Public Prosecutor v Loh Cheok San: Abetment by Conspiracy and Cheating
In Public Prosecutor v Loh Cheok San [2023] SGHC 190, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the sentence imposed on Loh Cheok San for two charges of abetting cheating by conspiracy. The first charge involved conspiring to cheat Vermont UM Bunkering Pte Ltd, and the second involved conspiring to cheat Vermont's customers. The District Judge ordered the sentences to run concurrently, but the High Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the sentences should run consecutively, resulting in an enhanced aggregate sentence of 80 months' imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Loh Cheok San was convicted of abetting cheating by conspiracy. The High Court allowed the appeal, enhancing the sentence to 80 months.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Peter Koy of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Hsiao Tien of Attorney-General’s Chambers Bryan Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Loh Cheok San | Respondent | Individual | Sentence Enhanced | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dedar Singh Gill | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Peter Koy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Hsiao Tien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Bryan Wong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Hee Joek | Tan See Swan & Co. |
4. Facts
- The Respondent conspired with others to cheat Vermont's customers through "buyback" transactions.
- The Respondent conspired with others to cheat Vermont by over-reporting the price and quantity of marine fuel oil.
- The Respondent participated in 52 "buyback" transactions, resulting in Vermont's customers being cheated of approximately USD$3,645,976.
- The Respondent earned a "commission" of at least $43,600 from the scheme to cheat Vermont's customers.
- Vermont suffered a "loss" of about USD$980,000 due to the Respondent's conspiracy to cheat Vermont.
- The Respondent gained approximately USD$314,961 (or $410,712) from the scheme to cheat Vermont.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Loh Cheok San, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9210 of 2022/01, [2023] SGHC 190
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Written Submissions dated | |
| Respondent’s Written Submissions dated | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered | |
| Respondent participated in scheme to cheat Vermont’s customers | |
| Respondent participated in scheme to cheat Vermont’s customers |
7. Legal Issues
- Application of the one-transaction rule
- Outcome: The court found that the District Judge erred in applying the one-transaction rule and that the sentences for the two offences should run consecutively.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 5 SLR 799
- [2014] 2 SLR 998
- Application of the totality principle
- Outcome: The court found that the totality principle required an increase in the global sentence to 80 months' imprisonment.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 5 SLR 799
8. Remedies Sought
- Enhancement of sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Abetment by conspiracy to cheat
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Oil Trading
- Ship Bunkering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 799 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sentences for unrelated offences should run consecutively. |
| Haliffie bin Mamat v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing appellate intervention in a trial judge’s sentencing decision. |
| Kavitha d/o Mailvaganam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1349 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellate court must reconsider the sentence afresh if the sentencing judge’s discretion is contrary to principle. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the one-transaction rule and the court's discretion in sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the one-transaction rule. |
| Seng Foo Building Construction Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 201 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the one-transaction rule is not mandatory. |
| Moore Stephens (a firm) v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liquidation) | House of Lords | Yes | [2009] AC 1391 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle of ex dolo malo non oritur actio. |
| Holman v Johnson | King's Bench | Yes | (1775) 1 Cowp 341 | England | Cited for the principle of ex dolo malo non oritur actio. |
| Rex v Tan Ah Seng | High Court | Yes | [1935] MLJ 273 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that a man should not escape punishment for one crime because he has conspired with the complainant to commit another. |
| Raj Kumar s/o Brisa Besnath v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 88 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a man should not escape punishment for one crime because he has conspired with the complainant to commit another. |
| Guay Seng Tiong Nickson v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1079 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that criminal law is primarily concerned with the punishment of the offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yap Pow Foo | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 79 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the imposition of concurrent sentences would result in the offender not having to bear any real consequences for his additional offending. |
| Muhammad Sutarno bin Nasir v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 647 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the imposition of concurrent sentences would result in the offender not having to bear any real consequences for his additional offending. |
| Ewe Pang Kooi v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 300 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of the one-transaction rule. |
| Goldring, Timothy Nicholas v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 742 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of conspiracy. |
| Er Joo Nguang and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 756 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties to a conspiracy are jointly engaged in the criminal enterprise. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited for identifying starting points for the offence of engaging in a conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust. |
| Public Prosecutor v Gene Chong Soon Hui | District Court | Yes | [2018] SGDC 117 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for sentencing in cheating cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v Neo Aileen | District Court | Yes | [2013] SGDC 315 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for sentencing in cheating cases. |
| Tay Huay Hong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 290 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for sentencing in cheating cases, but given less weight due to changes in the Penal Code and restitution. |
| Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 838 | Singapore | Cited but found not helpful as it concerned charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Seah Wee and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 292 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for sentencing in conspiracy to cheat cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v Song Hauming Oskar and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 965 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person who commits multiple acts of offending should be treated more harshly. |
| ADF v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the totality principle. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure Code | Singapore |
| Penal Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- One-transaction rule
- Totality principle
- Abetment by conspiracy
- Cheating
- Buyback transactions
- Marine fuel oil
- Concurrent sentences
- Consecutive sentences
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Cheating
- Conspiracy
- Sentencing
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Cheating | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Criminal Procedure | 85 |
| Abetment by conspiracy | 80 |
| Sentencing Principles | 75 |
| Theft | 70 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
| Commercial Disputes | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Conspiracy
- Fraud