HOW SOO FENG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 252 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50), Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and UK Companies Act (Cap 50). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 252 High Court (General Division) 8 September 2023 HC/MA 9173/2022/01 · HC/MA 9189/2022/01 97 min read

11 cases cited (8 SG, 3 foreign) Cited by 2 cases

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

I dismiss the appeals against conviction and sentence.

Source: [2023] SGHC 252, High Court (General Division), decided 8 September 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	8 September 2023
Judge	Vincent Hoong
Charges / claim	Criminal Law
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Damodara Ong LLC, Withers KhattarWong LLP, Carmen Lee, Edwin Soh, Jeremy Mark Pereira, Kevin Yong, Leonard Chua Jun Yi, Nathan Shashidran, Ong Xin Jie, Suresh s/o Damodara

Source: [2023] SGHC 252, High Court (General Division), decided 8 September 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Statutory offences — s 340 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Criminal Law

Judges (1)

Vincent Hoong Delivered

Counsel (11)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Damodara Ong LLC Firm Withers KhattarWong LLP Firm Carmen Lee Counsel Appellant Edwin Soh Counsel Respondent Jeremy Mark Pereira Counsel Appellant Kevin Yong Counsel Respondent Leonard Chua Jun Yi Counsel Appellant Nathan Shashidran Counsel Appellant Ong Xin Jie Counsel Respondent Suresh s/o Damodara Counsel Appellant

Parties (3)

Public Prosecutor Respondent How Soo Feng Appellant Iseli Rudolf James Maitland Appellant

Case Significance

How Soo Feng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2023] SGHC 252 is a reserved judgment of the General Division of the High Court, delivered by Vincent Hoong J on 8 September 2023 in Magistrates' Appeals Nos 9173 and 9189 of 2022. The appellants, Mr Iseli Rudolf James Maitland and Ms How Soo Feng, were the directors and majority shareholders of The Gold Label Pte Ltd ("TGL PL"), which sold gold buyback contracts the appellants do not dispute were loss-making and which accumulated more than $120 million in revenue over ten months of operation between 16 December 2009 and 7 October 2010. The appeals concern statutory offences under s 340 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed), the judgment addressing fraudulent or reckless trading in connection with the company's gold buyback business.

[2023] SGHC 252 explained

HOW SOO FENG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 252) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 8 September 2023. It is categorised under Criminal Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, 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 252 about?

HOW SOO FENG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2023] SGHC 252) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — s 340 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)”, 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 252 consider?

The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50), Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and UK Companies Act (Cap 50). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC 252 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 145 and [2023] SGCA 2. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2023] SGHC 252?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 252 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. 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.

Summary

How Soo Feng and Iseli Rudolf James Maitland, directors and majority shareholders of The Gold Label Pte Ltd, were convicted of fraudulent trading under s 340(5) read with s 340(1) of the Companies Act for running a gold buyback scheme that raised over $120 million while using new contract revenue to fund earlier payouts. On winding up the company had over $76 million in unfulfilled obligations and under $500,000 remaining. The High Court dismissed both appellants' appeals against conviction and sentence.

What was How Soo Feng v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGHC 252 about?

It was a reserved judgment of Vincent Hoong J on 8 September 2023 in appeals by Iseli Rudolf James Maitland and How Soo Feng, directors of The Gold Label Pte Ltd, concerning offences under s 340 of the Companies Act relating to the company's loss-making gold buyback contracts.

What was The Gold Label Pte Ltd's business in [2023] SGHC 252?

The Gold Label Pte Ltd sold gold buyback contracts the appellants do not dispute were loss-making, accumulating more than $120 million in revenue over ten months between 16 December 2009 and 7 October 2010, underpinning charges under s 340 of the Companies Act.