Masui v Public Prosecutor: Corruption, Sentencing, and Prevention of Corruption Act

In Takaaki Masui v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals by Takaaki Masui and Katsutoshi Ishibe against their conviction and sentence for corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Masui and Ishibe were convicted of conspiring to obtain bribes. The High Court upheld the conviction but adjusted the sentences, providing a detailed analysis of sentencing principles and frameworks for corruption offences. The court allowed the appeals against sentence in part and adjusted the sentences.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals against sentence allowed in part. Sentences adjusted.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court upholds conviction for Masui and Ishibe on corruption charges, revisits sentencing principles under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

1.7 Decision Date

1 December 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Partial Loss	Partial	Jasmin Kaur of Attorney-General’s Chambers Loh Hui-min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lee Jing Yan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Takaaki Masui	Appellant, Applicant	Individual	Appeal Allowed in Part	Partial	Nicolas Tang of Farallon Law Corporation Charlotte Wong of Farallon Law Corporation
Katsutoshi Ishibe	Appellant, Applicant	Individual	Appeal Allowed in Part	Partial	Sunil Sudheesan of Quahe Woo and Palmer LLC Diana Ngiam of Quahe Woo and Palmer LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jasmin Kaur	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Loh Hui-min	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lee Jing Yan	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Nicolas Tang	Farallon Law Corporation
Charlotte Wong	Farallon Law Corporation
Sunil Sudheesan	Quahe Woo and Palmer LLC
Diana Ngiam	Quahe Woo and Palmer LLC

4. Facts

Masui and Ishibe faced 28 charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act for conspiring to obtain bribes.
The appellants conspired to corruptly obtain bribes from Koh as an inducement for doing acts in relation to their employers’ affairs.
The appellants devised a scheme called the “profit-sharing arrangement” which pertained solely to industrial flour.
The appellants used Chia Lee’s edible flour sole distributorship as both carrot and stick to ensure Koh’s cooperation.
The profit-sharing arrangement was discovered by Sojitz Japan around end 2009.
Chia Lee continued being the sole distributor of edible flour for Nippon Flour Mills until May 2015 when it ceased operations.

5. Formal Citations

Takaaki Masui v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9178 of 2018/01, [2020] SGHC 265
Takaaki Masui v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9179 of 2018/01, [2020] SGHC 265
Takaaki Masui v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters, Criminal Motion No 35 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 265
Takaaki Masui v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters, Criminal Motion No 36 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 265

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2002-01-01	Appellants approached Koh to enter the industrial flour business.
2004-02-01	Masui received $71,773 from Koh.
2004-04-01	Merger between Nissho Japan and another company to form Sojitz Corporation.
2004-10-01	Ishibe promoted to Manager of Sojitz Japan’s foodstuffs department.
2005-02-01	Masui left the Singapore office.
2005-04-01	Masui promoted to General Manager of Sojitz Japan’s foodstuffs department.
2005-06-01	Appellants transferred US$240,000 to Chia Lee.
2007-09-01	Masui left the position of General Manager of Sojitz Japan’s foodstuffs department.
2007-11-26	Last payment from Koh to the appellants.
2009-12-01	Profit-sharing arrangement discovered by Sojitz Japan.
2010-02-26	Sojitz Japan terminated the appellants’ employment.
2015-02-25	Original charges against Masui and Ishibe dated.
2015-05-01	Chia Lee ceased operations.
2018-09-19	District Judge's decision.
2019-07-26	Criminal motions by Ishibe and Masui allowed to adduce further evidence.
2020-02-24	High Court upheld the DJ’s conviction on all 28 charges and amended the gratification quanta stated in the appellants’ C21 and C25.
2020-08-21	Final hearing.
2020-12-02	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Sentencing for Corruption Offences
- Outcome: The High Court provided a detailed analysis of sentencing principles and frameworks for corruption offences, laying down a sentencing framework for offences under ss 6(a) and 6(b) of the PCA.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] SGDC 239
  - [2019] 5 SLR 926
  - [2020] SGHC 144
  - [2017] 2 SLR 449
  - [2015] 3 SLR 1166
  - [2018] 4 SLR 609
  - [2014] 4 SLR 1264
  - [2016] 2 SLR 893
  - [2015] 4 SLR 1090
  - [2011] 4 SLR 217
  - [2004] 2 SLR(R) 525
  - [2017] 5 SLR 576
  - [2015] 2 SLR 229
  - [2018] 4 SLR 813
  - [2019] 5 SLR 526
  - [2018] 4 SLR 1315
  - [2019] 5 SLR 279
  - [2015] 5 SLR 122
  - [2018] 5 SLR 852
  - [2019] SGHC 166
  - [2009] 1 SLR(R) 115
  - [2019] 5 SLR 1005
  - [2014] 4 SLR 623
  - [2012] 2 SLR 375
  - [2018] SGHC 251
  - [1993] 1 SLR(R) 46
  - [2018] 5 SLR 799
  - [2014] 2 SLR 998
  - [2013] 1 SLR 619
  - [2014] 1 SLR 345

8. Remedies Sought

Imprisonment
Penalty

9. Cause of Actions

Corruption

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Corruption

11. Industries

Commodities Trading

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Katsutoshi Ishibe and another	District Court	Yes	[2018] SGDC 239	Singapore	Cited as the decision under appeal, where the District Judge convicted the appellants on all charges.
PP v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals	High Court	Yes	[2019] 5 SLR 926	Singapore	Cited for the development of law on sentencing for corruption offences and the inappropriateness of a sentencing band framework for corruption offences.
Public Prosecutor v Wong Chee Meng and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 144	Singapore	Cited for laying down a sentencing framework for offences under s 6 read with s 7 of the PCA and cautioning against adapting the framework for use with the basic offence under s 6.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 449	Singapore	Cited as a case that the District Judge modelled the sentencing framework after.
Public Prosecutor v Syed Mostofa Romel	High Court	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 1166	Singapore	Cited for identifying three categories of cases concerning different ways by which private sector corruption could manifest.
Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 609	Singapore	Cited as a case that the Prosecution's sentencing framework is modelled after.
Public Prosecutor v Leng Kah Poh	High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 1264	Singapore	Cited as a case with a similarly high aggregate bribe quantum, but distinguished on the facts.
Mohd Suief bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 893	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an accused person is not precluded from relying upon a defence that is raised for the first time on appeal.
Song Meng Choon Andrew v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 1090	Singapore	Cited for the historical context of s 6 of the PCA and its distinction from s 5.
Ang Seng Thor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 217	Singapore	Cited for examples of cases falling within Category 2 and 3 corruption.
Lim Teck Chye	High Court	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR(R) 525	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case falling within Romel category 2.
Heng Tze Yong v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2017] 5 SLR 576	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case falling within Category 3 corruption.
Ding Si Yang v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 229	Singapore	Cited as an example of a sentencing framework tailored to a specific type of fact scenario.
Tang Ling Lee v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 813	Singapore	Cited for the context-specific approach to sentencing.
Low Song Chye v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2019] 5 SLR 526	Singapore	Cited as an example of an offence where more than one key variable has a major impact on the indicative sentence.
Tay Wee Kiat and another v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 1315	Singapore	Cited as an example of a sentencing framework for offences under s 323 read with s 73 of the Penal Code.
Lim Teck Kim v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2019] 5 SLR 279	Singapore	Cited as an example of a Multi-Variable Framework.
Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 122	Singapore	Cited as an example of a Single Variable Framework presented in tabular form.
Public Prosecutor v Lai Teck Guan	High Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 852	Singapore	Cited as an example of a Double Variable Framework presented in tabular form.
Public Prosecutor v Ewe Pang Kooi	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 166	Singapore	Cited as an example of a Single Variable Framework adopted for sentencing in Public Prosecutor v Ewe Pang Kooi.
Wong Hoi Len v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 115	Singapore	Cited as an example of a benchmark sentencing guideline.
Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2019] 5 SLR 1005	Singapore	Cited for the holistic assessment of the seriousness of the offence.
Public Prosecutor v Marzuki bin Ahmad and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 623	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of imposing a penalty equal to the gratification under s 13 of the PCA.
Ho Sheng Yu Garreth v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 375	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the overall sentence should be proportionate to the appellants’ overall criminal conduct even in the event of a default.
Koh Jaw Hung v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 251	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the overall sentence should be proportionate to the appellants’ overall criminal conduct even in the event of a default.
Low Meng Chay v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR(R) 46	Singapore	Cited for the principle that fines ought not to be imposed if it is unambiguously clear that the offender is unable to pay the fine.
Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishan	High Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 799	Singapore	Cited for the totality principle.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 998	Singapore	Cited for the public interest concern in discouraging corrupt criminal conduct.
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 619	Singapore	Cited for the reddendo singula singulis principle.
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 345	Singapore	Cited for the reddendo singula singulis principle.
Adri Anton Kalangie v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 557	Singapore	Cited for the principles relevant in determining the applicability of the doctrine of prospective overruling.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Prevention of Corruption Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Prevention of Corruption Act
Profit-sharing arrangement
Gratification
Edible flour
Industrial flour
Corruption
Sentencing framework
Romel categories
Harm-culpability matrix

15.2 Keywords

Corruption
Sentencing
Prevention of Corruption Act
Singapore
Criminal Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Prevention of Corruption Act	100
Sentencing	95
Criminal Procedure	90
Criminal Law	90
Statutory offence	80
Appeal	70
Administrative Law	20

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Corruption
Sentencing