Raj Kumar v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Breach of Trust & Identity of Entrusting Party
Raj Kumar appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for criminal breach of trust. He was charged with dishonestly misappropriating $81,000 entrusted to him by 'Maria Lloyd'. The High Court, presided over by Vincent Hoong J, dismissed the appeal, holding that the actual identity of the entrusting party need not be ascertained to establish entrustment under Section 405 of the Penal Code.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed against conviction and sentence.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Raj Kumar was convicted of criminal breach of trust for misappropriating $81,000. The appeal questions if the entrusting party's identity must be proven.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raj Kumar s/o Brisa Besnath | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Anand George |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Stacey Anne Fernandez, Ong Xin Jie |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anand George | BR Law Corporation |
| Stacey Anne Fernandez | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ong Xin Jie | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- The appellant was charged with criminal breach of trust for dishonestly misappropriating $81,000.
- The appellant received the money from Melody Choong, who was acting on the instructions of an online persona known as Jacques.
- The money originated from Sie Ming Jeong, who received it from Maureen Othman and handed it to Melody Choong.
- The appellant was supposed to hand the money over to a man in Malaysia, as instructed by Maria Lloyd.
- The appellant pocketed the money for himself instead of delivering it to Malaysia.
5. Formal Citations
- Raj Kumar s/o Brisa Besnath v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9011 of 2020/01, [2021] SGHC 57
- Public Prosecutor v Raj Kumar s/o Brisa Besnath, , [2020] SGDC 95
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant came across a persona called “Maria Lloyd” on an online platform. | |
| Sie Ming Jeong received $83,578.50 into his bank account from Maureen Othman. | |
| Sie Ming Jeong withdrew $82,000 in cash to give to Melody Choong. | |
| Sie Ming Jeong handed Melody Choong an envelope containing cash amounting to $82,000. | |
| Appellant received an envelope containing $81,000 from Melody Choong. | |
| Appellant informed Melody Choong that he had a problem at the checkpoint. | |
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 9011 of 2020/01 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the actual identity of the entrusting party must be ascertained in order to establish the element of entrustment in an offence of criminal breach of trust.
- Outcome: The court held that the actual identity of the entrusting party need not be ascertained.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the entrusting party must have legal ownership of the property entrusted in order to establish the element of entrustment in an offence of criminal breach of trust.
- Outcome: The court held that the entrusting party need not have legal ownership of the property entrusted, so long as the entrusting party had some right to the property, including a bare possessory right.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Raj Kumar s/o Brisa Besnath | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 95 | Singapore | The District Judge's grounds of decision in the lower court, which convicted the accused of criminal breach of trust, are being appealed. |
| Som Narth Puri v State of Rajasthan | Supreme Court | Yes | 1972 AIR 1490 | India | Cited for the proposition that for entrustment to be made out, the ownership or beneficial interest in the property must be in someone other than the accused. |
| Pittis Stavros v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 181 | Singapore | Cited as fortifying the position that the identity of the entrusting party can be deleted from a charge for an offence under s 408 of the Penal Code and that there is no requirement for the property entrusted to be legally owned by the entrusting party. |
| R v Tan Ah Seng | N/A | Yes | [1935] MLJ 273 | N/A | Cited for the proposition that the scope of entrustment is broad enough to cover cases where the accused received the property in the course of an illegal transaction. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step approach to purposive statutory interpretation. |
| Gopalakrishnan Vanitha v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 310 | Singapore | Cited for the point that “entrusted” in s 405 of the Penal Code is not necessarily a term of law and it may therefore take on different meanings in different contexts. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts may have regard to the text of the relevant legislative provision and its statutory context, and extraneous material, subject to the guidance in ss 9A(2) and 9A(3) of the Interpretation Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited for confirming the purpose or object of CBT offences in the Penal Code: to criminalise a dishonest betrayal of original trust. |
| Hon Chi Wan Colman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 821 | Singapore | Cited for the statement that “the essence of the offence [of CBT] lies in the entrustment of property to an employee and his subsequent betrayal of that trust”. |
| Nation Fittings (M) Sdn Bhd v Oystertec plc and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 712 | Singapore | Cited for the limits to the purposive interpretation of statutes. |
| Assathamby s/o Karupiah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 1030 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that all essential ingredients of the offence must be reflected in the charge. |
| Wong Seng Kwan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 12 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that “the interpretation of property-related offences in the [Penal] Code cannot be divorced from substantive property rights found in civil law.” |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold for personal circumstances to qualify as a mitigating factor. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 406 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 405 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 24 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(1) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act s 7A(a) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) s 47(6)(a) | Singapore |
| Indian Penal Code s 405 | India |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Entrustment
- Criminal breach of trust
- Dishonest misappropriation
- Entrusting party
- Possessory rights
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal breach of trust
- Entrustment
- Identity of entrusting party
- Misappropriation
- Singapore High Court
- Penal Code
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Trust Law
- Statutory Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Statutory Interpretation