Steep Rise Ltd v Attorney-General: Duty of Full Disclosure & Enforcement of Foreign Confiscation Order under MACMA
Steep Rise Limited appealed against the High Court's decision to dismiss their application to discharge a Restraint Order obtained by the Attorney-General (AG) under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MACMA). The Restraint Order pertained to funds in Steep Rise Limited's bank account in Singapore, which were suspected to be linked to a VAT fraud in France. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the AG did not breach his duty of full and frank disclosure and that there was no requirement to demonstrate a risk of dissipation of assets under the MACMA. The court ordered Steep Rise Limited to pay costs of $40,000 to the AG.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Steep Rise Ltd's appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to uphold a Restraint Order under the MACMA.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Kristy Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Ee Kuan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kenneth Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ng Kexian of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Steep Rise Limited | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kristy Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Ee Kuan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kenneth Wong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ng Kexian | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Kai Liang | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Jason Chan | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Daniel Seow Wei Jin | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Lim Min Li Amanda | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Victor Leong Hoi Seng | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- The French authorities investigated VAT fraud and money-laundering in the French carbon stock exchange.
- The French authorities suspected that B Concept committed VAT fraud.
- The proceeds of the VAT fraud were allegedly laundered into bank accounts owned by Mr Touil and related persons.
- The French Ministry of Justice sent two International Requests for Legal Assistance to the AG.
- The AG filed an ex parte application to restrain dealings with funds in Steep Rise Limited's BOS Account.
- The High Court granted the Restraint Order.
- The appellant applied to discharge the Restraint Order, arguing material non-disclosure and lack of risk of dissipation.
5. Formal Citations
- Steep Rise Ltd v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 30 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 20
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| French authorities conducted investigations into Value Added Tax fraud and money-laundering. | |
| French Ministry of Justice sent the First Request to the AG. | |
| French Ministry of Justice sent the Second Request to the AG. | |
| The AG filed an ex parte application to restrain dealings with the funds in the BOS Account. | |
| The High Court granted the Restraint Order. | |
| Report on the seizure was made to the Magistrate in the State Courts. | |
| French authorities commenced criminal proceedings against Mr Touil in the High Court of Paris. | |
| The AG adduced a certificate in OS 898 by way of a supplementary affidavit. | |
| The appellant applied to the High Court to vary the Restraint Order. | |
| The appellant applied to discharge the Restraint Order. | |
| Court of Appeal hearing. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure
- Outcome: The court held that the AG's duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte MACMA applications is limited to disclosing all material facts within the AG's actual knowledge, without a positive duty to investigate further into the facts provided by the foreign authority.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994
- [2000] 1 SLR(R) 786
- Risk of Dissipation
- Outcome: The court held that there is no requirement for the AG to show a risk of dissipation in an application for a restraint order under the MACMA.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Discharge of Restraint Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Restraint Order under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- International Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Section 22 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 283 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the AG has a duty to make an application to the court where a request from a foreign country satisfies all requirements of the MACMA. |
| The Vasiliy Golovnin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding the duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications. |
| Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah (trading as Sin Kwang Wah) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 786 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the duty of full and frank disclosure requires the applicant to disclose not only material facts known to him but also such additional facts which he would have known if he had made proper inquiries. |
| Director of the Serious Fraud Office v A | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] EWCA Crim 1927 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of the UK Court of Appeal accepting that there is a duty of full and frank disclosure on the part of the AG when he applies for a restraint order in support of a potential foreign confiscation order. |
| In re Stanford International Bank Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2011] Ch 33 | England and Wales | Cited by the appellant to support the argument that a risk of dissipation must be shown, but the court declined to adopt the approach in this case. |
| Jennings v Crown Prosecution Service | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 WLR 182 | England and Wales | Cited in Stanford Bank in support of the requirement for risk of dissipation, but the court distinguished it as a case involving a purely domestic restraint order. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 89B Rule 11 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Restraint Order
- Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act
- Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure
- Risk of Dissipation
- VAT Fraud
- Money-Laundering
- Foreign Confiscation Order
- Ex Parte Application
15.2 Keywords
- Mutual Legal Assistance
- Restraint Order
- Singapore
- VAT Fraud
- MACMA
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Mutual Legal Assistance | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 75 |
| International Law | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Mutual Legal Assistance
- Criminal Law
- Civil Procedure