PP v Juandi bin Pungot: Shell Gas Oil Misappropriation & Corruption Case
In [2022] SGHC 70, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard the case of Public Prosecutor v Juandi bin Pungot, concerning the criminal misappropriation of gas oil from Shell Eastern Petroleum Private Limited and related corruption offenses. Juandi bin Pungot, a mastermind of the scheme, pleaded guilty to 20 charges of abetment by engaging in a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust, 10 charges of converting or transferring benefits of criminal conduct, and 6 charges of corruption. The court convicted Juandi and sentenced him to 29 years' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Accused convicted of 36 charges and sentenced to 29 years' imprisonment.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Juandi bin Pungot, a mastermind in a large-scale conspiracy, was sentenced for misappropriating Shell gas oil and bribing surveyors.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Prosecution | Government Agency | Conviction and imprisonment | Won | Christopher Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ryan Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers Stephanie Chew of Attorney-General’s Chambers Gerald Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Juandi bin Pungot | Defendant | Individual | Conviction and imprisonment | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ryan Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Stephanie Chew | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Gerald Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohd Munir Marican | Marican & Associates |
| Noor Mohamed Marican | Marican & Associates |
4. Facts
- The accused was a Shore Loading Officer at Shell's Pulau Bukom facility.
- Between 2007 and 2018, the accused conspired to misappropriate gas oil from Shell.
- The misappropriated gas oil was sold at below market value.
- The accused and co-conspirators used various methods to evade detection, including tampering with meters and CCTV cameras.
- The accused paid off independent surveyors to turn a blind eye to the excess gas oil being loaded.
- Shell incurred approximately S$6m to manage the consequences of the misappropriation.
- The accused obtained criminal benefits of at least S$5,630,398.68 through the scheme.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Juandi bin Pungot, Criminal Case No 9 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 70
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accused joined Shell | |
| Accused became involved in the dishonest misappropriation of gas oil | |
| Accused converted criminal benefits into casino chips | |
| Accused converted property into a condominium unit | |
| Accused and co-conspirators resumed criminal activities | |
| Accused converted property into a Toyota Harrier | |
| Shell engaged Hydrocarbon Mass Balance experts to conduct a technical and process review | |
| Accused removed property from jurisdiction to purchase property in Thailand | |
| Shell lodged a police report regarding the unidentified loss of fuel | |
| Accused tendered his resignation | |
| Accused's employment was terminated | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: Accused convicted of abetment by engaging in a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust as servant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Abetment by engaging in a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust as servant
- Corruption
- Outcome: Accused convicted of engaging in a conspiracy to corruptly give gratification to surveyors.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Engaging in a conspiracy to corruptly give gratification to surveyors
- Money Laundering
- Outcome: Accused convicted of converting or transferring or removing out of the jurisdiction the benefits of criminal conduct.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Converting or transferring or removing out of the jurisdiction the benefits of criminal conduct
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court applied the principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, retribution, and the totality principle in determining the appropriate sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- General deterrence
- Specific deterrence
- Retribution
- Totality principle
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814
- [2015] 2 SLR 229
- [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022
- [2018] 5 SLR 799
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Confiscation of Assets
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Corruption
- Money Laundering
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- White Collar Crime
- Corruption
- Fraud
11. Industries
- Petrochemical
- Maritime
- Bunkering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the harm-culpability sentencing framework. |
| Huang Ying-Chun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the harm-culpability sentencing framework. |
| Chong Kum Heng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 1056 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for CDSA charges. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ho Man Yuk and others | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 23 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for CDSA charges. |
| Public Prosecutor v Syed Mostofa Romel | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 1166 | Singapore | Cited for categorization of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. |
| Lim Teck Chye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for sentencing under the Prevention of Corruption Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing principle of general deterrence. |
| Ding Si Yang v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 229 | Singapore | Cited for offences which affect Singapore’s international standing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing principle of retribution. |
| Chong Han Rui v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of parity in sentencing. |
| Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1120 | Singapore | Cited for placing relevant material pertaining to the sentences meted out to earlier-sentenced co-offenders before the court. |
| Lau Wan Heng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 240 | Singapore | Cited for the difficulty in obtaining a sense of the prevailing sentencing practice where there are few sentencing precedents. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited for the value of the property misappropriated is the starting consideration for sentencing in CBT offences. |
| Wong Kai Chuen Philip v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Cited for the larger the amount dishonestly misappropriated, the greater the culpability of the offender and the more severe the sentence of the court. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1095 | Singapore | Cited for the sentences to be imposed do not have to bear a relationship of linear proportionality with the sums involved in CBT offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR 500 | Singapore | Cited for where the TIC charges are of a similar nature, a court may enhance the sentence that would otherwise be meted out. |
| Kavitha d/o Mailvaganam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1349 | Singapore | Cited for the accused was not entrusted with any special level of responsibility in his role that enabled his misappropriation. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the appropriate discount to be accorded to an offender who pleads guilty is a fact-sensitive matter depending on multiple factors. |
| Shaik Farid v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1081 | Singapore | Cited for the accused did not make any voluntary restitution. |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 | Singapore | Cited for the personal and familial circumstances of the accused are unexceptional and do not carry any mitigating weight. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ismawi bin Ismail | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGDC 38 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for sentencing under s 408 of the PC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Kay Keng Matthew | District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 425 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for sentencing under s 408 of the PC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Ting Hwa | District Court | Yes | [2008] SGDC 147 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for sentencing under s 408 of the PC. |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Ashraf bin Hamzah | District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 265 | Singapore | Cited for consistency and parity in sentencing the co-conspirators in the criminal enterprise. |
| Public Prosecutor v Sadagopan Premnath | District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 186 | Singapore | Cited for consistency and parity in sentencing the co-conspirators in the criminal enterprise. |
| Zhou Haiming v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 247 | Singapore | Cited for the legal interest in making it as challenging as possible for criminals to dispose of their criminal proceeds in CDSA offences. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Cheng Kiat | High Court | Yes | [2000] SGHC 129 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for global sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ewe Pang Kooi | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 851 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for global sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited for the totality principle to ensure that the aggregate sentence is sufficient and proportionate to the offender’s overall criminality. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lu Sang | District Court | Yes | [2017] SGDC 199 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for sentencing under s 6(a) of the PCA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Toh Hong Huat | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 198 | Singapore | Cited as precedent for sentencing under s 6(a) of the PCA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008) s 408 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008) s 109 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 124(4) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) s 47(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) s 6(b) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) s 29(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gas oil
- Misappropriation
- Shore Loading Officer
- Pulau Bukom facility
- Illegal loading
- Surveyors
- Gratification
- Criminal syndicate
- Transnational element
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal breach of trust
- Corruption
- Money laundering
- Gas oil
- Shell
- Singapore
- Sentencing
- Misappropriation
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Misappropriation
- Sentencing