Tan Hui Meng v Public Prosecutor: Residential Property Act & False Evidence in Judicial Proceedings
Tan Hui Meng appealed against his conviction on charges under the Residential Property Act and for providing false evidence in judicial proceedings. The Public Prosecutor cross-appealed against the sentence for providing false evidence. The High Court dismissed Tan's appeal, finding that he had wrongfully purchased restricted residential property on behalf of a foreign national and had provided false evidence in a related suit. The court allowed the Prosecution's appeal, enhancing Tan's sentence to four years, three months, and three weeks imprisonment, with a $3,000 fine.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed and sentence enhanced
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Hui Meng faced charges under the Residential Property Act and for providing false evidence. The High Court dismissed his appeal and enhanced his sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Hui Meng | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Kalidass s/o Murugaiyan, Koh Boon Yang |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Gordon Oh, Louis Ngia |
| Zhan Guotuan | Other | Individual | |||
| Guan Wenhai | Other | Individual | |||
| Guan Aimei | Other | Individual | |||
| Zhan Penglong | Other | Individual | |||
| Zhan Pengxiang | Other | Individual | |||
| Xin An Technology Group Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation | |||
| Alphaland International Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation | |||
| Hwampoa Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kalidass s/o Murugaiyan | M/s Kalidass Law Corporation |
| Koh Boon Yang | M/s Kalidass Law Corporation |
| Gordon Oh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Louis Ngia | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Mr. Tan, a Singaporean citizen, is a certified public accountant.
- Mr. Zhan, a Chinese national, obtained Singapore Permanent Residency in 2003/2004.
- Mr. Tan assisted Mr. Zhan with investments in Singapore.
- Three terrace houses (10J, 10P, 10M East Coast Road) were purchased between 2007 and 2008.
- 10J was purchased in GAM’s name, 10P in Mr. Tan’s name, and 10M in Hwampoa’s name.
- The properties did not qualify as non-restricted residential property under the RPA.
- Between 2012 and 2013, 10J and 10M were conveyed to ZPX and 10P was conveyed to ZPL.
- Mr. Tan claimed the properties were purchased on his behalf, but the Prosecution argued they were purchased on trust for Mr. Zhan.
- Mr. Tan made false declarations and provided false evidence in judicial proceedings related to the properties.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Hui Meng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9038 of 2024/01; Magistrate’s Appeal No 9038 of 2024/02, [2025] SGHC 2
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Hui Meng, , [2024] SGDC 146
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tan Hui Meng and Zhan Guotuan introduced | |
| Xin An Technology Group Pte Ltd incorporated | |
| Alphaland International Pte Ltd incorporated | |
| 10P East Coast Road purchased in Mr Tan’s name | |
| 10J East Coast Road purchased in GAM’s name | |
| Efforts to purchase 10M East Coast Road began | |
| Hwampoa Pte Ltd incorporated | |
| 10M East Coast Road purchased in Hwampoa’s name | |
| 10J and 10P Trust Memorandums executed | |
| Mr Tan and GAM affirmed a joint statutory declaration | |
| Mr Tan and GAM met with a representative of the HDB | |
| HDB rejected the 19 January Declaration | |
| Mr Tan and GAM met with a solicitor, Ms Gwendoline Ong Tin Si | |
| 10J and 10M conveyed to ZPX | |
| 10P conveyed to ZPL | |
| Mr Tan commenced Suit No 806 of 2013 against GAM in the High Court | |
| Mr. Zhan applied to leave jurisdiction for a business trip | |
| Hearing date | |
| Appeal dismissed and Prosecution's appeal allowed | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Zhan's statements were correctly admitted under s 32(1)(j)(iii) of the Evidence Act because it was impracticable to secure his attendance at trial and the CAD had taken sufficient reasonable steps to secure his attendance.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Practicability of securing witness attendance
- Reasonable steps to persuade witness to testify
- Breach of Residential Property Act
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Tan had breached s 23(1)(a) of the Residential Property Act by purchasing restricted residential properties as a nominee of a foreign person with the intention of holding them in trust for that person.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Purchase of restricted residential property by a citizen as a nominee of a foreign person
- Intention to hold property in trust for a foreign person
- Provision of False Evidence in Judicial Proceedings
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Tan had intentionally given false evidence in judicial proceedings, in breach of s 193 of the Penal Code, by claiming he was the beneficial owner of 10J and adducing false documents in support.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intentional giving of false evidence
- Fabrication of false evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2003] SGHC 52
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 115
- Assessment of Witness Credibility
- Outcome: The court found that the inconsistencies in GWH's evidence did not materially impact his credibility, as they were either irrelevant to the charges or could be attributed to human fallibility in recollection.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Impact of inconsistencies in evidence
- Distinguishing innocent discrepancies from deliberate lies
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 1 SLR 874
- [2004] SGHC 16
- [2018] 4 SLR 1315
8. Remedies Sought
- Imprisonment
- Fine
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Residential Property Act
- Providing False Evidence in Judicial Proceedings
- Abetment by engaging in a conspiracy to make a false statement
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Real Estate Law
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Legal Services
- Accounting
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 686 | Singapore | Cited for the test to admit statements under s 32(1)(j)(iii) of the Evidence Act, specifically regarding the requirement to demonstrate that it was impracticable to secure the witness's attendance at trial. |
| Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 246 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the Prosecution to prove unavailability of a witness beyond a mere assertion of the same. |
| Lavrentiadis, Lavrentios v Dextra Partners Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 146 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden is on the Prosecution to prove unavailability of a witness beyond a mere assertion of the same. |
| Pacific Marine & Shipbuilding Pte Ltd v Xin Ming Hua Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 102 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution must demonstrate that all reasonable steps were taken to persuade a witness to testify. |
| Public Prosecutor v Shanmuga Nathan Balakrishnan | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 95 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court was satisfied that a reasonable effort had been made to secure witnesses’ attendance at trial when the Central Narcotics Bureau reached out to their foreign counterparts. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Chu Ha @ Henry Teo and another | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 196 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the court was satisfied that a reasonable effort had been made to secure witnesses’ attendance at trial when the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau reached out to their foreign counterparts. |
| Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 795 | Singapore | Cited and distinguished regarding the possibility of receiving evidence via video link, noting that the witness's medical condition in the present case was more severe. |
| Public Prosecutor v Yap Yan Seng | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2024] SGDC 200 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inability to cross-examine the maker of a hearsay statement is not an automatic bar to the admissibility of that statement. |
| Jiangsu New Huaming International Trading Co Ltd v PT Musim Mas and another | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 81 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inability to cross-examine the maker of a hearsay statement is not an automatic bar to the admissibility of that statement. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a witness’s credibility is not immediately undermined by minor inconsistencies in his evidence. |
| Govindaraj Perulmalsamy and others v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 16 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a flawed witness is not always an untruthful one and innocent discrepancies must be distinguished from deliberate lies. |
| Tay Wee Kiat and another v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1315 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must consider whether the totality of the evidence suggests that the witnesses’ evidence, in respect of material elements of the charge, is untrue or unreliable. |
| Rahman Pachan Pillai Prasana v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the provision of false evidence in judicial proceedings undermines the very foundation of our justice system. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Seong Ong | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 114 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the provision of false evidence in judicial proceedings undermines the very foundation of our justice system. |
| Choo Pheng Soon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 115 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the provision of false evidence in judicial proceedings also has the potential to waste precious court time and resources. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 753 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of abetment, specifically that the abettor must have done something which aided the commission of the primary offence and must have rendered the assistance intentionally and with knowledge of the circumstances constituting the crime. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 1985 Rev Ed) s 23(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 193 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Oaths and Declarations Act 2000 (Cap 211, 2001 Rev Ed) s 14(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Oaths and Declarations Act 2000 (Cap 211, 2001 Rev Ed) s 14(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) Section 60(a) | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 59(6) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 s 32(1)(j)(iii) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 s 32(3) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 s 32(5) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Residential Property Act
- False Evidence
- Trust
- Beneficial Owner
- Hearsay Evidence
- Abetment
- Statutory Declaration
- Land Transfer Instrument
- Residential Property
- Foreign National
15.2 Keywords
- Residential Property Act
- False Evidence
- Trust
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Real Estate
- Appeal
- Conviction
- Sentence
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Trust Law
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Residential Property Act
- Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
- Sentencing
- Appeals
- Evidence Law
- Trust Law