William Lim Tien Hou v Ling Kok Hua

On 10 November 2018 Mr Ling Kok Hua was deceived by an unknown person using an ex-colleague's compromised Facebook account. Asked to help with a bank transfer, he installed remote-access software and was asked to send $1 to an account, and to provide a photograph of himself holding his identity card with a note saying he was buying bitcoin from "cryptotil". Through the software, the fraudster changed the amount to $10,000, and a further $1 was later transferred.

The receiving account belonged to Mr William Lim Tien Hou, a peer-to-peer bitcoin trader whose username was "cryptotil". He had advertised bitcoin for sale, and a user showing the name "Ling Kok Hua" responded and supplied the identity card photograph and note. Mr Lim transferred bitcoin to that user and received the money. After Mr Ling reported the matter to the police, $10,001 was frozen and seized from Mr Lim's account. In a disposal inquiry, the District Judge ordered the money returned to Mr Ling, finding that the cloak of criminality followed it. Mr Lim filed Magistrate's Appeal No 9214 of 2021/01, and a young amicus curiae was appointed.

1. Whether an order made in a disposal inquiry can be challenged by appeal or only by revision.
2. Which provision of the Criminal Procedure Code governed the disposal and whether the lawful possession precondition applied to it.
3. How the court should decide between two claimants who were both in lawful possession of the seized money.

There is no right of appeal from a disposal inquiry, and appeal and revision are not interchangeable. But, following Magnum Finance Bhd v Public Prosecutor [1996] 2 SLR(R) 159, the court could still consider whether to exercise its revisionary powers, which were wide enough to alter or reverse the order.

Because an offence was committed in respect of the money, s 370(2)(b) applied rather than the residuary s 370(2)(e). The judge held that the requirement from Oon Heng Lye v Public Prosecutor [2017] 5 SLR 1064, that a claimant show lawful possession, extends to s 370(2)(b), since disposal includes delivery.

Mr Ling plainly satisfied that requirement. The judge disagreed with the District Judge that the risky nature of bitcoin trading meant Mr Lim did not. The law does not distinguish levels of risk, and a crypto trader is not to be treated differently from any other owner of a valuable asset. Mr Lim's legitimate trade, with no sign of criminality on his part, established lawful possession, and the bitcoin given in exchange was his own. Chen Xiuzhu v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGDC 34 was distinguished.

Where both claimants were in lawful possession and neither clearly had better title, the property should go back to the person from whom it was seized, consistent with Ung Yoke Hooi v Attorney-General [2009] 3 SLR(R) 307 and the rough and ready nature of a disposal inquiry, which is unsuited to contested questions of title. The judge urged the parties, both victims of the fraud, to try to resolve the matter between themselves.

Aedit Abdullah J treated the matter as one for revision, found that serious injustice had been caused, and exercised the court's revisionary powers in Mr Lim's favour, in effect allowing his challenge. He set aside the District Judge's order and directed that the $10,001 be returned to Mr Lim, noting that the ruling does not decide title and the parties remain free to sue.