Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor: Corruption, Sentencing Principles & Restitution

In Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore addressed the appropriate sentencing approach for multiple similar offenses under s 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, where each offense, taken alone, might merit only a light punishment. The appellant, Gan Chai Bee Anne, was charged with 154 counts of giving false receipts to an agent, Ms. Cheong, of Nike, resulting in Nike being defrauded of $77,546.40. The court considered the significance of Ms. Cheong's restitution to Nike and the appellant's lack of direct financial benefit. The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence to five weeks' imprisonment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court addresses sentencing for corruption involving multiple minor offenses and the significance of restitution. Appeal allowed in part.

1.7 Decision Date

27 February 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Partially Dismissed	Partial	Norman Yew of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Gan Chai Bee Anne	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed in Part	Partial	Gregory Ong of David Ong & Co.
Nike Singapore Pte Ltd	Other	Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Norman Yew	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Gregory Ong	David Ong & Co.

4. Facts

The appellant was the owner of D3 Pte Ltd, which designed and installed store displays.
Nike Singapore Pte Ltd engaged D3’s services, and three workers from D3 were attached to Nike.
Ms. Cheong, a product presentation manager with Nike, initiated a plan to extract pecuniary gain from Nike.
Ms. Cheong enlisted the appellant's help to inflate invoices submitted by D3 to Nike.
The scheme ran from 2012 to 2014, involving 154 inflated invoices totaling $77,546.40.
Ms. Cheong made full restitution of $77,546.40 to Nike.
The appellant did not receive any direct financial gain from the scheme.

5. Formal Citations

Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9234 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 42
Public Prosecutor v Gan Chai Bee Anne, , [2018] SGDC 224

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-01-01	Nike Singapore Pte Ltd engaged D3 Pte Ltd’s services.
2012-01-01	Scheme to extract pecuniary gain from Nike began.
2014-12-31	Scheme to extract pecuniary gain from Nike ended.
2016-05-01	Ms Cheong made full restitution to Nike of $77,546.40.
2016-05-01	Ms Cheong pleaded guilty to 22 charges.
2016-06-01	154 related charges were brought against the appellant.
2018-06-01	The appellant pleaded guilty to ten charges.
2018-11-15	Hearing date.
2019-02-28	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court clarified the proper approach for determining aggregate sentences in cases involving multiple similar offenses and the significance of restitution as a sentencing consideration.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Totality principle
  - Aggravating factors
  - Mitigating factors
  - Restitution
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 2 SLR 998
  - [2016] 5 SLR 636
  - [2010] 1 SLR 874
  - [2018] 5 SLR 799
  - [2017] 2 SLR 449
  - [2014] 1 SLR 756
Corruption
- Outcome: The court considered the elements of s 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and its distinction from cheating offenses under the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] 1 SLR(R) 523
  - [2005] 1 SLR(R) 766
  - [2010] 1 SLR 52
  - [2015] 3 SLR 1166
  - [1919] 2 KB 171
  - [1984] 2 WLR 608
  - [2015] HKCU 2767
  - [2011] 4 SLR 217

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against the sentence of 13 weeks’ imprisonment
Substitution of imprisonment with a fine

9. Cause of Actions

Violation of s 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Corruption

11. Industries

Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 756	Singapore	Cited to establish that a custodial sentence is generally appropriate where the offence causes a victim to part with property that has more than negligible value.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 998	Singapore	Cited for the proper approach to determining the aggregate sentence in cases involving multiple offences.
Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 636	Singapore	Cited to explain that the totality principle recommends a broad-brushed ‘last look’ at all the facts and circumstances to ensure the overall proportionality of the aggregate sentence.
ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 874	Singapore	Cited to explain that the court has to assess the totality of the aggregate sentence with the totality of the criminal behaviour.
Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan	Unknown	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 799	Singapore	Cited to explain that totality considerations might be incorrectly given less or more of their “due weight”.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 449	Singapore	Cited to explain that it is important for the court to proceed sequentially when an accused faces multiple charges.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 523	Singapore	Cited to contrast s 6(c) with ss 6(a) and 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ong Beng Leong v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 766	Singapore	Cited to reject the argument that the alleged s 6(c) offence was not made out because the victim was not actually deceived by the accused’s false representations.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 52	Singapore	Cited to support the idea that dishonesty characterises a s 6(c) offence.
Public Prosecutor v Syed Mostofa Romel	Unknown	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 1166	Singapore	Cited to explain that the Act was enacted against the background of its older English counterpart, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (c 34) (UK).
Sage v Eicholz	Unknown	Yes	[1919] 2 KB 171	United Kingdom	Cited to explain that the word “corruptly”, which is used in the first two paragraphs, is “deliberately omitted from the third”.
R v Tweedie	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1984] 2 WLR 608	United Kingdom	Cited to approve Bray J’s view.
HKSAR v Luk Kin Peter Joseph	Hong Kong Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] HKCU 2767	Hong Kong	Cited to explain that s 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201) (HK), which is in pari materia with s 6(c) of the Act, “[b]y targeting non-bribery conduct that also undermines the integrity of the principal : agent relationship … in its own distinct and separate way, plays a broader role in protecting and preserving the integrity of this special relationship”.
Public Prosecutor v Ang Seng Thor	Unknown	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 217	Singapore	Cited to explain that the harm is realised not between their bilateral relationship, but instead, as V K Rajah JA put it in Public Prosecutor v Ang Seng Thor [2011] 4 SLR 217 (“Ang Seng Thor”) at [40], through “the distortion of the operation of a legitimate market, preventing competition in the market from functioning properly, to the detriment of the eventual consumer, who will have to bear the cost of the bribe”.
Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 334	Singapore	Cited to explain that in sentencing for financial and property offences, the greater the economic value involved in the offence, the heavier the sentence.
Lim Ying Ying Luciana v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	Unknown	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 1220	Singapore	Cited to explain that economic value is an accurate proxy for only economic harm suffered by the victim.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 653	Singapore	Cited to explain that an offender’s making of timely and voluntary restitution for loss caused by his offending conduct has generally been regarded in the cases as evidence of his remorse, and therefore as a mitigating factor.
R v Debra Jane Mitchell	Supreme Court of Western Australia	Yes	[1998] WASCA 299	Australia	Cited to explain that making good the loss that the victim had suffered was a mitigating factor because it reduced the harm to the victim.
HKSAR v Tsang Pui Yu, Shirlina	Hong Kong Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 5 HKC 111	Hong Kong	Cited to explain that the act of restitution will always reduce the harm to the victim and may or may not evidence genuine remorse.
R v Wayne Edward Combo	Supreme Court of Western Australia	Yes	[2015] WASCA 34	Australia	Cited to explain that the voluntary repayment of a significant part of the amount defrauded is “mitigatory, in that it reduces the harm to the victim without it having to execute [a judgment containing a restitution order], even if it does not reflect contrition”.
R v Yip Muk Kan	Unknown	Yes	[1988] HKC 868	Hong Kong	Cited to explain that to regard a compensation order as having a mitigating effect in the same case would invite accused persons to bargain with the court for lower sentences in exchange for making restitution, which is wrong in principle for it would effectively enable offenders to buy themselves out of prison.
R v Chamczuk	Unknown	Yes	[2010] AJ No 1407	Unknown	Cited to explain that there would also be the undesirable anomaly that impecunious offenders would receive harsher sentences than those who are able to comply with the order.
Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814	Singapore	Cited to explain that committing an offence with premeditation and planning is an aggravating factor.
Chang Kar Meng v Public Prosecutor	Unknown	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 68	Singapore	Cited to explain that there is no rule of thumb for the size of the applicable discount, which is instead to be decided by the sentencing judge after considering all the circumstances of the case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6(c)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 132	Singapore
Criminal Justice Reform Act 2018 (No 19 of 2018) s 32	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 124	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 417	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 359(1)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Prevention of Corruption Act
Restitution
Sentencing principles
Totality principle
Inflated invoices
Agent-principal relationship
Dishonest exploitation
General deterrence
Custodial threshold
Aggravating factors
Mitigating factors

15.2 Keywords

corruption
sentencing
restitution
criminal law
singapore
prevention of corruption act

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Prevention of Corruption Act	95
Criminal Procedure	90
Sentencing	90
Criminal Law	75
Commercial Fraud	60
White Collar Crime	60
Dishonesty	50
Administrative Law	20
Contracts	10
Commercial Law	10
Business Law	10
Contract Law	10
Banking Law	5

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Corruption