PP v Su Jiqing Joel: Unlawful Short-Term Accommodation under Planning Act
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentence imposed on Su Jiqing Joel by the District Judge for four charges under s 12(1) of the Planning Act for providing unlawful short-term accommodation through Airbnb. The Chief Justice allowed the appeal, setting out a sentencing framework for STA offences, adopting a bifurcated approach, and finding the original sentence manifestly inadequate. The court imposed a total fine of $158,000.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding sentencing for unlawful short-term accommodation. The court provides a sentencing framework for such offenses, emphasizing disgorgement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Winston Man of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kow Keng Siong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gabriel Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Su Jiqing Joel | Respondent | Individual | Sentences Increased | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Winston Man | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kow Keng Siong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gabriel Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The Respondent leased six private residential properties.
- The Respondent sub-let the properties on a short-term basis through Airbnb.
- The Respondent knew it was illegal to provide STA.
- The Respondent falsely represented to the owners that he was using the properties for personal use or for his business.
- The Respondent selected properties in Geylang because he believed the residents there were less likely to lodge complaints.
- The Respondent used two separate host accounts on Airbnb and changed the host names to avoid detection.
- The Respondent lied to a condominium manager and CISCO officers to cover up the fact that he had been providing STA.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Su Jiqing Joel, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9067 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 233
- Public Prosecutor v Su Jiqing, Joel, , [2020] SGDC 91
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent provided STA at 5 Lorong 27 Geylang | |
| Respondent provided STA at 5 Lorong 27 Geylang | |
| Respondent began providing STA at 1 Lorong 24 Geylang (6th Unit) | |
| Respondent was investigated by URA for providing STA | |
| Respondent began providing STA at 1 Lorong 20 Geylang | |
| Respondent began providing STA at 5 Lorong 39 Geylang (1st Unit) | |
| Respondent began providing STA at 1 Lorong 24 Geylang (2nd Unit) | |
| Respondent began providing STA at Lorong 36 Geylang | |
| Respondent stopped providing STA at Lorong 36 Geylang | |
| Public Prosecutor v Michael Mega URA 14/2018 | |
| Respondent stopped providing STA at 5 Lorong 39 Geylang (1st Unit) | |
| Respondent stopped providing STA at 1 Lorong 24 Geylang (6th Unit) | |
| Respondent stopped providing STA at 1 Lorong 24 Geylang (2nd Unit) | |
| Respondent stopped providing STA at 302 Sims Avenue (4th Unit) | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Unlawful Provision of Short-Term Accommodation
- Outcome: The court provided a sentencing framework for STA offences, adopting a bifurcated approach.
- Category: Substantive
- Manifest Inadequacy of Sentence
- Outcome: The court found the original sentence manifestly inadequate and increased the fines.
- Category: Procedural
- Deduction of Expenses for Disgorgement
- Outcome: The court held that necessary expenses should be deducted when quantifying profits for disgorgement.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 3 SLR 516
8. Remedies Sought
- Increased Fine
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Planning Act s 12(1)
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Real Estate
- Regulatory Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 892 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may impose a fine in addition to imprisonment to disgorge profits from illegal behavior. |
| Tan Gek Young v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 820 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may impose a fine in addition to imprisonment to disgorge profits from illegal behavior. |
| Centillion Environment & Recycling Ltd (formerly known as Citiraya Industries Ltd) v Public Prosecutor and others and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 444 | Singapore | Cited in the context of confiscation orders under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Ah Moi (F) | Unknown | Yes | [1949] MLJ 155 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the penalty imposed should remove the desire to re-offend. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sentencing precedents that are not fully reasoned are of little precedential value. |
| Koh Jaw Hung v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 516 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the offender’s expenses may be considered, and that in every case, it is the actual gain, benefit or profit which is sought to be disgorged. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proportionality runs through the gamut of sentencing decisions. |
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited as a model for the sentencing framework for STA offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wong Chee Meng and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 144 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sentences which are either too high or too low may have an undesirable cascading effect on future cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v Project Lifestyle Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 251 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case under s 12(2) of the Planning Act, which is not directly relevant to STA offences. |
| Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 1005 | Singapore | Cited for the relevance of the offender’s motive in sentencing. |
| Neo Ah Luan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1153 | Singapore | Cited for the relevance of the duration of offending in sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Bong Sim Swan, Suzanna | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 82 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an offender cannot be punished for conduct which has not formed the subject of the charges brought against him. |
| Soh Guan Cheow Anthony v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 147 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an offender’s dishonesty can be regarded as an aggravating factor where it is not an element of the offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v BDB | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 127 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the offender’s co-operation with the investigating authorities is not a mitigating factor because there was overwhelming evidence against him. |
| Kanagaratnam Nicholas Jens v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 887 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is not open to the offender to assert that his offences were one-off in nature, given that he had already been investigated for the unlawful provision of STA prior to the detection of the present offences. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that, except in the most exceptional circumstances, hardship to the offender’s family has very little, if any, mitigating value. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle requires the sentencing judge to take a “last look” at all the facts and circumstances and be satisfied that the aggregate sentence is sufficient and proportionate to the offender’s overall criminality. |
| Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle applies in the context of multiple fines. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle is equally capable of having a boosting effect on individual sentences where they would otherwise result in a manifestly inadequate overall sentence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed) s 12(1) | Singapore |
| Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed) s 12(4)(a) | Singapore |
| Planning Act s 3(3)(ca) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 303(2)(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Short-Term Accommodation
- Planning Act
- Disgorgement
- Bifurcated Approach
- Sentencing Framework
- Manifestly Inadequate
- Necessary Expenses
- Airbnb
- Urban Redevelopment Authority
15.2 Keywords
- Short-term accommodation
- Planning Act
- Sentencing
- Disgorgement
- Airbnb
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Planning Act | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Short-term Accommodation | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
| Property Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Sentencing Principles
- Criminal Law
- Real Estate Law
- Planning Law