Public Prosecutor v Zheng Jia

Mr Zheng Jia, a chartered accountant, ran a business incorporating Singapore companies mainly for clients in China, registering himself as the locally resident director and helping open bank accounts, while exercising no supervision over the companies. He had incorporated or been registered as a director of 384 companies this way. When demand grew, he recruited Mr Er Beng Hwa under a nominee services arrangement, paying him $50 a year per company at first, and told him he need only sign documents and need not manage the companies or check their transactions.

In 2020, scam proceeds passed through the accounts of two such companies: US$64,630 through Ocean Wave Shela Pte Ltd, where Mr Zheng was a director, and US$2,183,936 and S$237,120 through Rui Qi Trading Pte Ltd, where Er was a director. Mr Zheng pleaded guilty to failing to exercise reasonable diligence as a director under s 157(1) of the Companies Act and to abetting Er's omission to do so, with a third charge taken into consideration. The District Judge, applying Abdul Ghani bin Tahir v Public Prosecutor [2017] 4 SLR 1153, found him only negligent, fined him $3,500 and $5,000, and disqualified him for five years. The Prosecution appealed in Magistrate's Appeal No 9080 of 2024, heard by a three-judge panel with a young independent counsel appointed to address the sentencing approach.

1. Whether the Abdul Ghani sentencing approach should apply to professional nominee directors who exercise no oversight
2. What sentencing framework should govern such s 157(1) offences, including abetment
3. Whether custodial sentences were warranted on these facts
4. Whether a deferment of imprisonment should be granted for a proposed review based on prospective overruling

On Abdul Ghani, the court noted that the s 157(1) charge there was a minor part of a case about other offences, so its observations carried less weight. Its view that commerce should not be over-deterred had nothing to do with a director whose business model rested on taking no oversight at all, despite knowing the risk of abuse. Such a director intends from the outset to neglect his duty and acts knowingly, if not intentionally, so the case was not mere negligence and Abdul Ghani should not be relied on for these offences.

On the framework, the court rejected the independent counsel's proposal because it gave equal weight to the amounts later laundered, which lie beyond the director's control and would make sentences fortuitous. The core harm is providing a corporate structure ready for abuse. It set a revised framework: identify the offence-specific factors, place the offence in one of three bands, then adjust for offender-specific factors. For such professional directors the custodial threshold is presumptively crossed. For abettors the focus shifts to factors such as their reasons, any gap in knowledge and profit motive.

Applying it, the first charge fell in Band 2, with an indicative five months, given his expertise, the lack of any checks, the pattern across his companies and the profit motive. The second fell in Band 3 because he exploited Er's ignorance for profit and the harm was far greater. After credit for the plea, the charge taken into consideration and totality, the final terms were set. Parity with Er's fine did not apply given his greater culpability.

On the motion, prospective overruling had not been raised though departure from Abdul Ghani was flagged, Abdul Ghani was not entrenched, and it was distinguishable, so the proposed review had no reasonable prospect of success.

The High Court allowed the Prosecution's appeal and replaced the fines with three months' imprisonment for the first charge and seven months' imprisonment for the second, to run consecutively for an aggregate of ten months' imprisonment, leaving the disqualification order undisturbed. It later dismissed the respondent's motion HC/CM 17/2025 for deferment of the sentence.