Raj Kumar v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Breach of Trust and Entrustment under Section 405 Penal Code

In Raj Kumar s/o Brisa Besnath v Public Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed the applicant's criminal motion seeking to place seven questions of law before the court. The applicant was convicted of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Penal Code. The court found that the questions raised did not meet the requirements for a criminal reference under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as they were either well-settled, misrepresented the High Court's position, or were questions of fact disguised as questions of law. The court dismissed the motion in its entirety.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Criminal motion dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed Raj Kumar's criminal motion, finding no question of law of public interest regarding criminal breach of trust.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyMotion dismissedWon
Ong Xin Jie of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Alan Loh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Stacey Anne Fernandez of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Raj Kumar s/o Brisa BesnathApplicantIndividualCriminal motion dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Chao Hick TinSenior JudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ong Xin JieAttorney-General’s Chambers
Alan LohAttorney-General’s Chambers
Stacey Anne FernandezAttorney-General’s Chambers
Phang Shi TingBR Law Corporation
Ponnampalam SivakumarBR Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The Applicant was convicted of criminal breach of trust under s 406 of the Penal Code.
  2. The Applicant was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment.
  3. The Applicant's appeal was dismissed by the High Court Judge.
  4. The Applicant sought to place seven questions of law before the Court of Appeal.
  5. The Applicant agreed to receive S$89,000 on Maria's behalf to be taken to Malaysia.
  6. The Applicant received S$81,000 from Melody Choong.
  7. The Applicant did not send or carry any money to Malaysia.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Raj Kumar s/o Brisa Besnath v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 14 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 88

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicant became acquainted with Maria Lloyd.
Applicant received S$81,000 from Melody Choong at NEX Shopping Mall.
Melody Choong contacted the applicant to check on the progress of his travel to Malaysia.
Court of Appeal delivered judgment.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Entrustment under Section 405 of the Penal Code
    • Outcome: The court found that the questions raised by the applicant regarding entrustment did not meet the requirements for a criminal reference.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Nature of right over property
      • Nature of possession
      • Deception by entrusting party
      • Difference in property description

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Criminal Reference to the Court of Appeal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Criminal Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals
  • Criminal Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Raj Kumar s/o Brisa Besnath v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 57SingaporeCited as the judgment under appeal, where the High Court Judge dismissed the Applicant's appeal.
Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 486SingaporeCited for the four cumulative conditions (the “GCK requirements”) for granting leave to bring a criminal reference under s 397 of the CPC.
Pittis Stavros v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 181SingaporeCited for the principle that the entrustor needs only some right to the property, including a bare possessory right.
R v Tan Ah SengUnknownYes[1935] MLJ 273MalaysiaCited for the principle that a prosecution will lie for criminal misappropriation of money entrusted to a person even if it has been entrusted to him for a criminal purpose.
Wong Sin Yee v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 63SingaporeCited for the principle that a question of law should be decided by the Court of Appeal because there are two conflicting views of the High Court on this issue.
Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin AnharCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 447SingaporeCited for the principle that a purely hypothetical question cannot fall within the ambit of s 397 of the CPC.
Gopalakrishnan Vanitha v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 310SingaporeCited for the principle that “entrust[ment]” in s 405 of the Penal Code is not necessarily a term of law, and can take on multiple different meanings in different contexts.
Public Prosecutor v Teo Chu HaCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 600SingaporeCited for the principle that the courts must determine whether there is sufficient generality embedded within a proposition posed by the question which is more than just descriptive but also contains normative force for it to qualify as a question of law.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 406 of the Penal CodeSingapore
Section 405 of the Penal CodeSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure CodeSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Entrustment
  • Criminal Breach of Trust
  • Criminal Reference
  • Possessory Right
  • Question of Law of Public Interest

15.2 Keywords

  • Criminal Breach of Trust
  • Entrustment
  • Criminal Reference
  • Singapore Court of Appeal
  • Penal Code

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Procedure95
Criminal Law90
Sentencing90

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Sentencing