Lim Chit Foo v Public Prosecutor: Legality of Multiple Trials & Standing Down Charges in IRAS PIC Scheme Fraud
In Lim Chit Foo v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed a criminal motion concerning Lim Chit Foo's charges related to a fraudulent scheme against the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme. The court considered the legality of the Attorney-General's discretion to prosecute multiple charges over separate trials and the standing down of pending charges. The court held that the statutory basis for standing down charges is Section 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains to the court's power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
The Court of Appeal determined that the statutory basis for standing down charges is Section 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains to the court's power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal addressed the legality of prosecuting multiple charges in separate trials and standing down charges in a fraud case involving the IRAS PIC Scheme.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Arguments partially rejected | Partial | Christopher Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Stacey Fernandez of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Chit Foo | Applicant | Individual | Application partially dismissed | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Stacey Fernandez | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Too Xing Ji | BMS Law LLC |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh | BMS Law LLC |
| Lee Ji En | BMS Law LLC |
4. Facts
- The applicant faced multiple charges related to a fraudulent scheme perpetrated on the IRAS PIC Scheme.
- The applicant allegedly conspired with others to submit false PIC claims to IRAS on behalf of various companies.
- IRAS disbursed $5.56m to 71 companies based on these fraudulent PIC claims.
- The applicant allegedly received more than $1.14m from these false PIC applications.
- The applicant also faced eight forgery charges for possessing forged ACRA business profiles.
- The applicant was also charged with tampering with or attempting to tamper with seven witnesses.
- The Prosecution applied to proceed with the joint cheating charges concurrently with the applicant’s individual cheating charges.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Chit Foo v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 9 of 2019, [2019] SGCA 70
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Investigations into the applicant’s involvement began | |
| Applicant was first charged in court and placed in remand | |
| Trial for four witness tampering charges began | |
| Trial for four witness tampering charges concluded | |
| Applicant was convicted of four witness tampering charges | |
| Applicant was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment | |
| Prosecution served its case for the applicant’s individual cheating charges, forgery charges, and CDSA charges | |
| Hearing of the criminal motion | |
| Prosecution applied to proceed with the joint cheating charges concurrently with the applicant’s individual cheating charges | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Legality of prosecuting multiple charges in separate trials
- Outcome: The court held that the decision to prosecute multiple charges in separate trials is subject to the court's supervision under Section 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Category: Procedural
- Legality of standing down charges
- Outcome: The court held that the statutory basis for standing down charges is Section 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which pertains to the court's power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to state a case directly to the Court of Appeal
- Leave to refer questions of law of public interest to the Court of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment by instigation or conspiracy to cheat
- Forgery
- Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act
- Witness Tampering
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Public Prosecution
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | Cited for the considerations in exercising prosecutorial discretion. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sundarti Supriyanto (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 244 | Singapore | Cited as an example of stood down charges being taken into consideration for sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others | District Court | Yes | [2006] SGDC 55 | Singapore | Cited as an example of the Prosecution proceeding with stood down charges in separate proceedings. |
| Public Prosecutor v Zainudin bin Mohamed and another | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 317 | Singapore | Cited for the application of Section 147(1) of the CPC to withdraw remaining charges. |
| Goh Cheng Chuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 660 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the conduct of proceedings is subject to the overall control of the court. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the judicial power may circumscribe prosecutorial power. |
| Mohamed Ekram v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1962] MLJ 129 | Malaysia | Cited for the interpretation of reasonable cause in Section 238(1) of the CPC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Yong Ping | Unknown | Yes | [1961] MLJ 306 | Malaysia | Cited for the interpretation of reasonable cause in Section 238(1) of the CPC. |
| Jasbir Singh and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 782 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of reasonable cause in Section 238(1) of the CPC. |
| Awaluddin bin Suratman & Ors v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 1 MLJ 416 | Malaysia | Cited for the interpretation of reasonable cause in Section 238(1) of the CPC. |
| Public Prosecutor v David Noordin | Unknown | Yes | [1980] 2 MLJ 146 | Malaysia | Cited for the interpretation of reasonable cause in Section 238(1) of the CPC. |
| Tan Foo Su v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1967] 2 MLJ 19 | Malaysia | Cited for the interpretation of reasonable cause in Section 238(1) of the CPC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak | High Court | Yes | Criminal Application No: WA-44-175-07/2019 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the court has discretion over adjournments under Section 259(1) of the CPC. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 396 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 397 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint) Art 9(3) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 420 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 109 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 116 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 474 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 466 | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) s 47(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 204A | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Art 35(8) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 11(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 238 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 6 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 147(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 147(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 232(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 232(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 148 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 390(9) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 161(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Productivity and Innovation Credit Scheme
- Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
- Standing down charges
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Adjournment
- Witness tampering
- Fraudulent scheme
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Attorney-General
- Case management powers
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Fraud
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
- PIC Scheme
- Standing Down Charges
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Public Prosecutor | 60 |
| Constitutional Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Constitutional Law