Rajavikraman s/o Jayapandian v Public Prosecutor

Mr Rajavikraman s/o Jayapandian, a former assistant shipyard manager at the Keppel FELS shipyard, pleaded guilty to 15 charges of abetting the corrupt obtaining of gratification and one charge of corruptly obtaining gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with 33 further charges taken into consideration. Under a kickback scheme from late 2014, he, Goh Ngak Eng of Megamarine Services Pte Ltd and Alvin Lim, a facilities manager at the shipyard who could choose contractors, had vendors mark up their invoices; Lim took the first 15% and Goh and Mr Rajavikraman shared the rest after deductions. Goh paid Mr Rajavikraman in cash envelopes for himself and Lim and kept a spreadsheet, NH-P1, recording the payments. The separate charge concerned a $3,000 commission for recommending Megamarine for a job at his then employer.

At a Newton hearing, the District Judge found against him on who proposed the scheme, whether he and Goh shared the balance equally, and how much he received, and sentenced him to 43 months' imprisonment with a single penalty order of $191,115.89, comparing his culpability with Goh's. He appealed against sentence in Magistrate's Appeal No 9022 of 2024, saying the judge failed to engage with the defence case and that he received no more than $28,000. The Prosecution asked the court to replace the single penalty order with one order per charge following Chang Peng Hong Clarence v Public Prosecutor [2024] 2 SLR 722.

1. Whether the District Judge failed to give adequate reasons so that the court should review the disputed facts afresh
2. Whether Mr Rajavikraman proposed the scheme and agreed to share the balance equally with Goh
3. How much gratification he received
4. Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and what penalty orders should be made

On reasons, the grounds were relatively bare and did not fully engage the defence, but unlike a decision that copied the Prosecution's submissions, they gave independent reasons sufficient to support the findings. In fairness, the court still reviewed all three issues afresh.

On the first two issues, Mr Rajavikraman accepted on appeal that he and Goh agreed to share the balance equally. Only he knew Lim, the insider whose knowledge of the procurement lapse made the scheme possible, so only he could have proposed it; Goh's role in running the scheme did not show otherwise.

On the amount, NH-P1 was not inadmissible hearsay, since it was updated on Goh's instructions. Its contents were accurate: Mr Rajavikraman knew of it and could inspect it, Lim and he never complained of being shortchanged, and bank withdrawals did not need to match payouts because Goh could pay from accumulated funds. His own statement showed he routinely opened Lim's envelopes and took money from them, which undermined his claim of only $28,000, and Goh had pleaded guilty to and disgorged a far larger sum. A prosecution miscalculation was corrected without prejudice to him.

On sentence, applying the Goh Ngak Eng v Public Prosecutor [2023] 4 SLR 1385 framework, harm was moderate and culpability medium, as both men played equally active roles. Unlike Goh, he neither pleaded early without qualification nor disgorged, and a three-day Newton hearing decided wholly against him limited his discount, so the terms were not manifestly excessive and the consecutive charges respected totality.

On penalty, serious injustice justified revision: the order omitted $7,000 from the separate charge, and a single global order could encourage an offender to serve the default term instead of disgorging.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence, leaving the imprisonment terms in place. Exercising its revisionary power, it set aside the single penalty order and substituted 16 penalty orders, one for each proceeded charge, totalling $198,115.19, with individual in-default terms adding up to 183 days' imprisonment.