Chong Kum Heng v Public Prosecutor: CBT and CDSA Offences & Sentencing Appeal
Chong Kum Heng appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for three counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and six counts of using benefits from his CBT offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA). The District Judge had sentenced him to 39 months' imprisonment. See Kee Oon J dismissed the appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing the aggregate sentence to 32 months' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against conviction for CBT and CDSA offences. The court reduced the aggregate sentence to 32 months' imprisonment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal against conviction upheld; appeal against sentence allowed in part. | Partial | Sarah Thaker of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jasmin Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chong Kum Heng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part. | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sarah Thaker | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jasmin Kaur | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Chee Meng | WongPartnership LLP |
| Ho Wei Jie Vincent | WongPartnership LLP |
| Paul Loy Chi Syann | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- The Appellant was a project manager at RCS Engineering Pte Ltd.
- RCS was engaged to install electrical works at two building projects.
- The Appellant was responsible for disposing of excess copper cables (wastage) from the work site.
- The Appellant sold the wastage as scrap and deposited the sale proceeds into his bank accounts.
- The Appellant used the sale proceeds to purchase a condominium unit, a car, and pay for credit card charges and term insurance.
- RCS did not have official written company policies on the disposal of wastage.
- RCS's practice was for sale proceeds to be used for site expenses and/or personal usage and out of pocket expenses and incentives.
5. Formal Citations
- Chong Kum Heng v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9147 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 21
- Public Prosecutor v Chong Kum Heng, , [2019] SGDC 146
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for CBT, finding that the Appellant was entrusted with the sale proceeds and acted dishonestly in misappropriating them.
- Category: Substantive
- Using Benefits of Criminal Conduct
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for using benefits of criminal conduct, finding that the Appellant used tainted funds in his purchase of the condominium unit and car, as well as payment for credit card charges and term insurance.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found the initial sentence of 39 months' imprisonment to be excessive and reduced it to 32 months' imprisonment.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Using Benefits of Criminal Conduct
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing Appeals
11. Industries
- Construction
- Engineering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's approach to overturning a trial judge's findings of fact, especially concerning witness credibility. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a finding of dishonesty requires the accused to know that the gain or loss was wrongful. |
| Ang Teck Hwa v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 513 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a finding of dishonesty requires the accused to know that the gain or loss was wrongful. |
| Tan Tze Chye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 876 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a finding of dishonesty requires the accused to know that the gain or loss was wrongful. |
| Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 135 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the rule against double jeopardy from the rule against double counting. |
| Tan Khee Koon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 404 | Singapore | Cited for the rule against double counting, which states that there cannot be double punishment for the same offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Vitria Depsi Wahyuni (alias Fitriah) | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 699 | Singapore | Cited for the circumstances under which an appellate court will disturb the sentence imposed by the lower court. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that economic value is a proxy for the degree of criminal benefit received by the offender and the degree of harm caused to the victim. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a victim's forgiveness of the offender should not have any effect on the sentence to be imposed on the offender, except in exceptional situations. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 37 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a plea of guilt is considered as one of many offender-specific mitigating factors. |
| Public Prosecutor v Henry Tan Yeow Seng | District Court | Yes | [2018] SGDC 311 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that offences under s 47(1)(b) are similar to offences under s 47(1)(c). |
| Shaikh Farid v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1081 | Singapore | Cited as the appeal case for Public Prosecutor v Ho Man Yuk [2017] SGDC 23. |
| Lim Seng Soon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 1195 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must ensure that the sentence as a whole is proportionate and adequate in all the circumstances. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 408 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 47(1)(c) read with s 47(6)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act
- Wastage
- Sale Proceeds
- Entrustment
- Dishonesty
- Money Laundering
- Double Jeopardy
- Sentencing
- Aggregate Sentence
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- CDSA
- Sentencing Appeal
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Penal Code | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Sentencing | 80 |
| Appeal | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Statutory Offences