PP v Sindok Trading & Ors: UN Sanctions Breach & DPRK Luxury Goods Supply

The High Court of Singapore heard appeals by the Public Prosecutor and Chong Hock Yen concerning sentences imposed for offenses under the United Nations (Sanctions – Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Regulations 2010. Chong and three companies (Sindok Trading Pte Ltd, SCN Singapore Pte Ltd, and Laurich International Pte Ltd) were involved in supplying luxury goods to North Korea, violating UN sanctions. The court allowed the prosecution's appeals, enhanced the sentences for Chong and the corporate entities, and dismissed Chong's appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Prosecution's appeals allowed; Defence's appeal dismissed. Sentences for Chong Hock Yen and the corporate entities enhanced.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses sentencing for violating UN sanctions against North Korea by supplying luxury goods, emphasizing deterrence and international obligations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellant, RespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedWon
Grace Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Charis Low of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Thiam Jia Min of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Sindok Trading Pte Ltd (now known as BSS Global Pte Ltd)RespondentCorporationFines EnhancedLost
SCN Singapore Pte LtdRespondentCorporationFines EnhancedLost
Laurich International Pte Ltd (now known as Gunnar Singapore Pte Ltd)RespondentCorporationFines EnhancedLost
Chong Hock YenRespondent, AppellantIndividualAppeal Dismissed, Sentence EnhancedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Grace LimAttorney-General’s Chambers
Charis LowAttorney-General’s Chambers
Thiam Jia MinAttorney-General’s Chambers
Eva Teh Jing HuiK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Narayanan SreenivasanK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Selvarajan BalamuruganK&L Gates Straits Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. Chong Hock Yen traded with the DPRK for several years.
  2. Chong conspired with three companies to supply luxury items to the DPRK.
  3. The luxury items included perfumes, cosmetics, watches, and musical instruments.
  4. Chong was the director and sole decision-maker of the three companies.
  5. The companies tried to avoid detection by transporting goods via China.
  6. Payments were made through front companies in Hong Kong, the British Virgin Islands, and Anguilla.
  7. The total value of goods supplied was S$575,854.13, with a gross profit of S$122,116.96.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Sindok Trading Pte Ltd (now known as BSS Global Pte Ltd) and other appeals, , [2022] SGHC 52
  2. Public Prosecutor v Chong Hock Yen and others, , [2021] SGDC 13
  3. Public Prosecutor v Ng Kheng Wah and others, , [2019] SGDC 249

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Offending period began
Amendments to s 5(1) of the UN Act came into force
Sindok Trading Pte Ltd known as BSS Global Pte Ltd
Laurich International Pte Ltd known as Gunnar Singapore Pte Ltd
Offending period ended
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of United Nations Sanctions
    • Outcome: The court found that Chong and the companies breached the UN sanctions by supplying luxury goods to the DPRK.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Appropriateness of Sentencing
    • Outcome: The court determined that the initial sentences were manifestly inadequate and enhanced both the imprisonment term for Chong and the fines for the corporate entities.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Harm to Singapore's International Reputation
    • Outcome: The court held that the breaches of UN sanctions caused substantial harm to Singapore's international reputation and standing.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Increased Imprisonment Term
  2. Increased Fines

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of United Nations Sanctions

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Litigation
  • International Trade Law

11. Industries

  • Trading
  • Import/Export

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Law Aik MengHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited regarding the usage of foreign authorities for purposes of determining what is an appropriate sentencing benchmark in Singapore.
Chan Chun Hong v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 465SingaporeCited regarding the permissibility for a sentencing court to have regard to relevant decisions of foreign courts to discern sentencing principles where there are no local sentencing precedents.
Logachev Vladislav v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2018] 4 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the general sentencing approach, that is, the court will consider the harm caused by the offence, the responsibility or culpability of the offender, as well as the existence of any other factors, going to mitigation or aggravation.
Yong Vui Kong v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 1129SingaporeCited regarding the domestic Legislature’s implementation of national law that protects or furthers international obligations.
Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2019] 5 SLR 926SingaporeCited regarding the violation of international obligations could prejudice a State’s efforts to foster effective commercial relations with other countries.
Huang Ying-Chun v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 606SingaporeCited regarding the attendant ramifications from breaches of international obligations on Singapore’s hard-earned reputation as a global financial hub.
Ong Chee Eng v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2012] 3 SLR 776SingaporeCited as mandating a full use of the available spectrum of punishment in general, emphasising that regard must be had to the available range.
Mehra Radhika v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 96SingaporeCited regarding the greater the degree of planning involved then, correspondingly, the greater the culpability of the offender.
Public Prosecutor v Su Jiqing JoelHigh CourtYes[2021] 3 SLR 1232SingaporeCited regarding appropriately calibrated fines can achieve the purpose by disgorging any profit.
Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited regarding abuse of position generally occurs where one is in a position of responsibility or is trusted.
Leong Sow Hon v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2021] 3 SLR 1199SingaporeCited regarding the “clang of the prison gates” principle is understood as a recognition of the mitigatory effect of a long clean record and of the criminal behaviour thus being out of character.
Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 1120SingaporeCited regarding Chong cannot be considered a first-time offender since he has committed offences over a protracted period of almost six years and he has 43 charges hanging over him.
Public Prosecutor v GS Engineering & Construction CorpHigh CourtYes[2017] 3 SLR 682SingaporeCited regarding the objective of Parliament was to achieve consistency across the anti-terrorism legislative regimes.
Mohammed Ibrahim s/o Hamzah v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 1081SingaporeCited for the proposition that an increase in the maximum punishment does not by itself lead to the imposition of higher sentences, and the court should impose a proportionate sentence.
Pittis Stavros v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 181SingaporeCited regarding the full range of sentencing options should still be considered even if the maximum sentence is enhanced.
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 998SingaporeCited regarding the one-transaction rule and the totality principle.
Ding Si Yang v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 229SingaporeCited regarding even when an offender had been sentenced to an imprisonment term, the court may also impose an additional fine to disgorge the profits.
Koo Kah Yee v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2021] 3 SLR 1440SingaporeCited regarding the court has, in calibrating fines, to consider the fines operating both to punish and to disgorge.
Auston International Group Ltd v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 882SingaporeCited regarding a deterrent sentence has effect only on individuals, be they persons who commit the act and are liable for it, or managers responsible for steering the companies.
Lim Kopi Pte Ltd v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 413SingaporeCited regarding the concept of deterrence is applicable to companies, in the same way as it is applicable to individual offenders.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
United Nations Act (Cap 339, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 5(1) of the United Nations ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • United Nations Sanctions
  • Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
  • Luxury Goods
  • Abetment by Conspiracy
  • International Obligations
  • General Deterrence
  • Disgorgement of Profits
  • International Standing
  • Pre-Amendment Offences
  • Post-Amendment Offences

15.2 Keywords

  • UN Sanctions
  • North Korea
  • DPRK
  • Luxury Goods
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • International Law
  • Sanctions Regulations

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sanctions Law95
Sentencing90
United Nations Law85
Criminal Procedure80
International Trade Law75
Criminal Law70
International Law60
Company Law30
Administrative Law20
Business Law20
Commercial Law20
Contracts20
Trade Finance20
Commercial Disputes20
Trademarks10
Bankruptcy10

16. Subjects

  • Sanctions
  • International Trade
  • Criminal Law