Leck Kim Koon v Public Prosecutor: Cheating, Penal Code s 420, Sentencing Principles & Ill Health

Leck Kim Koon, a director of Intraluck Pte Ltd, was convicted in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on six charges of cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code for using duplicate transport documents to fraudulently obtain disbursements from six banks. The High Court, presided over by Justice Vincent Hoong, dismissed Leck Kim Koon's appeal against both his conviction and sentence of 36 months' imprisonment. The court found that Leck Kim Koon had the requisite dishonest intention and that the banks were deceived by the false transport documents.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Leck Kim Koon was convicted of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code for using duplicate transport documents to obtain funds from banks. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal dismissedWon
Ryan Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jordan Li of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jeremy Bin of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Leck Kim KoonAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vincent HoongJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ryan LimAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jordan LiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jeremy BinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Letchamanan DevadasonLegalStandard LLP
Ivan Lee Tze ChuenLegalStandard LLP

4. Facts

  1. The appellant was a director and majority shareholder of Intraluck Pte Ltd.
  2. Intraluck had trade financing credit facilities with various banks.
  3. The appellant submitted an application to UOB for clean invoice financing supported by an arrival notice.
  4. The appellant submitted six other applications for invoice financing to various other banks using the same bill of lading.
  5. The financing of the invoices was secured by the personal guarantees given by the appellant.
  6. The outstanding payments in relation to the six proceeded charges were fully repaid by Intraluck.
  7. The appellant was suffering from chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (CMML).

5. Formal Citations

  1. Leck Kim Koon v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9884 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 236

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Intraluck submitted an application to United Overseas Bank Ltd for clean invoice financing.
Intraluck submitted six other applications for invoice financing to various other banks.
Hearing date
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Cheating
    • Outcome: The court found that the elements of cheating were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1997] 2 SLR(R) 946
      • [1994] 3 SLR(R) 89
  2. Sentencing Principles
    • Outcome: The court considered the appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors, including the appellant's ill health, in determining the sentence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 2 SLR 78
      • [2019] 4 SLR 838
      • [2020] 2 SLR 858
  3. Dishonest Intention
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellant possessed the requisite mens rea (ie, guilty knowledge).
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1994] 3 SLR(R) 89

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Cheating

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Financial Crime

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Finance
  • Import/Export

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chew Soo Chun v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[2016] 2 SLR 78SingaporeCited for guidelines on considering the impact of ill health on sentencing.
Tang Yoke Kheng (trading as Niklex Supply Co) v Lek Benedict and othersCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 263SingaporeCited to highlight the overlap between cheating under the Penal Code and fraudulent misrepresentation at common law, emphasizing the element of dishonesty in fraud.
Gunasegeran s/o Pavadaisamy v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 946SingaporeCited for the three elements comprising the offence of cheating punishable under s 420 of the Penal Code.
Seaward III Frederick Oliver v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 89SingaporeCited to support the element of inducement within s 415, stating that the false pretense does not need to be the sole operative reason.
Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2019] 4 SLR 838SingaporeCited for the two-step analysis in determining if the individual sentences meted out by the DJ were manifestly excessive.
VDZ v VEACourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 858SingaporeCited to support the statement that myriad considerations must be factored into each sentencing equation as and when it arises for evaluation, with judicial mercy only being granted in limited and exceptional circumstances.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 420Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22Singapore
Penal Code s 11Singapore
Penal Code s 415Singapore
Penal Code s 24Singapore
Penal Code s 23Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Cheating
  • Invoice financing
  • Bill of lading
  • Transport documents
  • Dishonest intention
  • Mens rea
  • Actus reus
  • Judicial mercy
  • General deterrence
  • Transhipment

15.2 Keywords

  • Cheating
  • Criminal Law
  • Singapore
  • Sentencing
  • Financial Crime
  • Trade Finance
  • Fraud

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Cheating95
Criminal Law90
Criminal Procedure85
Sentencing80
Offences Relating to Property80
Torts30
Commercial Fraud25
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Banking Law
  • Sentencing