Tang You Liang Andruew v Public Prosecutor: Cheating & Concealing Beneficial Owners of Bank Accounts
Tang You Liang Andruew and Koryagin Vadim appealed against their conviction and sentence for abetment by conspiracy to cheat Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited and Maybank Singapore Limited by concealing the ultimate beneficial owners of bank accounts opened by three companies. The General Division of the High Court, presided over by Justice Kannan Ramesh, dismissed the appeals, upholding the original conviction and sentence. The court found that Andruew and Vadim conspired to deceive the banks, undermining efforts to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Andruew and Vadim were convicted of abetment by conspiracy to cheat banks by concealing the ultimate beneficial owners of bank accounts. The appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Peter Koy Su Hua of Attorney-General’s Chambers Charis Low Jia Ying of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gan Ee Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tang You Liang Andruew | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Koryagin, Vadim | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Peter Koy Su Hua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Charis Low Jia Ying | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gan Ee Kiat | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Akesh Abhilash | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Andruew and Vadim conspired to conceal the true UBOs of bank accounts.
- Andruew declared himself as the UBO of three companies to OCBC and Maybank.
- The declarations made by Andruew were false.
- Vadim instructed Andruew on how to present himself to the banks.
- The banks relied on Andruew's declarations to open the bank accounts.
- The banks were misled into believing that Andruew was the UBO.
- The true UBOs were MEA's foreign clients.
5. Formal Citations
- Tang You Liang Andruew v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, Magistrate’s Appeal Nos 9201 and 9202 of 2021/01, [2022] SGHC 113
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MEA Business Solutions Pte Ltd incorporated | |
| Evoque Capital Corp Pte Ltd incorporated | |
| Evoque Capital Corp Pte Ltd opened bank account with OCBC | |
| Babo Group Pte Ltd incorporated | |
| Babo Group Pte Ltd opened bank account with OCBC | |
| Monetary Authority of Singapore issued Notice 626 | |
| Sensetec Pte Ltd incorporated | |
| Sensetec Pte Ltd opened bank account with Maybank | |
| MEA Business Solutions Pte Ltd amalgamated with Intracorp Pte Ltd | |
| Magistrate’s Appeal Nos 9201 and 9202 filed | |
| Public Prosecutor v Tang You Liang Andruew and another [2021] SGDC 266 issued | |
| Parties heard | |
| Oral grounds delivered dismissing the appeals | |
| Full grounds of decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Cheating
- Outcome: The court found that the appellants had committed the offence of cheating under Section 417 of the Penal Code.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deception
- Intentional Inducement
- Likelihood of Harm
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the appellants had engaged in a conspiracy to cheat.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Agreement to commit an illegal act
- Common object
- Causal Connection between Deception and Harm
- Outcome: The court found a causal connection between the deception and the likelihood of harm to the banks' reputation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Likelihood of reputational harm to the banks
- Circumvention of due diligence processes
- Ultimate Beneficial Ownership
- Outcome: The court found that Andruew was not the ultimate beneficial owner at the time the bank accounts were opened.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Definition of ultimate beneficial owner
- False declaration of beneficial ownership
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Cheating
- Abetment by Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Banking
- Regulatory Offences
11. Industries
- Banking
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Tang You Liang Andruew and another | District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 266 | Singapore | The judgment being appealed from, detailing the initial conviction and sentencing of the appellants. |
| Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 756 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration in cases involving abuse of financial instruments. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon Poh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence, and that indirect evidence is sufficient. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that general deterrence applies to offences affecting the delivery of financial services and the integrity of the economic infrastructure. |
| PP v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited as an instance of an offence affecting Singapore's standing as a financial hub, warranting a deterrent sentence. |
| Tay Kim Kuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 876 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that unreported cases have limited precedential value. |
| Luong Thi Trang Hoang Kathleen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 707 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that unreported decisions have no written grounds that set out the reasons why the sentences were imposed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ramlee and another action | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of parity of sentencing. |
| Tay Boon Sien v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 39 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that hardship by way of financial loss occasioned by imprisonment is not a relevant mitigating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Thompson, Matthew | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1108 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no mitigating value to be attributed to a prolonged stay in Singapore while out on bail. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 417 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Cap 186, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 27B of the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Cap 186, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 415 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ultimate Beneficial Owner
- Beneficial Owner
- Nominee Director
- Customer Due Diligence
- Know Your Client
- Money Laundering
- Terrorism Financing
- Declaration
- Conspiracy
- Reputational Harm
15.2 Keywords
- Cheating
- Conspiracy
- Ultimate Beneficial Owner
- Money Laundering
- Banking
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Fraud and Deceit | 80 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
| Banking and Finance | 65 |
| Abetment | 60 |
| Company Law | 30 |
| Corporate Secretarial Services | 25 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Banking Law
- Regulatory Law