Merlur Binte Ahmad v Public Prosecutor: CDSA Possession Charges & Criminal Conduct Benefits
In Merlur Binte Ahmad v Public Prosecutor, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's criminal motion seeking permission to refer questions of law regarding her conviction under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA). The applicant was convicted of possessing and removing monies, reasonably believing they were benefits from criminal conduct. The court found that the applicant was not an innocent possessor of the monies and upheld the High Court's decision.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
Application for permission to refer questions of law to the Court of Appeal was refused in its entirety.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal case concerning Merlur Binte Ahmad's conviction under the CDSA for possessing benefits from criminal conduct.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Merlur Binte Ahmad | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Andre Darius Jumabhoy, Aristotle Eng |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application Upheld | Won | Hon Yi, Lee Zu Zhao |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andre Darius Jumabhoy | Andre Jumabhoy LLC |
| Aristotle Eng | Andre Jumabhoy LLC |
| Hon Yi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lee Zu Zhao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Applicant was convicted on seven charges under s 47(3) of the CDSA for possessing monies, reasonably believing they were benefits from criminal conduct.
- Applicant was also convicted on seven charges under s 47(2)(b) of the CDSA for removing monies from Singapore.
- Monies were transferred into the applicant’s bank account by victims of crime.
- Applicant transferred the monies to entities in Malaysia at Mark's request.
- Applicant was interviewed by the police in 2016 regarding unsolicited transfers into her bank account.
- Applicant received an advisory letter from the police warning her about receiving funds from dubious sources.
- Applicant did not refuse Mark's request to transfer the monies despite the police warning.
5. Formal Citations
- Merlur Binte Ahmad v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Motion No 36 of 2023, [2024] SGCA 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant became acquainted with Mark through Facebook. | |
| Applicant assisted Mark to transfer two amounts out of her bank account. | |
| Police called the applicant for an interview regarding the transfers. | |
| Monies were transferred into the applicant’s bank account by victims of crime. | |
| Monies were transferred into the applicant’s bank account by victims of crime. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the application. | |
| Grounds of decision issued. | |
| Applicant's sentence will commence. |
7. Legal Issues
- Definition of Possession under CDSA
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the High Court's interpretation of 'possession' in s 47(3) CDSA was correct and consistent with the CDSA's legislative intent and existing case law.
- Category: Substantive
- Reasonable Grounds to Believe
- Outcome: The court upheld the District Judge's finding, affirmed by the High Court, that the applicant had reasonable grounds to believe that the monies in her bank account were Mark's benefits from criminal conduct.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Permission to refer questions of law to the Court of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of s 47(3) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act
- Violation of s 47(2)(b) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v GH | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2015] UKSC 24 | England and Wales | Cited by the applicant, but the High Court found the reliance to be misplaced. |
| R v Haque (Mohammed) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] EWCA [2020] 1 WLR 2239 | England and Wales | Cited by the applicant, but the High Court found the reliance to be misplaced as it dealt with 'acquisition' rather than 'possession'. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) | Singapore |
| s 47(3) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) | Singapore |
| s 47(2)(b) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) | Singapore |
| s 2 CDSA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- CDSA
- Possession
- Benefits from criminal conduct
- Reasonable grounds to believe
- Criminal property
- Telegraphic transfer
- Advisory letter
15.2 Keywords
- CDSA
- Possession
- Criminal Conduct
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Interpretation
- Money Laundering
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory offences
- Corruption
- Drug Trafficking
- CDSA
- Confiscation of Benefits