Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

No need to reveal identities of alleged victims: Court

SINGAPORE — The prosecution does not have to provide three people charged in a fraud case with the identities of the persons or parties they had allegedly conspired to cheat, the Court of Appeal ruled today (Jan 23), overturning an earlier ruling by a High Court judge.

SINGAPORE — The prosecution does not have to provide three people charged in a fraud case with the identities of the persons or parties they had allegedly conspired to cheat, the Court of Appeal ruled today (Jan 23), overturning an earlier ruling by a High Court judge.

The case in question involved an employee of IT vendor ZTE Corporation, Li Weiming, who was alleged to have conspired with a director of a British Virgin Islands company, Lim Ai Wah, and her husband, Thomas Philip Doehrman, to falsify an invoice belonging to their company.

Li was ZTE’s chief representative for Brunei, Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific Islands from December 2010.

Lim’s company, Questzone Offshore, was alleged to have been set up with the aim of getting commissions from ZTE for the award of a contract for a community college programme by the Papua New Guinea government in 2010.

Lim and Doehrman had assisted the government under a trust for the college project.

All three had taken part in the negotiations which led to project being awarded to ZTE.

In July 2012, the trio were each charged with one count of conspiracy to falsify accounts under the Penal Code; and five charges of acquiring, possessing, using, concealing or transferring benefits of criminal conduct under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act.

In September that year, the prosecution informed the three of the case against them, as required under the Criminal Case Disclosure Conference (CCDC), which provides for the reciprocal exchange of information and evidence in criminal cases.

But according to the three accused, the summary of facts for the case did not specify the identity of the person they had allegedly defrauded; the reasons why the subcontract between Questzone and ZTE was fictitious; as well as the role and act committed by each of the accused in relation to the alleged conspiracy to falsify accounts.

As such, Li, Lim and Doehrman filed applications to seek further particulars on the summary of facts; or be granted with a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

After their application was dismissed by a District Court judge, they appealed to the High Court, where a judge ruled that the summary of facts in the case against them should offer further details.

The prosecution then applied to the Court of Appeal to seek clarifications relating to the CCDC.

In its 74-page judgment today, delivered by Judge of Appeal V K Rajah, Singapore’s highest court found that under the CCDC, the presiding magistrate or district judge has the power “to order the prosecution to furnish additional particulars in the summary of facts in support of the charge filed and served as part of the case for the prosecution”.

Under the Penal Code, the court noted, the charge of falsification of accounts does not need to have the name of the alleged victim or specify the amount of money involved, or identify any particular day on which the alleged offence was committed.

Still, the apex court — which also included Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang and Justice Lee Seiu Kin — agreed that the level of details required in the summary of facts should provide adequate notice to the accused, depending on the individual case.

However, in the case involving Li, Lim and Doehrman, the court disagreed that there was a need to identify the persons they had allegedly conspired to defraud.

To rebut the charges against them, the court said, the three accused could have, among other things, justified that the invoice in question was for monies they were entitled to under the sub-contract.

For falsifying accounts, the three accused face up to 10 years jail, or fine, or both, if they are found guilty.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.