Chiew Kok Chai v Public Prosecutor: EFMA False Declaration Sentencing
Chiew Kok Chai appealed to the High Court of Singapore against a six-week imprisonment sentence imposed for offences under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA). Chiew was charged with abetment by engaging in a conspiracy to make false declarations in connection with three work pass applications. The High Court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence, providing a sentencing framework for offences under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against a six-week imprisonment sentence for EFMA offences. The court provides a sentencing framework for false declaration offences.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chiew Kok Chai | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Chai Ming Kheong, Hoo Ann Qi, Persis, Soh Hao Han, Benjamin |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Teo Lu Jia |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chai Ming Kheong | JC Law Asia LLC |
| Hoo Ann Qi, Persis | JC Law Asia LLC |
| Soh Hao Han, Benjamin | JC Law Asia LLC |
| Teo Lu Jia | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chen Zhida | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- The appellant pleaded guilty to 18 charges under the EFMA and the Employment Act.
- The appellant consented for 43 charges under both Acts to be taken into consideration for sentencing.
- The appellant and Mr Tan jointly managed Wee Chong Construction and Wan Fu Builders Pte Ltd.
- The appellant was a registered director of Wan Fu.
- Wan Fu was not entitled to a foreign manpower quota due to previous levy defaults.
- The appellant and Tan conspired to obtain foreign manpower for Wan Fu by falsely declaring that the employees would be employed by Wee Chong.
- Three foreign employees were issued work passes based on these false declarations and worked solely for Wan Fu.
5. Formal Citations
- Chiew Kok Chai v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9324 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 169
- Public Prosecutor v Chiew Kok Chai, , [2018] SGMC 70
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 9324 of 2018 | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Appellant pleaded guilty to 18 charges under the EFMA and the Employment Act | |
| Appellant consented for 43 charges under both Acts to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for offences under s 22(1)(d) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act
- Outcome: The court provided a sentencing framework for offences under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA, holding that a custodial sentence should be the norm.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Appropriate sentencing framework
- Deterrence
- Retribution
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGMC 70
- [2002] 1 SLR(R) 182
- [2017] 3 SLR 447
- [2015] 1 SLR 96
- [2017] 3 SLR 682
- [2010] 2 SLR 413
- [2017] 2 SLR 449
- [2014] 1 SLR 756
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment of making false declarations in work pass applications
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Employment Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Chiew Kok Chai | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2018] SGMC 70 | Singapore | Sets out the facts of the case. |
| Abu Syeed Chowdhury v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 182 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a custodial sentence should be the applicable norm where a false representation is made under s 57(1) of the Immigration Act. |
| Koh Yong Chiah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 447 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that custodial terms should be imposed as a starting point where offences under s 182 of the Penal Code result in appreciable harm. |
| Mehra Radhika v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that upward revisions in the maximum prescribed punishment should result in corresponding increases in sentences. |
| Public Prosecutor v GS Engineering & Construction Corp | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 682 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that existing sentencing benchmarks do not sufficiently utilise the available sentencing range. |
| Lim Kopi Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 413 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any deception of a public institution which frustrates the aims of the EFMA cannot be condoned. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the use of the “two-step sentencing bands” approach. |
| Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 756 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a custodial sentence should be the starting point for false declarations under s 39(1) of the Passports Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Soh Tze Chai | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 58 | Singapore | Sentences of two months’ imprisonment were imposed if the false information was “material”. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Lai Heng | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 368 | Singapore | Sentences of two weeks’ imprisonment were imposed if the false information was not material. |
| Public Prosecutor v Franco Ong Kim Huat (Wang Jinfa) | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 269 | Singapore | Sentences of two weeks’ imprisonment were imposed if the false information was not material. |
| Public Prosecutor v Shokkanarayanan Ramakrishnan | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2012] SGDC 127 | Singapore | An employment agent was convicted of four charges under s 22(1)(d) read with s 23(1) of the EFMA for abetting a sole proprietor in a carpentry firm to falsely declare in S Pass applications that four foreign employees would be paid a monthly salary of $1,800 to $2,000, when he knew they would only be paid $800 to $900. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the public interest may necessitate a custodial sentence where the offence is serious and where retribution therefore applies. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Clarified the scope of s 9A and the relevance of Parliamentary debates in assisting in the interpretation of statutes. |
| Luong Thi Trang Hoang Kathleen v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 707 | Singapore | Care must be taken to ensure that the offences are analogous in terms of both policy and punishment. |
| Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 557 | Singapore | Emphasised that judicial pronouncements are by default retroactive in nature, and that the court’s discretion to restrict the retroactive effects of their pronouncements should only be exceptionally invoked where it is necessary to avoid serious and demonstrable injustice. |
| Public Prosecutor v Hue An Li | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 661 | Singapore | Set out four factors that guide the exercise of the appellant courts’ discretion to restrict the retroactive effect of their pronouncements. |
| Koh Jaw Hung v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 516 | Singapore | It would be appropriate for the court to consider imposing confiscatory fines in addition to an imprisonment term to disgorge at least some of the profits the offender may have made from his illegal behaviour. |
| Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 892 | Singapore | It would be appropriate for the court to consider imposing confiscatory fines in addition to an imprisonment term to disgorge at least some of the profits the offender may have made from his illegal behaviour. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) s 22(1)(d) | Singapore |
| Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) s 22(1)(ii) | Singapore |
| Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) s 23(1) | Singapore |
| Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) s 57(1)(k) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 182 | Singapore |
| Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed) s 57(1)(k) | Singapore |
| Passports Act (Cap 220, 2008 Rev Ed) s 39(1) | 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 9A(3)(c) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(3)(d) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Employment of Foreign Manpower Act
- False declaration
- Work pass
- Sentencing framework
- Deterrence
- Prospective overruling
15.2 Keywords
- Employment of Foreign Manpower Act
- EFMA
- False declaration
- Work pass
- Sentencing
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Employment Law
- Criminal Law
- Immigration Law
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Employment of Foreign Manpower Act