Guo Wei v Public Prosecutor: Disposal Inquiry, Scam Victim, and Revisionary Jurisdiction
Guo Wei, the appellant, was a victim of a scam and sought revision of a disposal inquiry order in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore. The District Judge's disposal orders were challenged by Guo Wei, who claimed sums of money and a Rolex watch seized by the police. Justice Vincent Hoong dismissed the appeal on 10 August 2023, finding no fundamental error or failure of justice in the DJ's orders and emphasizing that a disposal inquiry is not conclusive as to title.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Victim of a scam sought revision of a disposal inquiry order. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no fundamental error or failure of justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Sheldon Lim of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Guo Wei | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Watch Capital | Other | Corporation | Sum of $34,000 released | Won | |
| The Finest Time Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation | Rolex Watch released | Won | |
| Elroy Low Zi Quan | Other | Individual | Sum of $10,540.10 released | Won | |
| Wee Jia Jun | Other | Individual | Sum of $2,554.82 forfeited | Lost | |
| Wong Chee Hong | Other | Individual | Sum of $3,537.80 forfeited | Lost | |
| Muhamad Fairus bin Abu Bakar | Other | Individual | Sum of $200 forfeited | Lost | |
| Bryan Tan Wei Xuan | Other | Individual | Sum of $400 forfeited | Lost | |
| Gabriel Chee Jun Kang | Other | Individual | Sum of $1,400 forfeited | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sheldon Lim | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Guo Wei was scammed into transferring $34,000 for cryptocurrency he never received.
- The $34,000 was transferred to Watch Capital for a Rolex watch.
- The Rolex watch was sold to The Finest Time for $31,000 through intermediaries.
- A disposal inquiry was convened for seized items, including the $34,000 and the Rolex watch.
- The District Judge ordered the $34,000 to be released to Watch Capital and the Rolex Watch to The Finest Time.
- Guo Wei appealed the DJ’s disposal orders, seeking the funds or the watch.
- The High Court found no fundamental error in the DJ's orders and dismissed the appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Guo Wei v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9053 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 219
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Judgment issued | |
| Disposal inquiry cross-examination |
7. Legal Issues
- Disposal of Property
- Outcome: The court found that the District Judge's disposal orders were consistent with the law and did not constitute a fundamental error occasioning a clear failure of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Revision of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court declined to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction as the appellant failed to demonstrate a fundamental error occasioning a clear failure of justice.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Revision of disposal orders
- Return of $34,000
- Return of Rolex Watch
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Disposal Inquiry
11. Industries
- Retail
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sofjan and another v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1968-1970] SLR(R) 782 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no right of appeal in the context of a disposal inquiry. |
| Thai Chong Pawnshop Pte Ltd and others v Vankrisappan s/o Gopanaidu and others | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no right of appeal in the context of a disposal inquiry. |
| Lim Tien Hou William v Ling Kok Hua | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 18 | Singapore | Cited for reiterating that there is no right of appeal in the context of a disposal inquiry and the only available recourse is to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court. |
| Sim Cheng Ho and another v Lee Eng Soon | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 190 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the appellant must show that there was a fundamental error occasioning a clear failure of justice in order for the court to consider exercising its revisionary jurisdiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disposal inquiry
- Revisionary jurisdiction
- Scam
- Rolex watch
- USDT
- Intermediaries
- Lawful possession
- Fundamental error
- Failure of justice
15.2 Keywords
- Disposal inquiry
- Scam
- Revision
- Rolex
- Cryptocurrency
- Fraud
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Disposal of Property | 90 |
| Revision of Proceedings | 80 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 60 |
| Theft | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Civil Procedure
- Restitution