PP v Leow Ban Leong: Falsification of Accounts Appeal

Leow Ban Leong and Foo Fang Liong, CEO and senior manager respectively of Prelim Construction Pte Ltd and Advance Facilities Pte Ltd, appealed against their conviction in the High Court of Singapore for falsifying company documents under s 477A of the Penal Code. The charges stemmed from a conspiracy to overcharge the Police Coast Guard for buoys. The High Court dismissed their appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals against conviction dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Leow Ban Leong and Foo Fang Liong appeal against their conviction for falsifying company documents. The High Court dismissed their appeals.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellant, RespondentGovernment AgencyAppeals against conviction dismissedWon
Gordon Oh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jiang Ke-Yue of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Magdalene Huang of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Leow Ban LeongRespondent, AppellantIndividualAppeal against conviction dismissedLost
Foo Fang LiongRespondent, AppellantIndividualAppeal against conviction dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gordon OhAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jiang Ke-YueAttorney-General’s Chambers
Magdalene HuangAttorney-General’s Chambers
Cavinder BullDrew & Napier LLC
Kang Kok Boon, FavianPeter Low & Choo LLC
Pramnath VijayakumarEldan Law LLC
Edwin Lee Peng KhoonEldan Law LLC
Vikram RajaramDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Leow and Foo were convicted of falsifying company documents to overcharge the Police Coast Guard for buoys.
  2. Leow is the CEO of Prelim Construction and a director of Advance Facilities.
  3. Foo is a senior manager at both Prelim and Advance.
  4. Prelim charged PCG $2,500 plus 5% per buoy, but the actual cost was $1,500 per buoy.
  5. Leow and Foo fabricated documents to make it appear as though the cost of the buoys was $2,500 each.
  6. The falsified documents misrepresented Advance as the supplier of the buoys.
  7. The falsified documents included a fictitious three-year extended warranty.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Leow Ban Leong and another and another appeal, , [2019] SGHC 29
  2. Public Prosecutor v Leow Ban Leong and another, , [2018] SGDC 157

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Quotation prepared by Benson Tan
Hearing date
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Falsification of Accounts
    • Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for falsification of accounts.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. No remedies sought

9. Cause of Actions

  • Falsification of accounts

10. Practice Areas

  • No practice areas specified

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 477ASingapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Falsification of accounts
  • Term Contract
  • Floating Sea Barrier Project
  • Police Coast Guard
  • Auditor-General’s Office
  • Form D9
  • Wealth Marine
  • Advance Facilities
  • Cost-plus basis
  • Three-year extended warranty

15.2 Keywords

  • Falsification
  • Accounts
  • Criminal Law
  • Singapore
  • Construction

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Falsification of Accounts85
Criminal Law75
Criminal Procedure75
Fraud and Deceit60
Company Law40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Falsification of Accounts