Tan Hui Meng v Public Prosecutor

Tan Hui Meng, a certified public accountant who acted as corporate secretary for companies of a Chinese national, Zhan Guotuan, faced eight charges. Three were under s 23(1)(a) of the Residential Property Act over the purchase in 2007 and 2008 of three terrace houses at 10J, 10P and 10M East Coast Road, bought in the names of Mr Tan, Guan Aimei (GAM) and a company, Hwampoa Pte Ltd. Mr Zhan, as a foreign national, could not buy them. The properties were later conveyed to Mr Zhan's son and nephew. Three further charges concerned a false statutory declaration and trust deed, said to show Mr Tan as beneficial owner of 10J, which were used to help GAM and her husband buy an HDB flat. The last two related to Suit No 806 of 2013, in which Mr Tan sued GAM for $2.3m on the basis that he owned 10J, relying on those documents.

Mr Tan's defence was that he was the beneficial owner of the properties. A District Judge convicted him on all eight charges and imposed a total of two years, three months and three weeks' imprisonment and a fine of $3,000, including two years for giving false evidence under s 193 of the Penal Code. Mr Tan appealed against conviction in Magistrate's Appeal No 9038 of 2024/01, and the Prosecution appealed against the s 193 sentence in Magistrate's Appeal No 9038 of 2024/02.

1. Whether Mr Zhan's statements to the Commercial Affairs Department were correctly admitted as hearsay
2. Whether inconsistencies in the evidence of GAM's husband undermined his credibility
3. Whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the properties were bought on Mr Zhan's behalf
4. Whether the two-year term for giving false evidence was manifestly inadequate

On admissibility, Mr Zhan had left Singapore in 2017 and not returned, and his counsel produced at least 20 medical reports saying he was unfit to attend court. Investigators had written to the Chinese authorities through Interpol and obtained local psychiatric opinions agreeing he was unfit. It was impracticable to secure his attendance, so s 32(1)(j)(iii) of the Evidence Act applied, and the court declined to exclude the statements under s 32(3). His condition was too severe for video-link evidence, and nothing suggested it affected his second statement.

On credibility, the inconsistencies concerned undisputed or irrelevant matters about events at least ten years earlier, and were put down to fallible memory rather than any attempt to hide the truth.

On the merits, the court found an abundance of financial and documentary evidence that Mr Zhan was the beneficial owner. A substantial portion of the purchase money came from his companies, their books recorded payments for the properties, and the sale proceeds went back to Mr Zhan or his companies. Signed memoranda and trust deeds recorded his interest. Mr Tan's claimed interest-free verbal loan had no supporting evidence, and his explanations for the trust documents shifted. Mr Zhan's late knowledge of the purchases was immaterial, since Mr Tan's own intention was what mattered.

On sentence, Mr Tan's culpability exceeded that in Rahman and Choo Pheng Soon because he had started a fabricated claim himself and sought a large sum, which had in fact already been returned to him. An uplift from the three-and-a-half-year term in Choo Pheng Soon was warranted.

The High Court dismissed Mr Tan's appeal against conviction and allowed the Prosecution's appeal against sentence. It enhanced the sentence for the s 193 offence to four years' imprisonment, and the global sentence was varied to four years, three months and three weeks' imprisonment with the fine of $3,000 (in default 14 days' imprisonment) left unchanged.