Kok Chiang Loong v Public Prosecutor

Kok Chiang Loong was convicted after trial in the District Court of abetting, by instigation, an offence of entering into a marriage of convenience under s 57C(1) of the Immigration Act read with s 109 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to ten months' imprisonment. The charge was that he instigated Goh Khoon Beng, a Singapore citizen who worked at a restaurant he ran, to marry Akhalkatsi Maia, a Georgian national, on 2 February 2016, so that she could obtain a Visit Pass, in return for free lodging. After the marriage she made 18 Visit Pass applications under Goh's sponsorship, all approved.

Goh and Maia were also charged and tried jointly with him. Maia pleaded guilty midway through the trial, and Goh was later convicted. The trial judge accepted their evidence that the appellant was the prime mover of the marriage, pressing both of them despite their reluctance, and rejected his reliance on the statutory defence. The appellant appealed in Magistrate's Appeal No 9055 of 2024/01, but withdrew his appeal against sentence and pursued only his appeal against conviction.

1. Whether the charge was legally defective because it alleged instigation of only one party and was not framed under s 57C(2) of the Immigration Act
2. Whether the trial judge was wrong to find that the marriage was a marriage of convenience

The defect argument was raised for the first time on appeal and was not in the petition of appeal, but the court considered it on the merits. Since any person who enters a marriage of convenience commits the primary offence, abetting either party is enough. Arranging a marriage under s 57C(2) is not the same as instigating a party under s 57C(1), and in any case charging is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, with both routes carrying the same punishment. There was no prejudice: the appellant knew the case he had to meet and relied on the statutory defence below. A reasonable belief that the marriage would be genuine would in any event have negated the knowledge required for abetment. Phang Wah and others v Public Prosecutor [2012] 1 SLR 646 did not help him.

On the second issue, the court rejected the argument that motives for marriage cannot be examined, since s 57C itself turns on purpose and belief; the civil cases cited predated the provision. The trial judge was entitled to accept Goh's and Maia's evidence. Goh said he married only for shelter, treated Maia like a sister and called it a sham. Maia said she agreed because she saw no other way to stay in Singapore. Goh's message to a friend did not show he would lie, and his evidence was against his own interest. Acts of apparent intimacy, including an attempt at consummation, and third parties' impressions did not outweigh the parties' own accounts that the marriage was ab initio one of convenience.

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal against sentence and dismissed the appeal against conviction, upholding the conviction and the sentence of ten months' imprisonment.