AB Partners Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Revision and Release of Seized Properties
AB Partners Pte Ltd sought criminal revision of a District Judge's order to extend the seizure of funds related to criminal conduct in Russia. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, dismissed the application, finding no substantial injustice to warrant revision. The court held that there was a reasonable basis for the District Judge to believe the funds were relevant to ongoing investigations. The court also found that the applicant failed to show lawful entitlement to the funds. The applicant also sought release of funds for operational expenses and legal fees, which was also denied.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court denies AB Partners' criminal revision for the release of funds seized in connection with a Russian criminal investigation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Order sustained | Won | Lee Jing Yan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Vincent Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| AB Partners Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Jing Yan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Vincent Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lum Kwong Hoe Melvin | WongPartnership LLP |
| Pereira Russell Si-Hao | WongPartnership LLP |
| Liu Guiliang | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- The Applicant seeks criminal revision of the order made by the learned District Judge below on 27 February 2019.
- The Applicant is AB Partners Pte Ltd.
- On 2 September 2016, the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force seized a Credit Suisse AG account in the Applicant’s name.
- The Account contains US$2,935,594.62.
- On 22 February 2017, Boytsov sold all his shares in the Applicant to Ang for US$10,000.00.
- On 1 March 2018, all the shares in the Applicant were transferred from Ang to Liu for consideration of S$1.00.
- During an interview, Liu could not provide any details or particulars regarding any bank accounts in the Applicant’s name in Singapore and could not provide any information as to the source of the funds in the Account.
5. Formal Citations
- AB Partners Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Revision No 10 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 12
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| AB Partners Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore | |
| Commercial Affairs Department seized the Account | |
| Boytsov sold all his shares in the Applicant to Ang | |
| Counsel for the Applicant wrote to the CAD | |
| CAD reported the seizure pursuant to s 370(1)(b) CPC | |
| The first District Judge passed an order of court allowing CAD to retain the seized property | |
| All the shares in the Applicant were transferred from Ang to Liu | |
| CAD wrote to counsel for the Applicant to give the Applicant notice of the 26 April 2018 court review | |
| Counsel for the Applicant informed CAD over a telephone call that the Applicant did not wish to be heard at the court review | |
| CAD made a further report pursuant to s 370(1)(b) CPC | |
| The first District Judge passed another order of court allowing the CAD to retain the seized funds | |
| CAD made a further third report pursuant to s 370(1)(b) CPC | |
| The second District Judge passed the Order which allowed the CAD to retain the seized funds | |
| Tan Ruiyun interviewed Liu as part of CAD’s investigations into the Applicant | |
| Counsel for the Applicant wrote to CAD | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Revision
- Outcome: The court held that criminal revision was not warranted as there was no substantial injustice caused to the Applicant.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 4 SLR 333
- [2019] 4 SLR 867
- [2015] 2 SLR 903
- [2017] 5 SLR 1064
- Seizure of Property
- Outcome: The court held that the second District Judge had a reasonable basis for believing that the seized funds were relevant for investigations.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 4 SLR 333
- [2019] 4 SLR 867
- [2015] 2 SLR 903
- [2017] 5 SLR 1064
- Entitlement to Possession
- Outcome: The court held that the Applicant failed to show that it is lawfully entitled to the possession of the funds.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 5 SLR 1064
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal Revision
- Release of seized funds
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajendar Prasad Rai and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 333 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the threshold for continued seizure under s 370 of the CPC should be more stringent than the threshold for initial seizure under s 35 of the CPC. |
| Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 867 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the wrongful retention of seized property where there is no basis in law for its continued seizure is sufficient to constitute serious injustice. |
| Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 903 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the longer the period that the property has been seized and detained, the greater the justification needed to show that the property is still relevant to the investigation or inquiry. |
| Oon Heng Lye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1064 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person seeking release of seized funds must prove they are lawfully entitled to the possession of the property. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 35(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 370(1)(b) CPC | Singapore |
| s 370 CPC | Singapore |
| s 35(7) CPC | Singapore |
| s 35(8) CPC | Singapore |
| s 47 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking And Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation Of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal revision
- Seizure of funds
- Reasonable basis
- Lawful entitlement
- Substantial injustice
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Revision
- Seizure
- Funds
- Singapore
- CPC
- CAD
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Release of seized properties | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Revision | 75 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 30 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure