PP v Masui: Prevention of Corruption Act & Penalty for Accepting Gratification
In Public Prosecutor v Takaaki Masui and another and other matters [2021] SGCA 119, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed a criminal reference regarding the penalty to be imposed under s 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) when a corrupt recipient has returned or repaid the gratification. The Court dismissed criminal motions filed by Katsutoshi Ishibe and Takaaki Masui, and answered the referred question in the negative, clarifying that the penalty should reflect the value of the gratification retained by the recipient. The court reduced the penalty payable by Masui and Ishibe.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Criminal motions dismissed; Referred question answered in the negative; Penalty reduced.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies the penalty under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting gratification, focusing on disgorgement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Applicant, Respondent | Government Agency | Referred question answered in the negative | Neutral | Jiang Ke-Yue of Attorney-General’s Chambers Loh Hui-min of Attorney-General’s Chambers Victoria Ting of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Takaaki Masui | Respondent, Applicant | Individual | Criminal motion dismissed | Lost | |
| Katsutoshi Ishibe | Respondent, Applicant | Individual | Criminal motion dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jiang Ke-Yue | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Loh Hui-min | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Victoria Ting | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Goh Aik Leng Mark | VanillaLaw LLC |
| Ong Boon Chong | VanillaLaw LLC |
| Ng Boon Gan | VanillaLaw LLC |
| Vergis S Abraham | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Bestlyn Loo | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Pramnath Vijayakumar | Providence Law Asia LLC |
4. Facts
- Ishibe and Masui were senior employees of Nissho Iwai Corporation, later Sojitz Corporation.
- They were seconded to Singapore to work for Nissho Iwai International (Singapore) Ltd, later Sojitz Asia Pte Ltd.
- Chia Lee & Co was the sole distributor of edible flour for the Singaporean Company.
- Koh, Ishibe, and Masui entered into a profit-sharing arrangement from Chia Lee's industrial flour business.
- Ishibe and Masui received the lion’s share of the profits under this arrangement.
- Koh made 28 distinct payments to Masui, which Masui in turn shared with Ishibe.
- The profit-sharing arrangement was discovered by Sojitz Japan in late 2009.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Takaaki Masui and another and other matters, Criminal Reference No 3 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 119
- Public Prosecutor v Takaaki Masui and another and other matters, Criminal Motion No 1 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 119
- Public Prosecutor v Takaaki Masui and another and other matters, Criminal Motion No 2 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 119
- Public Prosecutor v Katsutoshi Ishibe and another, , [2018] SGDC 239
- Takaaki Masui v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other matters, , [2021] 4 SLR 160
- Takaaki Masui v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2020] SGHC 265
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Koh made first payment to Masui. | |
| Nissho Iwai Corporation merged with another company to form Sojitz Corporation. | |
| Masui transferred US$240,000 to Koh. | |
| Koh made last payment to Masui and Ishibe. | |
| Sojitz Japan discovered the profit-sharing arrangement. | |
| Sojitz Japan commenced a civil suit against Ishibe and Masui in Japan. | |
| Sojitz Singapore registered the Japanese judgment as a judgment of the High Court of Singapore. | |
| Ishibe and Masui fully paid the settlement sum to Sojitz Singapore. | |
| District Judge convicted Masui and Ishibe on all charges. | |
| Court reserved judgment in CRF 3 and dismissed CM 1 and CM 2. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Penalty for accepting gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act
- Outcome: The Court held that the penalty should reflect the value of the gratification retained by the recipient, taking into account any repayments or disgorgements.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Disgorgement of gratification
- Valuation of gratification
- Repayment of gratification
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 4 SLR 623
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal penalties
- Financial penalties
9. Cause of Actions
- Corruption
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Corruption Offences
11. Industries
- Commodities Trading
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Marzuki bin Ahmad and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 623 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a penalty order for a sum equivalent to the money received is not appropriate where the recipient has returned or repaid the money. |
| Mohd Akebal s/o Ghulam Jilani v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 266 | Singapore | Cited to caution against excessively complex sentencing frameworks. |
| Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited for the four conditions that must be satisfied to bring a criminal reference. |
| James Raj s/o Arokiasamy v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 750 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a question that can be resolved by applying established legal principles is not a question of law of public interest. |
| Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the four elements of an offence under s 6(a) of the PCA. |
| Yusof bin A Samad v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 115 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the question of whether Koh's payments to Ishibe and Masui were objectively corrupt is a question of fact. |
| Mohamed Ali bin Mohamed Iqbal v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the words 'in relation to his principal's affairs' should be widely construed. |
| Thong Ah Fat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 676 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there can be no fixed rule of universal application as to whether a judge demonstrates sufficient deliberation in preferring one side to the other. |
| Lim Chee Huat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 433 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there can be no fixed rule of universal application as to the particularity with which the judge is required to give reasons. |
| Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the grounds raised in the petition of appeal have been considered in detail and rejected by the trial judge, the High Court is not obliged to reprise the trial judge’s reasons or to furnish additional ones. |
| Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 438 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the very dismissal of an appeal may be taken to mean that the High Court agrees with the trial judge’s reasoning. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Chu Ha | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 600 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that questions that are narrowly confined to the specific context of the case are indisputably questions of fact. |
| Huang Liping v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 716 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will not hesitate to award costs against applicants who mount backdoor appeals by having recourse to s 397(1) of the CPC. |
| Tang Keng Lai v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 942 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an attempt to utilise the procedure to mount a backdoor appeal, where the case falls far short of the strict conditions that must be met before that procedure may be invoked, would justify a finding that the application was brought in abuse of process. |
| BOI v BOJ | High Court | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that allegations of judicial bias are extremely serious and may not only be utilised as a weapon of abuse by disgruntled litigants but may also waste the court’s valuable resources and time. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the three steps of the purposive approach to statutory interpretation. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 424 | Singapore | Cited to refrain from construing speeches in Parliament as if they were statutory provisions with fine distinctions and deliberate nuances in the choice of words and phraseology. |
| Leong Wai Kay v Carrefour Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 78 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ss 13 and 14 of the PCA operated independently of each other. |
| Tan Kwang Joo v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1989] 1 SLR(R) 457 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the legislative purpose underlying s 13(1) of the PCA is to prevent the recipient of the gratification from retaining the benefit of that gratification. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 926 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the legislative purpose underlying s 13(1) of the PCA is to prevent the recipient of the gratification from retaining the benefit of that gratification. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 397(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 397(2) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 13(1) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 6(a) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 13(2) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 14 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(1) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(2)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gratification
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Penalty
- Disgorgement
- Profit-sharing arrangement
- Corruption
- Agent
- Principal
15.2 Keywords
- Corruption
- Gratification
- Penalty
- Disgorgement
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act | 95 |
| Statutory offences | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Sentencing | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Penalties | 65 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Sentencing