Ching Hwa Ming (Qin Huaming) v Public Prosecutor

Ching Hwa Ming (Jason) and Li Keng Wan (David) were the director and manager of Nam Hong Engineering Pte Ltd (NHE), an air-conditioning works company Jason had set up with Lian Cher Hong (Aloysius), the other director. In September 2012 NHE won a $5.2m subcontract from Kurihara Kogyo Co Ltd (KK) for the Fusionopolis Project. In 2014 Aloysius told David that NHE had to pay $300,000 to KK's then Assistant General Manager, Mr Ng Boon Hwa, for procuring the award. The story was false; Aloysius had concocted it. David passed it to Jason, who believed it, and the two agreed to pay. Two payment vouchers of $150,000 each, described as "Entertainment" and "Contra A/C", were signed, and two cash cheques dated 14 July 2014 and 29 September 2014 were handed to Aloysius, who banked them and spent the money on himself.

Jason's 2017 report to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau led to the prosecutions. Aloysius was convicted of cheating and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. Jason and David were each convicted in the District Court of two charges of conspiring to corruptly give gratification under s 5(b)(i) read with s 29(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment. Both appealed against conviction and sentence in Magistrate's Appeals Nos 9108 and 9109 of 2021, heard by Kannan Ramesh JAD.

1. Whether the appellants' long statements were accurately recorded and could be relied on.
2. Whether the four elements of the corruption charges were made out.
3. Whether there was a conspiracy to commit the corrupt acts.
4. Whether the sentences of 16 months' imprisonment should be disturbed, and under which framework.

The long statements stood. In his statement Jason said both men knew the payments were bribes and made them so as not to offend Mr Ng, which defeated his claim that he had thought "kopi money" was a refundable deposit. The statements were interpreted in Mandarin, which Jason understood, so there was no breach of s 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code. David's statement recorded that he knew the payment was wrong in law, and he could understand English.

All four elements were proved. Gratification was given when the appellants signed the vouchers and cheques; it did not matter that Mr Ng never received it. The payments were meant to reward the award of the project, avoid trouble with progress payments, and avoid difficulties on two other KK projects, which supplied inducement and an objectively corrupt element. This was not a reward for doing what Mr Ng was already bound to do. Guilty knowledge followed from the admissions, the false voucher descriptions and the use of cash cheques. The evidence also showed an agreement amounting to conspiracy.

On sentence, the District Judge had wrongly treated the categorisation as undisputed, given credit for a lack of related antecedents (a neutral factor), and treated claiming trial as showing a lack of remorse warranting an uplift. The Romel framework applied rather than Goh Ngak Eng, which was confined to s 6 offences. The first purpose fell in Category 1 and the other two in Category 3, as the concern was that Mr Ng might go out of his way to harm NHE. Harm was public disquiet only; culpability lay in the substantial sum, premeditation and abuse of position. Measured against Geow Chwee Hiam, Soh Yew Meng and Kannan, 12 months was appropriate.

The court allowed the appeals in part. It dismissed the appeals against conviction and allowed the appeals against sentence, reducing each appellant's sentence from 16 months' imprisonment to 12 months' imprisonment.