HO HUI MIN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Ho Hui Min, head of the corporate and finance departments of Raffles United Holdings Ltd (RUHL), a company on the SGX Mainboard, appealed in Magistrate's Appeal No 9217 of 2024/01 against her conviction and sentence on two charges under s 197(1)(b) of the Securities and Futures Act. The charges alleged that she conspired with Koh Hai Yang, RUHL's Chief Executive Officer and a director, to create a false appearance of the price of RUHL securities through trades that pushed up the volume-weighted average price (VWAP). A further charge was stood down.

On 10 February 2015 SGX announced a minimum trading price rule requiring a six-month VWAP of at least $0.20, failing which a company would be placed on a watchlist. The Prosecution's case was that, worried RUHL would be placed on the watchlist, the appellant arranged 14 trades between Koh's account and three counterparties: six between 10 December 2015 and 12 January 2016, and eight between 16 August 2016 and 26 October 2016. Koh, who had pleaded guilty to mirror charges and served his sentence, testified that the appellant proposed the scheme and decided the prices and quantities. The Prosecution also relied on WhatsApp messages, counterparty witnesses and an expert's evidence that the trades were likely coordinated. The appellant said she had no interest in the share price, had bad blood with Koh, and that the counterparties traded independently.

The Senior District Judge convicted her on 4 July 2024 and, on 8 November 2024, imposed 12 weeks' imprisonment per charge, concurrent.

Issues

1. Whether the district judge erred in accepting Koh's evidence despite the alleged inconsistencies and Koh's alleged motive to implicate the appellant.
2. Whether the district judge erred in his treatment of the other witnesses and of the expert evidence.
3. Whether the sentence of 12 weeks' imprisonment per charge was manifestly excessive.

Holding

See Kee Oon JAD dismissed the appeal and affirmed the district judge's decision on conviction and sentence.

Reasoning

The judge rejected reliance on R v Horne (Joshua) [2020] 4 WLR 103, which was not cited locally and concerned jury trials; a court may rely on a co-conspirator's evidence where its credibility assessment is not plainly wrong. The appellant had not raised enough evidence of a motive to fabricate. Koh had already pleaded guilty and served his sentence, so he had nothing to gain, and a 2019 secret recording suggested his animosity was directed at the managing director, not the appellant. The alleged inconsistencies fell away in context. Koh's account fitted the WhatsApp messages: on 24 August 2016, for example, his messages were sent within the same minute as the trades rather than his sales approvals. Trade timing discrepancies had plausible explanations, and avoiding the work of a downgrade or delisting was a credible motive since compliance with the rule fell within her role.

The district judge properly allowed the Prosecution to cross-examine a counterparty who seemed to be trying to help the appellant, as s 156 of the Evidence Act turns on the court's discretion. An assistant finance manager's claim that she prepared a what-if VWAP analysis of her own accord was rightly found absurd and her credit impeached. Reminders to another counterparty about testifying on oath were not coercion. A further counterparty's evidence that the appellant gave price and quantity was unfavourable to her. The expert's conclusions on net effect and profit needed caution, but other features strongly indicating coordination stood unanswered, and the evidence was only corroborative.

On sentence, since the two were equally culpable, parity with Koh was the right starting point. None of the precedents assisted: a sentence shorter than Koh's would breach parity, unreported cases carry little weight, and the Prosecution's precedent involved a CEO with a direct interest. The 50% uplift reflected the absence of a guilty plea discount and her vexatious conduct at trial, not the fact that she claimed trial. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

From the judgment