Ching Hwa Ming v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Corruption Conviction and Sentence
Ching Hwa Ming (Jason) and Li Keng Wan (David), director and manager of Nam Hong Engineering Pte Ltd (NHE), appealed against their conviction and sentence in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for conspiring to corruptly gratify under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court, presided over by Kannan Ramesh JAD, dismissed the appeals against conviction but allowed the appeals against sentence, reducing their imprisonment terms from 16 to 12 months. The case involved a false story concocted by Aloysius, another director, leading to the payment of $300,000 intended as a bribe.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against sentence allowed, sentences reduced to 12 months' imprisonment.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ching Hwa Ming and Li Keng Wan appeal against their conviction and sentence for corruption, which was partially allowed, reducing their sentences.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ching Hwa Ming (Qin Huaming) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed | Partial | Balachandran Suren Jaesh |
| Li Keng Wan (Liu Qingyuan) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed | Partial | Wong Ci, Luke Anton Netto, Aylwyn Seto Zi You |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal against conviction upheld; appeal against sentence overturned | Partial | Tay Jingxi, David Menon, Cheng You Duen |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge of Appellate Division | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Balachandran Suren Jaesh | Bishop Law Corporation |
| Wong Ci | Circular Law Chambers LLP |
| Luke Anton Netto | Netto & Magin LLC |
| Aylwyn Seto Zi You | Netto & Magin LLC |
| Tay Jingxi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| David Menon | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Cheng You Duen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Jason and David were director and manager, respectively, of Nam Hong Engineering Pte Ltd (NHE).
- Aloysius and Jason were equal shareholders and directors of NHE.
- NHE secured a subcontract from Kurihara Kogyo Co Ltd (KK) for the Fusionopolis Project valued at $5.2m.
- Aloysius falsely claimed NHE needed to pay $300,000 to Mr. Ng, an Assistant General Manager of KK, to secure the FP Project.
- Jason and David agreed to pay the $300,000 in two equal tranches.
- The appellants and Aloysius signed two payment vouchers for $150,000 each, and Jason and Aloysius signed the corresponding cheques.
- Aloysius deposited the cheques into his personal bank account and used the money for his personal expenses.
5. Formal Citations
- Ching Hwa Ming (Qin Huaming) v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2023] SGHC 310
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| NHE incorporated | |
| NHE secured subcontract from KK for the Fusionopolis Project | |
| First cheque for $150,000 issued | |
| Second cheque for $150,000 issued | |
| Jason made a report to the CPIB | |
| Magistrate’s Appeals Nos 9108 and 9109 of 2021 filed | |
| Aloysius’s appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed | |
| Hearing date | |
| Appeals heard; appeals against conviction dismissed and appeals against sentence allowed | |
| Grounds of Decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Corruption
- Outcome: The court found that all four elements of the corruption charge were made out, and that the appellants had conspired to commit the corrupt acts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Conspiracy to commit corruption
- Elements of corruption under s 5(b)(i) of the PCA
- Guilty knowledge
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found that the District Judge had erred in applying the sentencing framework and in considering aggravating and mitigating factors, and reduced the sentence accordingly.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicable sentencing framework
- Aggravating and mitigating factors
- Appellate intervention on sentence
- Admissibility of Long Statements
- Outcome: The court found that the appellants' long statements were accurately recorded and admissible in evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Accuracy of long statements
- Voluntariness of long statements
- Compliance with s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to commit corruption
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Corruption Offences
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Li Keng Wan (Liu Qingyuan) and another | District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 156 | Singapore | Cited for the decision below where the appellants were convicted. |
| Public Prosecutor v Syed Mostofa Romel | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 1166 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework applied by the District Judge and the Prosecution. |
| Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 187 | Singapore | Cited for the procedural requirements in s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code. |
| Goh Ngak Eng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 254 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing framework that David argued should apply. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the circumstances where appellate intervention is usually warranted. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 211 | Singapore | Cited for the four elements of an offence under s 5(b)(i) of the PCA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok Ming Michael and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 926 | Singapore | Cited for the four elements of an offence under s 5(b)(i) of the PCA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Leng Kah Poh | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1264 | Singapore | Cited for the elements pertaining to the mens rea. |
| Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the question of whether the appellants gave the gratification believing that it was a quid pro quo for a dishonest gain or advantage. |
| Tang Keng Boon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 104 | Singapore | Cited for the point that it was not necessary for the gratification to have been received by Mr Ng. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Tiong Choon | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 119 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step test for a corrupt element. |
| Tjong Mark Edward v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 375 | Singapore | Cited to contend that the evidence must at least allow the court to infer that the idea of giving gratification was already operating in David’s mind at the time of the alleged favour. |
| Fong Ser Joo William v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 12 | Singapore | Cited for the subjective test with an inherent objective element for guilty knowledge. |
| Tan Tze Chye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 357 | Singapore | Cited for the point that a surreptitious attempt to legitimise the gratification is indicative of guilty knowledge. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yeo Choon Poh | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302 | Singapore | Cited for the essence of a conspiracy. |
| Nomura Taiji and others v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 259 | Singapore | Cited for the point that conspirators do not have to be equally informed of all the details of the conspiracy. |
| Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 653 | Singapore | Cited for the point that a trial judge has failed to appreciate the material placed before the court if he or she makes a finding of fact which is not supported by the evidence. |
| Public Prosecutor v UI | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the point that a sentence would be wrong in principle when, amongst other reasons, the lower court incorrectly accords weight to aggravating and mitigating factors. |
| BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 764 | Singapore | Cited for the point that it was wrong to discount the sentence simply because of the lack of related antecedents. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ridhaudin Ridhwan bin Bakri and others | High Court | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 790 | Singapore | Cited for the point that it was incorrect to treat the act of claiming trial as ipso facto grounds for finding a lack of remorse which could aggravate the sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v BLV | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 166 | Singapore | Cited for the point that an accused person’s claiming trial does not in itself expose him to any additional uplift or increase in sentence. |
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage, five-step framework. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wong Chee Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 807 | Singapore | Cited for the harm caused by the offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Geow Chwee Hiam | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 139 | Singapore | Cited in assessing the appropriate sentence. |
| Kannan s/o Kunjiraman and another v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 294 | Singapore | Cited in assessing the appropriate sentence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 5(b)(i) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 29(a) | Singapore |
| Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 420 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 22(3)(c) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 262 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 107(1)(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Gratification
- Kopi money
- Conspiracy
- Inducement
- Guilty knowledge
- Long statements
- Sentencing framework
15.2 Keywords
- corruption
- criminal law
- singapore
- appeal
- sentence
- prevention of corruption act
- gratification
- conspiracy
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Sentencing
- Criminal Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory offences
- Corruption Law