Abdul Kahar v Public Prosecutor: Confiscation Order for Drug Trafficking Benefits

Abdul Kahar bin Othman appealed against the High Court's decision to grant the Public Prosecutor's application for a confiscation order of $167,429.51, representing benefits derived from drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal, comprising Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, Tay Yong Kwang JCA, and Woo Bih Li JAD, dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the High Court's assessment of the appellant's income and assets.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against a confiscation order for benefits derived from drug trafficking. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyConfiscation Order UpheldWon
Anandan Bala of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Samuel Yap of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Abdul Kahar bin OthmanAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Anandan BalaAttorney-General’s Chambers
Samuel YapAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. Appellant was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to death.
  2. The Public Prosecutor sought a confiscation order for benefits derived from drug trafficking.
  3. The High Court granted the confiscation order for $167,429.51.
  4. The appellant claimed additional sources of income not considered in the financial statement.
  5. A sum of $60,000 was deposited in the appellant's mother's bank account.
  6. The appellant initially admitted the $60,000 was his money from illegal money-lending.
  7. The respondent confirmed that it was not seeking to realise that sum of $60,000 in Mdm Bibah’s bank account to satisfy the Confiscation Order, as the appellant had sufficient balance sums to satisfy the order.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor, Civil Appeal No 194 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 29

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant sentenced to death penalty
Respondent filed Originating Summons No 1378 of 2018
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Confiscation Order
    • Outcome: The court upheld the confiscation order.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Source of Income
    • Outcome: The court found no evidence to support the appellant's claim of additional income sources.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Realisable Property
    • Outcome: The court determined that the $60,000 could be considered realisable property but did not make a definitive finding as it did not impact the orders sought.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Confiscation Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Drug Trafficking
  • Application for Confiscation Order

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Asset Recovery

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin OthmanHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 23SingaporeThe current appeal is against the High Court Judge’s decision in this case, granting the Public Prosecutor’s application for a confiscation order.
Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2016] SGCA 11SingaporeCited to correct a factual error regarding where Mdm Bibah’s bank book was seized.
Centillion Environment & Recycling Ltd (formerly known as Citiraya Industries Ltd) v Public Prosecutor and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 444SingaporeCited for the principle that there has to be some evidence that the sum of $60,000 is “traceable to the defendant’s ill-gotten gains”

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 89A, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, Rule 5)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) ActSingapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1)(a)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(2)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Confiscation Order
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Realisable Property
  • Benefits Derived
  • Financial Statement
  • Net Worth
  • Diamorphine

15.2 Keywords

  • confiscation order
  • drug trafficking
  • singapore
  • criminal law
  • asset recovery

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act95
Sentencing80
Criminal Procedure80
Drug Crimes75
Criminal Law70
Evidence40
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Drug Trafficking
  • Asset Confiscation