Ho Man Yuk v Public Prosecutor: Dishonest Misappropriation of Property and Statutory Interpretation
In Ho Man Yuk v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard a criminal reference regarding whether a conviction for dishonest misappropriation under Section 403 of the Penal Code requires the accused to have had an innocent state of mind when first possessing the property. Ho Man Yuk was convicted of abetment by conspiracy to dishonestly misappropriate monies and money laundering. The Court of Appeal answered the question in the negative, affirming the convictions, holding that an innocent or neutral state of mind upon initial possession is not required for a conviction under Section 403.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Convictions affirmed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal affirms conviction for dishonest misappropriation, holding that an innocent state of mind upon initial possession is not required.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ho Man Yuk | Applicant | Individual | Conviction Affirmed | Lost | Ragbir Singh Bajwa, Kertar Singh s/o Guljar Singh, Lee Wei Liang |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Conviction Affirmed | Won | Leong Wing Tuck, Jiang Ke-Yue, Kelvin Chong, Ang Siok Chen, Jocelyn Teo |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ragbir Singh Bajwa | Bajwa & Co |
| Kertar Singh s/o Guljar Singh | Kertar & Sandhu LLC |
| Lee Wei Liang | Kertar & Sandhu LLC |
| Leong Wing Tuck | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jiang Ke-Yue | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kelvin Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ang Siok Chen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jocelyn Teo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Applicant was a member of a rewards program at the Marina Bay Sands casino.
- The Applicant exploited a system error at the kiosks which went undetected by MBS.
- The Applicant swiped her membership card multiple times, resulting in an excess of Free Play Credits being credited to her account.
- The Applicant, along with two co-offenders, used the FPCs to gamble and encash winnings, obtaining $875,133.56.
- The Applicant was supposed to be given only 100 FPCs.
- The Applicant was detained by the police on 20 April 2014.
- The Co-Offenders then, on their own accord, took $500,000 of the Monies to the casino at Resorts World Sentosa (“RWS”) where they converted the sum into casino gambling chips and expended them on table games.
5. Formal Citations
- Ho Man Yuk v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Reference No 2 of 2018, [2019] SGCA 02
- Public Prosecutor v Ho Mun Yuk and others, , [2017] SGDC 23
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant swiped her membership card at a kiosk in the casino. | |
| Applicant returned to the casino and discovered $800 worth of FPCs had been credited into her account. | |
| Applicant called the Co-Offenders and asked them to join her at the casino. | |
| Offenders began numerous cycles of swiping, gambling, and encashing their winnings using the Applicant’s membership card. | |
| Applicant was detained by the police. | |
| Co-Offenders converted $500,000 of the Monies into casino gambling chips and expended them on table games at RWS. | |
| High Court dismissed the appeals in their entirety. | |
| Co-Offenders sought and obtained leave to withdraw their applications. | |
| Applicant filed application, seeking determination of the question referred and the five ancillary questions. | |
| Hearing of this reference. | |
| Grounds of decision delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Dishonest Misappropriation
- Outcome: The court held that a conviction for dishonest misappropriation does not require the accused to have an innocent state of mind when first possessing the property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Innocent Possession
- Dishonest Intention
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 3 SLR 12
- [2000] 3 Sri LR 1
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside convictions
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment by conspiracy to commit dishonest misappropriation
- Money laundering
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
- Statutory Interpretation
11. Industries
- Gambling
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Seng Kwan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 12 | Singapore | Discusses the elements of dishonest misappropriation under Section 403 of the Penal Code. |
| Shaikh Farid v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1081 | Singapore | Affirms the convictions on the dishonest misappropriation and the CDSA charges. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Walgamage v The Attorney General | Supreme Court | Yes | [2000] 3 Sri LR 1 | Sri Lanka | Persuasive authority against the requirement of initial innocent possession for dishonest misappropriation. |
| Ramaswamy Nadar v The State of Madras | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1958 SC 56 | India | Lists elements of dishonest misappropriation without mentioning initial innocent possession. |
| Rajendra Singh and another v State of Uttar Pradesh | High Court of Allahabad | Yes | AIR 1960 All 398 | India | Rejects the requirement of innocent possession for dishonest misappropriation. |
| Nam Hong Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd v Kori Construction (S) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 604 | Singapore | Cited regarding rectifying construction. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Cited regarding the strict construction rule. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 403 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) s 47(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) s 47(6)(a) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(1) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(2) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 7A | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 378 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 404 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Dishonest misappropriation
- Free Play Credits
- Sands Bonus Dollars
- System error
- Casino
- Membership card
- Dishonest intention
- Innocent possession
15.2 Keywords
- Dishonest misappropriation
- Penal Code
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation
- Innocent possession
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation
- Property Offences
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation
- Property Law
- Dishonest Misappropriation of Property