PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TAN TECK LEONG, MELVIN (CHEN DELIANG, MELVIN)
Outcome
ConvictedThe respondent was convicted on three charges of evading $182,000, $219,000 and $201,000 (rounded up for simplicity in computation) respectively.
Source: [2023] SGHC 188, High Court (General Division), decided 14 July 2023. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Sundaresh Menon, Tay Yong Kwang, Vincent Hoong |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, Criminal Law |
| Outcome | Convicted |
| Sentence / award | $182,000 |
| Counsel | Allen & Gledhill LLP, Attorney-General's Chambers, Skandan Law LLC, Agnes Chan, Bhaskaran S/O Sivasamy, Darryl Ho Jun Han, Jai Prakash, Lim Shin Hui, Tai Wei Shyong, Wong Pei Ting |
Source: [2023] SGHC 188, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (10)
Case Significance
Public Prosecutor v Tan Teck Leong Melvin (Chen Deliang Melvin) [2023] SGHC 188 is a reserved judgment of the General Division of the High Court delivered on 14 July 2023 in Magistrate's Appeal No 9134 of 2022, with Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivering the judgment of the court sitting with Sundaresh Menon CJ and Vincent Hoong J. The respondent, a 44-year-old male Singapore citizen, had pleaded guilty to three charges under s 128D of the Customs Act for fraudulently evading Goods and Services Tax on imported goods, with six similar offences taken into consideration. The District Judge had sentenced him to a fine of $1m per charge, an aggregate of $3m in default 24 months' imprisonment; the Prosecution appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and the appeal entailed consideration of the sentencing framework for s 128D offences.
[2023] SGHC 188 explained
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TAN TECK LEONG, MELVIN (CHEN DELIANG, MELVIN) ([2023] SGHC 188) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 14 July 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Criminal Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2023] SGHC 188 about?
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TAN TECK LEONG, MELVIN (CHEN DELIANG, MELVIN) ([2023] SGHC 188) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal”, “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Customs Act”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Sentencing framework”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 188 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Customs Act, Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2023] SGHC 188?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 188 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
What was Public Prosecutor v Tan Teck Leong Melvin [2023] SGHC 188 about?
It was a Prosecution's sentencing appeal decided on 14 July 2023, with Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivering the court's judgment, over three charges under s 128D of the Customs Act for fraudulently evading GST on imported goods.
What sentence was under appeal in [2023] SGHC 188?
The District Judge fined the 44-year-old respondent $1m for each of three Customs Act charges, an aggregate of $3m in default 24 months' imprisonment. The Prosecution appealed as manifestly inadequate, and the court considered the sentencing framework for s 128D offences.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (10)
Cited By (1)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 188)