Tan Ken Hwee

Tan Ken Hwee is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2012 to 2017. The lawyer has handled 12 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal law and criminal procedure. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 8% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated expertise across 43 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal law and criminal procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Criminal Law	11 cases	14% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 11 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	7 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice27% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Falsification of Documents	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Prevention of Corruption Act	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Companies Act	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice18% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Duty to Account	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Guarantee	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bail	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Offences against public servants	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Confiscation and forfeiture	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Money-changing and Remittance Businesses Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
United Nations Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Public Sector Governance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
False Information	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Flight Risk	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Separation of Powers	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Business Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Chancery and Equity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Fraud	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Malpractice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sanctions Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Falsification of Accounts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy to Defraud	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Tan Ken Hwee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Ken Hwee has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 12 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	12 cases	100% of cases	Rajendar Prasad Rai v Public Prosecutor: Stay of Orders Pending Restraint Order Application Under CDSA(Jul 2017) Chinpo Shipping v Public Prosecutor: DPRK Sanctions & Remittance Business(May 2017) Koh Yong Chiah v Public Prosecutor: False Information to Public Servant & Sentencing Guidelines(Nov 2016)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Tan Ken Hwee's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.3
Complex Cases: 1 (8%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.5 parties avg	2.5	17%
Partial	32.7 parties avg	2.7	25%
Unknown	12.0 parties avg	2.0	8%
Won	62.2 parties avg	2.2	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2012	32.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2014	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2015	32.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	22.5 parties avg	2.5

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Tan Ken Hwee's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(17%)	17%
Partial	3(25%)	25%
Unknown	1(8%)	8%
Won	6(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2012	3 12	Partial: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Unknown: 1 cases (50.0%)
2015	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2016	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 12 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Rajendar Prasad Rai v Public Prosecutor: Stay of Orders Pending Restraint Order Application Under CDSA 30 Jul 2017 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Lost	30 Jul 2017	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Application dismissedThe Prosecution's application to temporarily stay the orders which I had made should be dismissed, and that the orders were to be carried out with immediate effect.
2	Chinpo Shipping v Public Prosecutor: DPRK Sanctions & Remittance Business 11 May 2017 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Partial	11 May 2017	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal dismissed in partAppeal dismissed in respect of the MCRBA Charge.
3	Koh Yong Chiah v Public Prosecutor: False Information to Public Servant & Sentencing Guidelines 17 Nov 2016 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	17 Nov 2016	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal against the four weeks’ imprisonment term was dismissed.
4	PP v Lim Yong Soon Bernard: False Information to Public Servant & Public Sector Governance 09 Apr 2015 Public Prosecutor (Applicant)Lost	09 Apr 2015	Public Prosecutor (Applicant): Application dismissedThe Court of Appeal declined to answer the reframed question and dismissed the application.
5	Ding Si Yang v Public Prosecutor: Bail Pending Appeal for Corruption Charges 01 Feb 2015 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	01 Feb 2015	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Motion dismissedThe Respondent successfully opposed the Applicant's motion for bail pending appeal.
6	Public Prosecutor v Yang Yin: Revision of Bail Order for Falsification of Accounts 07 Jan 2015 Public Prosecutor (Applicant)Won	07 Jan 2015	Public Prosecutor (Applicant): Application AllowedThe Public Prosecutor's application for revision was allowed.
7	Public Prosecutor v Leng Kah Poh: Interpretation of s 6(a) Prevention of Corruption Act 16 Oct 2014 Public Prosecutor (Applicant)	16 Oct 2014	Public Prosecutor (Applicant): -
8	PP v Li Weiming: Criminal Case Disclosure, Intent to Defraud, Falsification of Accounts 22 Jan 2014 Public Prosecutor (Applicant)Partial	22 Jan 2014	Public Prosecutor (Applicant): Orders for particulars set asideThe court set aside the Judge’s orders that the PP provide the respondents with (a) the identity of the persons whom the respondents allegedly conspired to defraud and (b) the reasons why the subcontract between ZTE and Questzone was allegedly fictitious.
9	Mohammad Faizal v PP: Constitutionality of Enhanced Drug Penalties under Misuse of Drugs Act 10 Jan 2013 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	10 Jan 2013	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Motion DismissedSuccessfully opposed the criminal motions for leave to refer questions of law to the Court of Appeal.
10	Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew: Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating by Attorney 29 Nov 2012 Public Prosecutor (Appellant, Respondent)Partial	29 Nov 2012	Public Prosecutor (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal allowed in partThe Public Prosecutor's appeal against the sentences imposed was allowed in part, with the sentences for the First and Third Charges enhanced. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	Mohammad Faizal v PP: Constitutionality of Enhanced Drug Penalties 09 Aug 2012 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	09 Aug 2012	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Stated Question answered in the negativeThe court found the law constitutional and within the powers of the Legislature.
12	Amazi bin Hawasi v Public Prosecutor: Constitutionality of s 33A(5)(a) of Misuse of Drugs Act 09 Aug 2012 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	09 Aug 2012	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Question answered in the negativeThe court determined that section 33A(5)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act does not violate the principle of separation of powers.