GUO WEI v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Guo Wei fell victim to a scam. An unknown person on WhatsApp offered to sell him $50,000 worth of the cryptocurrency USDT for $34,000. He transferred $34,000 to the bank account he was given, but never received any USDT. The account in fact belonged to a watch shop, Watch Capital, which had listed a Rolex Daytona on Carousell for $34,000. Relying on his transfer, a second unknown person, acting through a chain of intermediaries, collected the watch from Watch Capital, and the watch was then sold, again through intermediaries, to another shop, The Finest Time Pte Ltd, for $31,000. Most of the sale proceeds were turned into cryptocurrency and moved on.

The police seized the $34,000 in Watch Capital's account, the watch, $10,540.10 in the account of one intermediary, Elroy, sums in the accounts of two other individuals, and $2,000 in cash from three intermediaries. At a disposal inquiry, Guo Wei claimed the $34,000 or, failing that, the watch or the other sums. The District Judge released the $34,000 to Watch Capital, the watch to The Finest Time and the $10,540.10 to Elroy, and forfeited the rest to the State. Guo Wei brought Magistrate's Appeal No 9053 of 2023.

Issues

1. Whether there is a right of appeal against orders made in a disposal inquiry
2. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisionary jurisdiction over the disposal orders

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal because no right of appeal lies from a disposal inquiry, and declined to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction because there was no fundamental error occasioning a clear failure of justice. The District Judge's disposal orders stood.

Reasoning

Following earlier authority, recently restated in Lim Tien Hou William v Ling Kok Hua [2023] SGHC 18, the court held that a disposal inquiry carries no right of appeal; the only route is revision, which requires a fundamental error causing a clear failure of justice.

The court found none. Both Guo Wei and Watch Capital were lawful possessors of the $34,000: the money came from his account through fraud, and Watch Capital received it in a genuine sale with no evidence that it knew of or took part in the scam, which he did not suggest either. Where both claimants qualify and nothing more shows who has the better claim, the property goes back to whoever lawfully held it when seized. The same reasoning applied to the watch, which The Finest Time bought for $31,000 with no sign of wrongdoing. Guo Wei could not show that Elroy's balance came from the scam; Elroy's bank statements supported his account that it was business money, and the police could not tell either way. The forfeited sums were unclaimed by their holders and Guo Wei offered only a bare assertion.

The court explained that a disposal inquiry does not decide title and does not stop a civil claim. It also observed that the District Judge's brief oral judgment had not adequately explained her reasons or set out the background facts.

From the judgment