Soh Chee Wen v Public Prosecutor

Soh Chee Wen and Quah Su-Ling were tried jointly in the High Court over what the Prosecution said was a scheme, between 1 August 2012 and 3 October 2013, to inflate artificially the markets for and prices of shares in three Mainboard counters: Blumont Group Limited, Asiasons Capital Ltd and LionGold Corp Ltd. The Prosecution's case was that they controlled 189 trading accounts held with 20 financial institutions in the names of 60 individuals and companies. Each faced conspiracy charges under s 120B of the Penal Code relating to false trading and price manipulation under s 197(1)(b) of the Securities and Futures Act, deception of financial institutions under s 201(b), and cheating of Goldman Sachs International and Interactive Brokers into extending margin financing. Mr Soh also faced charges of managing the three companies while an undischarged bankrupt and of perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice by witness tampering.

The defence was that the appellants did not control the accounts and that a group of traders known as the Manhattan House Group, led by Mr Dick Gwee, and a day trader, Mr Leroy Lau, had manipulated the shares on their own. Ms Quah chose not to give evidence. After a trial of around 200 hearing days, the judge convicted Mr Soh of 180 of the 189 charges and Ms Quah of 169 of the 178 charges, imposing 36 years' imprisonment and 20 years' imprisonment respectively. Both appealed in Criminal Appeals Nos 40 and 41 of 2022. The Court of Appeal heard the appeals in tranches, and this judgment deals with the preliminary objections and conviction only.

1. Whether the conspiracy charges were insufficiently particularised or duplicitous for citing both s 120B and s 109 of the Penal Code.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellants controlled all the relevant accounts.
3. Whether a single conspiracy charge should have been brought instead of many separate charges.
4. Whether the deception, cheating and witness tampering charges were made out, and whether adverse inferences against Ms Quah were properly drawn.

Criminal conspiracy under s 120B is a continuing offence, so the charges did not need to state when or where each agreement was made, and the particulars given were enough to tell the appellants the case they faced. Because s 120B punishes a conspirator as if he had abetted the offence, it was proper to cite s 109 where the underlying offence was committed; this did not charge two offences, and in any event no prejudice was shown. The court described as blatant and mischievous mischaracterisation the allegations of judicial bias made by Ms Quah's counsel and later withdrawn.

On control of the accounts, the court stressed that an appellate court does not retry the facts. The judge had tested each witness against layered objective evidence, including messages in which Mr Soh gave trading orders, emails tracking trades across nominee accounts, and the GovTech analysis showing numerous orders closely preceded by calls from the appellants. Inconsistencies in the evidence of Mr Tai, Mr Gan and Mr Lau were explained, and the claim that Mr Gwee was the true mastermind set up a false dichotomy; the evidence showed he acted as Mr Soh's lieutenant while profiting.

Separate charges were permissible because the scheme was background, not itself charged, and the charges concerned distinct agreements, counters, periods and institutions, including before and after the 18 March 2013 amendment to s 197(1)(b). Knowledge of trading representatives who broke exchange rules could not be attributed to the deceived institutions. Pledging manipulated shares as collateral was a positive representation that they were legitimate, supporting cheating. The witness tampering remarks, read in context, were requests to conceal the truth and could support inferences against both appellants. Ms Quah's reason for not testifying was inadequate, so targeted adverse inferences were open to the judge.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Andrew Phang Boon Leong SJ, dismissed both appellants' appeals against conviction, upholding the convictions on all the challenged charges. The appeals against sentence were to be dealt with separately.