the sentence imposed by the trial court except where it is satisfied that the sentence is wrong in principle. |
| Public Prosecutor v Syed Mostofa Romel | N/A | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 1166 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent involving corruption in the maritime industry. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 31 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 120B | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 116 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 394 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(3) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 5 | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 30 | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 29 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 120A | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 109 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Buy-back transactions
- Bunker fuel
- Criminal conspiracy
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Deeming provision
- Loading losses
- Bunkering services
15.2 Keywords
- Corruption
- Bribery
- Criminal Conspiracy
- Bunkering
- Maritime
- Singapore
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Sentencing
- Statutory Interpretation
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Statutory Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Criminal Conspiracy