In brief
In a recent appeal before the Honourable Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon involving two individuals who had participated in public sector corruption (Public Prosecutor v Wong Chee Meng and another appeal [2020] SGHC 144), the High Court set out a new sentencing framework for corrupt transactions which take place in relation to contracts with the Government or public bodies under s 6 read with s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241) (the PCA).
Key takeaways
- Public sector corruption (i.e. which relates to the Government or public bodies) is considered an aggravated form of corruption in Singapore because it undermines the integrity of the Government, and erodes the public’s trust and confidence in the various organs and bodies of the State. Given Singapore’s zero-tolerance approach to corruption, custodial sentences are presumptively the norm in cases involving public sector corruption.
- The new sentencing framework pertains only to public sector corruption involving agents. The High Court declined to extend the new sentencing framework to cover all corruption offences under ss 5 and 6 of the PCA generally.
- The new sentencing framework adopts a five-step analysis (please see below).
In more detail
Background
Wong was the general manager of the Ang Mo Kio Town Council (AMKTC) at the material time, and was in charge of AMKTC’s operations, including overseeing and providing input on the selection of contractors for the execution of work. Chia was a shareholder and director of two companies which were in the business of providing construction-related works for various Town Councils in Singapore (the Companies).
From 2014 to 2016, Wong corruptly received and obtained various forms of gratification from Chia (e.g. discounts on a car, remittances to Wong’s mistress, and entertainment expenses). In return, Wong advanced the business interests of the Companies in their dealings with AMKTC by, amongst other things, preferring the tenders submitted by the Companies (even though they were not the lowest), tweaking AMKTC’s tender requirements to suit the Companies’ specifications, and providing input and advice to Chia on the Companies’ bid pricing and technical information.
At trial, both Wong and Chia pleaded guilty to three charges of participating in public sector corruption with an agent under s 6 read with s 7 of the PCA. The Public Prosecutor appealed on the basis that the sentences imposed by the District Judge were inadequate. Wong and Chia cross-appealed on the basis that the sentences imposed were excessive.
Issues
As a common law jurisdiction, the general approach towards sentencing in Singapore has always been to have regard to past cases which have identified a number of categories and factors pertinent to the sentencing process.
However, in respect of corruption cases, past decisions have tended to be of limited relevance given the Public Prosecutor’s discretion to bring charges for the basic corruption offences (under ss 5 and 6 of the PCA) even if the facts could warrant invoking the enhanced punishment provisions (under s 7 of the PCA). This has created two issues for the Singapore courts:
- precedents tend to be of limited use; and
- even where the facts of previous cases are similar, a high degree of caution is still required as the sentences imposed in those cases may have been under the basic corruption offences.
In the circumstances, a sentencing framework for public sector corruption is warranted so as to provide a consistent and coherent methodology for the courts when dealing with such offences going forward.
The sentencing framework
1. Identify the level of harm caused by the offence and level of culpability, having regard to the list of offence-specific factors. Accordingly, both the level of harm and level of culpability can be broadly classified into three categories scaled according to severity.
Offence-specific factors* | |
Factors going towards harm
Actual loss caused to principal Benefit to the giver of gratification Type and extent of loss to third parties Public disquiet Offences committed as part of a group or syndicate Involvement of a transnational element |
Factors going towards culpability
Amount of gratification given or received Degree of planning and premeditation Level of sophistication Duration of offending Extent of the offender’s abuse of position and breach of trust Offender’s motive in committing the offence |
* These are non-exhaustive factors
2. Identify the applicable indicative starting range that would apply based on the level of harm and level of culpability determined in Step 1, and the following sentencing matrix:
Harm
Culpability |
Slight | Moderate | Severe |
Low | Fine or up to 1 year’s imprisonment | 1 to 2 year’s imprisonment | 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment |
Medium | 1 to 2 year’s imprisonment | 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment | 3 to 4.5 years’ imprisonment |
High | 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment | 3 to 4.5 years’ imprisonment | 4.5 to 7 years’ imprisonment |
3. Identify the appropriate indicative starting point within the sentencing range that had been chosen. This entails an examination of the offence-specific factors. This is also where the sentencing court should have regard to the public service rationale, which will typically attract a custodial sentence save for exceptional cases.
4. Make adjustments to the indicative starting point to account for offender-specific factors.
Offender-specific factors* | |
Aggravating factors
Offences taken into consideration for sentencing purposes Relevant antecedents Evident lack of remorse |
Mitigating factors
A guilty plea Co-operation with the authorities Actions taken to minimise harm to victims |
* These are non-exhaustive factors
5. Take into account the totality principle and make final adjustments to the sentence.
For further information and to discuss what this development might mean for you, please get in touch with your usual Baker McKenzie contact.
* * * * *
Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a “partner” means a person who is a partner or equivalent in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an “office” means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Copyright © 2023 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.