TEO CHU HA @ HENRY TEO v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Vincent Hoong |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law, Evidence, Statutory Interpretation, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing |
Source: [2023] SGHC 130, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (3)
Case Significance
Teo Chu Ha (alias Henry Teo) v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2023] SGHC 130 is a reserved judgment of Vincent Hoong J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 9 May 2023 across Magistrate's Appeals Nos 9011 and 9012 of 2021/01 and /02 and Criminal Motion No 3 of 2023. The appeals concern Teo Chu Ha @ Henry Teo and Judy Teo Suya Bik, in a complex corruption case involving gratification of more than S$2 million paid to secure contracts for Chinese companies. The judgment addresses criminal conspiracy, statutory offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, hearsay evidence, statutory interpretation, mutual legal assistance, the form of charge, and sentencing including penalties and ancillary orders.
Summary
Henry Teo and Judy Teo were each convicted after trial of 50 charges under section 5(a)(i) read with section 29(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and one charge under section 44(1)(a) of the CDSA, involving gratification exceeding S$2 million funnelled into Singapore and used to buy property. The cross-appeals raised issues on the PCA's jurisdictional scope, hearsay evidence, mutual legal assistance and sentencing. The excerpt sets out the charges and sentencing calibration but does not state the appeals' disposition.
What was Teo Chu Ha @ Henry Teo v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 130 about?
Vincent Hoong J heard appeals by Teo Chu Ha @ Henry Teo and Judy Teo Suya Bik in a complex corruption case involving gratification of more than S$2 million paid to secure contracts for Chinese companies. The judgment was delivered on 9 May 2023.
What legal issues did Teo Chu Ha @ Henry Teo v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 130 raise?
The case raised criminal conspiracy, statutory offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, admissibility of hearsay evidence, statutory interpretation, mutual legal assistance, the form of charge, and sentencing issues including penalties and ancillary orders, in a transnational corruption matter.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (40)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 130)