Court Cases
AGC files complaint to Law Society against lawyer M Ravi for comments on his client Gobi Avedian’s death row case
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on Friday (23 October) filed a complaint to the Law Society against lawyer Ravi Madasamy for his comments on his client Gobi Avedian’s death row case, following the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside the Malaysian prisoner’s capital sentence.
Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar Nair wrote to Mr Ravi on Friday, stating that the AGC has referred the matter to the Law Society after Mr Ravi rejected their demand for a written apology and a retraction of his “false and misleading allegations” against the Public Prosecutor in Mr Gobi’s case.
Mr Hri also noted that the AGC denies the assertions made by Mr Ravi in his letter reply dated 22 October.
The AGC will also not comply with Mr Ravi’s demand for a public apology from the prosecution on behalf of Mr Gobi and his family, as well as any other demand put forth by the lawyer in relation to the matter.
Mr Ravi in a statement to TOC on Friday branded the move as an abuse of process “as a complaint to the Law Society” against a lawyer “will land up in a Disciplinary Tribunal [hearing]”.
This is because the Chief Justice has no discretion in deciding whether to convene a disciplinary tribunal in such cases — rather, he is mandated by Parliament to do so, he elaborated.
On the contrary, the Chief Justice has discretion on whether to allow a complaint against the A-G or public prosecutors to be investigated by a disciplinary tribunal, such as in former domestic worker Parti Liyani’s case.
“When a complaint is made against a lawyer, the A-G enjoys special status where the CJ has no power to say no,” said Mr Ravi.
Mr Ravi stressed that using the process in such a way is “unconstitutional” and a violation of his “right to equality”.
Consequently, the lawyer disclosed that he will begin proceedings against the A-G and the Law Society “to challenge this unequal position” between a complaint made by the A-G against a lawyer versus that made by a lawyer against the A-G and public prosecutors.
“The Law Society has a statutory duty under the LPA [Legal Profession Act] to protect the interest of lawyers and the independence of the Bar.
“As I mentioned, I will take the Law Society and A-G to court on this [matter],” Mr Ravi reiterated.
Entitled to make professional views known as Gobi Avedian’s counsel; human rights lawyers “do this all the time” especially in cases involving death sentence: M Ravi
Mr Ravi on Monday earlier condemned Mr Hri’s previous letter to him, in which the Deputy A-G demanded Mr Ravi to apologise “and unconditionally retract all of the allegations” in writing.
Failure to do so, he wrote, will result in the AGC filing “the necessary complaint” against Mr Ravi, which Mr Ravi posited refers to a complaint to The Law Society.
Mr Ravi said that Mr Hri’s statement was “a bold threat”.
Such a “threat”, he said, is akin to “humiliating Gobi and his family by insulting them further to threaten their counsel to apologise when these government lawyers who handled Gobi’s case are the wrongdoers”.
Mr Ravi also warned that he will also begin proceedings against the Law Society should it purportedly fail to do its part to “protect lawyers and the independence of the profession” and instead proceed to entertain “any further complaints” or forms of alleged “harassment” by the A-G against him in carrying out his duties as an advocate and solicitor.
Touching on his decision to stand by his comments on Mr Gobi’s case, Mr Ravi said that as the inmate’s counsel, he is entitled to make his professional views known, particularly “when a death sentence has been set aside” on the grounds of miscarriage of justice.
The “unfairness in the prosecution of Gobi as to why prosecution ran a different case at trial and appeal as observed by the court” is among reasons why he spoke up on the issue, he said.
The next day, Mr Ravi disclosed that he has “already taken instructions” from Mr Gobi and his family to commence court proceedings against Deputy A-G Hri, as well as against A-G Lucien Wong and Deputy Chief Prosecutor Mohamed Faizal Abdul Kadir.
Mr Ravi said that he will be filing the writ of summons in the next few days for both his client and his client’s family “personally against all 3 of the above Government lawyers and also against their offices in which they hold public appointment”.
“They have to be accountable to Gobi and his family in court and be subject to rigorous cross-examination and scrutiny of their conduct of Gobi’s case,” he stressed.
Background of Gobi Avedian’s case
Mr Gobi was previously sentenced to death for drug trafficking by the Court of Appeal after the court overturned the decision of the High Court to acquit him of the capital charge and convict him on a lesser charge trafficking in a “Class C” controlled drug.
On appeal, Mr Gobi’s acquittal was reversed and the Court of Appeal convicted him as charged, sentencing him to death as he did not fulfil the requirements for alternative sentencing in October 2018.
His clemency petition to President Halimah Yacob was rejected in July last year.
Subsequently, Mr Gobi’s case was taken over by Mr Ravi who proceeded to file an application to reopen the case.
He relied on two new legal arguments–which included the Court of Appeal’s pronouncement in Adili Chibuike Ejike v Public Prosecutor last year–to argue that the Court of Appeal had erred in departing from established precedents and had wrongly presumed that Mr Gobi was wilfully blind as to the nature of the drugs.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor and Senior Counsel Mohamed Faizal, who led the prosecution during the appeal and review hearing, argued that Mr Gobi’s application was an abuse of process.
The Court of Appeal, in setting aside Mr Gobi’s capital charge on 19 October, observed that “there are legal arguments based on the changes in the law that arose” from its decision in Adili on which it “may conclude that there has been a miscarriage of justice” in Mr Gobi’s initial appeal process.
Referencing Section 394J of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), the judges said that there is a “powerful possibility” that its decision in Mr Gobi’s initial appeal is “demonstrably wrong” in the light of the said legal arguments which were not available at the time but are present now.
In the Court of Appeal judgement on Monday, it was noted that while the prosecution’s case against him during the trial was about wilful blindness, it is “undisputed” that the Prosecution’s case on his initial appeal was that of actual knowledge.
Referencing its decision in Zainal bin Hamad v Public Prosecutor and another appeal — where the Prosecution similarly ran a different case on appeal than the trial — the Court of Appeal reasoned that it is crucial for the prosecution to run “a consistent case so as to ‘give the accused a fair chance of knowing the case that is advanced against him and what evidence he has adduced (and what standard of proof) in order to meet the case’”.
“We also made similar observations in our recent decision in Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo and other appeal and another matter, where we held that the Prosecution is not permitted to seek a conviction on a factual premise which it has never advanced, and which it has in fact denied in its case against the accused person,” the judgement read.
Contrary to Zainal, however, the Court of Appeal judges reasoned that in the immediate case, the prosecution’s change in the case that it ran on appeal compared to the one it ran at trial had prejudiced Mr Gobi.
The judges noted that Mr Gobi’s conviction of the capital charge would only remain safe if the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was wilfully blind to the nature of the drugs, which they did not.
The judges ruled that Mr Gobi’s conviction on the capital charge is set aside.
“We are also satisfied that the Applicant’s conviction on the amended charge by the [High Court] Judge is sound and accordingly reinstate that conviction,” they said.
As such, the Court of Appeal reinstated the sentence of 15-years’ imprisonment and 10 strokes of the cane which was imposed in respect of the earlier amended charge. The court also backdated the sentence to the date of Mr Gobi’s remand.
Court Cases
Two men acquitted in corruption case involving former LTA director due to unreliable CPIB statements
Two men accused of corruption in relation to a former LTA director were acquitted on 11 October 2024. The trial judge found that statements taken by CPIB officers were unreliable and inaccurate, affecting the credibility of the case.
Two men accused in a corruption case involving a former deputy group director of the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Henry Foo Yung Thye, were acquitted on 11 October 2024.
The trial judge ruled that the statements taken by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had been unreliable and inaccurate, resulting in the acquittal of Mr Pay Teow Heng, 56, and Mr Pek Lian Guan, 59. Both had been charged in July 2020 for allegedly bribing Foo to secure business advantages for their company, Tiong Seng Contractors.
District Judge Soh Tze Bian issued a detailed 52-page judgment highlighting the procedural flaws in the case.
He emphasized that the conduct of the CPIB officers responsible for recording statements from Mr Pay and Mr Pek raised significant doubts about the reliability of the evidence against the accused. The judge found that the statements obtained from the two men were “inaccurate, unreliable and unsafe” to rely on, leading to their acquittal on all charges.
The accusations against Mr Pay and Mr Pek centred on two counts, each under the Prevention of Corruption Act
Mr Pay, then the director of Tiong Seng Contractors, was accused of offering S$350,000 in bribes to Henry Foo on two occasions in 2017 and 2018 to advance the company’s interests with the LTA. Mr Pek, the managing director of Tiong Seng Contractors, was accused of aiding Mr Pay in the alleged offences.
On 2 September 2021, Henry Foo was sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment for corruption. Additionally, a penalty order of S$1,156,250 (in default, 12 months’ imprisonment) was imposed on him.
Issues with the CPIB Investigation
A key factor in the acquittal was the conduct of two CPIB investigating officers (IOs), Chris Lim and another officer identified only as Jeffrey. According to Judge Soh, their methods of recording statements from the accused demonstrated a lack of objectivity and integrity.
Mr Lim, who recorded Mr Pay’s second statement, admitted during the trial that he had approached the interview with a “preconceived notion” of Mr Pay’s guilt.
Judge Soh criticized Mr Lim’s handling of the statement, noting that he retyped the statement with his own wording after Mr Pay suggested amendments. This action left Mr Pay unable to verify whether his changes were accurately reflected, raising questions about the reliability of the statement.
Similarly, IO Jeffrey’s conduct in recording Mr Pek’s first statement was found to be flawed. The judge noted that Jeffrey had used a “cut-and-paste method” to compile the statement, which included repeated self-incriminating remarks.
The judge remarked that the statement seemed more like a “product of IO Jeffrey’s authorship than an accurate account of what Pek actually communicated.” During cross-examination, Jeffrey admitted that he had crafted the statement to suggest that Mr Pek was the originator of the corrupt scheme.
The judge noted: “By IO Jeffrey’s own admission, he drafted Pek’s first statement with the intention to ‘frame’ Pek, focusing almost exclusively on recording information that supported Pek’s culpability, rather than objectively establishing the facts of the case.”
He stated that these actions by the IOs made it unsafe to rely on the statements as evidence of guilt.
Testimony of Key Witness Henry Foo
Another critical aspect of the judgment involved the testimony of Henry Foo, the former LTA official who received the alleged bribes.
Foo, who was called as a prosecution witness, testified that neither Mr Pay nor Mr Pek had requested any favours in return for the loans they extended to him. He maintained that the loans were offered out of goodwill and friendship, rather than as part of a corrupt arrangement.
Judge Soh noted that the prosecution had failed to challenge or impeach Foo’s credibility, making his testimony more reliable in the eyes of the court.
Furthermore, Foo had testified that he pleaded guilty to the charges against him in 2021 not because he believed in his own guilt, but to avoid the prolonged distress of a trial. Judge Soh rejected the prosecution’s argument that Foo’s guilty plea should be seen as an admission of his own corrupt intent and that of Mr Pay and Mr Pek.
Foo was sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison in September 2021 after being found guilty of accepting S$1.24 million in bribes.
His guilty plea, however, did not directly implicate Mr Pay and Mr Pek in corrupt activities, according to the judge’s assessment.
Outcome and Next Steps
Judge Soh concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Mr Pay and Mr Pek beyond a reasonable doubt.
As a result, he ordered a discharge amounting to an acquittal for both men, clearing them of all charges.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is currently reviewing the judgment to determine the next course of action, as confirmed by an AGC spokesperson.
Both Mr Pay and Mr Pek had stepped down from their roles at Tiong Seng Holdings after the charges were brought against them in 2020.
Several other individuals, including former directors of other engineering firms, have been sentenced to jail in connection with the corruption scheme involving Henry Foo.
Court Cases
3 Chinese nationals linked to global cybercrime syndicate face new charges in Singapore
New charges were filed on 8 October against three Chinese nationals linked to an alleged global cybercrime syndicate in Singapore. One suspect faces allegations of receiving S$11.6 million from “Biao Ge,” purportedly used for the upkeep and expenses of the group. The nationals entered Singapore on construction work passes but reportedly did not stay at their registered workplaces.
SINGAPORE: New charges were tendered on Tuesday (8 October 2024) against three Chinese nationals implicated in an alleged global cybercrime syndicate based in Singapore.
The latest revelations indicate a flow of funds amounting to approximately S$11.6 million (US$8.9 million) dedicated to the upkeep of the group and its connections to South Korea.
As reported by CNA, the court records, charge sheets, and a prior press statement jointly issued by the police and the Internal Security Department (ISD) outline that the trio is part of a larger group of seven men, all Chinese nationals except one Singaporean.
According to a police statement issued on 10 September, The group is accused of operating from a bungalow in Mount Sinai and is believed to be linked to a global syndicate involved in cybercrime activities.
Authorities seized laptops and devices from the suspects, which contained credentials to access Internet servers associated with known hacker groups, stolen data belonging to foreign victims, computer hacking tools exploiting vulnerabilities in Internet servers, and specialised software to control malware.
The Chinese nationals reportedly gained entry into Singapore with work passes intended for construction work but allegedly did not stay at their registered employer’s workplace.
The suspects were apprehended on 9 September in simultaneous island-wide raids conducted by approximately 160 officers from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and ISD.
The seven accused men are: Sun Jiao, 42, Zhang Qingqiao, 38, Chen Yiren, 42, Yan Peijian, 38, Huang Qin Zheng, 35, Liu Yuqi, 32, and Singaporean Goh Shi Yong, 34. The three men receiving fresh charges on Tuesday are Sun, Zhang, and Chen.
Chen Allegedly Received S$11.6 Million for Criminal Group’s Expenses
Chen’s new charge alleges he received S$11.6 million from an individual known as “Biao Ge”, which he purportedly spent on the rent, upkeep, and expenses of an organised criminal group, including Yan, Huang, Liu, and Sun.
This allegedly covers funding for the Mount Sinai bungalow. Of the total amount, Chen is accused of having “expended” about S$399,000 on 11 occasions between 2022 and 2024, under the Organised Crime Act.
Zhang faces new accusations of abetting two individuals—Lim Clovis Leslie and Lee Kok Leong—to obtain the personal information of unknown individuals on 28 July 2023.
Meanwhile, Sun has been charged with sending a file containing the personal information of 1,055 unknown individuals from South Korea to a WhatsApp chat group on 12 August 2023, while he was in Singapore.
Additionally, he is accused of receiving 772,500 USDT in cryptocurrency from a wallet belonging to co-accused Liu, which allegedly stemmed from criminal conduct.
Suspects Accused of Targeting Websites to Exploit Vulnerabilities and Trade Stolen Personal Data
Previous charges against the suspects depict them as targeting websites to scan for open ports and exploit vulnerabilities, offering to purchase personal information of Indian nationals from gambling websites, and sending a file containing the personal information of 9,369 individuals from Thailand to other parties.
According to a prosecutor’s submissions in unsuccessful bail reviews on 1 October, the Chinese nationals involved are foreigners engaged in syndicated, transnational offences, with amounts involved “in excess of S$1 million”.
The public hearing list indicates that Sun is defended by Mr Hong Qibin, Ms Elaine Cai, and Mr Daniel Chia from Coleman Street Chambers. Yan is represented by Mr Ong Kelvin from Contigo Law, while Chen is defended by Mr Steven John Lam from Templars Law.
Both Huang and Liu are represented by Mr Lee Teck Leng from Legal Clinic.
Zhang is defended by Mr Sunil Sudheesan and Ms Joyce Khoo from Quahe Woo & Palmer, and Goh is represented by Mr Soon Wei Song from Goh JP & Wong.
Sun and Chen are scheduled for bail reviews on 10 October. They have been remanded for approximately a month, while the other five men are set to return to court later this month.
In addition to the main group, two Malaysian men, Seow Gim Shen (42) and Kong Chien Hoi (39) are facing charges in Singapore for conspiring to supply the personal information of 9,369 individuals from Thailand in a file sent from Singapore. They are expected to plead guilty next week.
-
Comments2 weeks ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Comments1 week ago
Netizens push back on Ho Ching’s 8-10 million population vision and call for more foreigners
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Full-time NSF found unconscious in camp dies; MINDEF says death not training related
-
Singapore1 week ago
Commuters face service disruption on TEL due to train fault following 6-day EWL disruption
-
Comments1 week ago
Dr Chee Soon Juan criticises Ho Ching’s vision for 8-10 million population
-
Singapore1 week ago
PM Lawrence Wong reaffirms government’s commitment to integrity after ex-minister Iswaran’s jail sentence