Tjong Mark Edward v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Corruption Sentence
Tjong Mark Edward appealed against his sentence for a corruption charge. The High Court, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang J, dismissed Tjong's appeal against the sentence for the first charge. The court reversed the acquittal on the second charge and sentenced Tjong to four weeks' imprisonment and imposed an additional penalty of $30,000.00. The court ordered the imprisonment terms for both charges to run consecutively, making a total of 12 weeks’ imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed on first charge; conviction entered and sentence imposed on second charge.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against sentence for corruption. The court dismissed the appeal on the first charge and sentenced Tjong to imprisonment for the second charge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent, Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Ang Siok Chen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lynn Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tjong Mark Edward | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed on first charge; conviction entered on second charge | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Siok Chen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lynn Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Shashi Nathan | KhattarWong LLP |
| Jeremy Pereira | KhattarWong LLP |
| Tania Chin | KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- Tjong was a business development director in charge of the South Asia region at STE.
- Tjong's recommendation was accepted by STE’s president unhesitatingly.
- Tjong received two cheques for a total of $87,386.67 from Mujibur.
- Tjong wrote the amount of $57,386.67 on C1 to disguise its true purpose.
- Tjong received the money indirectly in order to throw off suspicion.
- The gratification involved represented 47.1% of Mujibur’s commission.
5. Formal Citations
- Tjong Mark Edward v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, Magistrate's Appeal No 167 of 2014/01-02, [2015] SGHC 91
- Tjong Mark Edward v Public Prosecutor and another appeal, , [2015] SGHC 79
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tjong’s appeal against sentence for the first charge was dismissed. | |
| High Court issued grounds of decision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Corruption
- Outcome: The court found Tjong guilty of corruption.
- Category: Substantive
- Appropriateness of Sentence
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence for the first charge and imposed a sentence for the second charge.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Corruption
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v UI | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that appellate intervention is warranted if the sentence is manifestly excessive or inadequate, wrong in law or against the weight of the evidence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ang Seng Thor | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 217 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in private sector corruption cases, there is no presumption of a non-custodial sentence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Marzuki bin Ahmad and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 623 | Singapore | Cited for factors to consider in determining whether the custodial threshold is crossed in corruption cases. |
| Tang See Meng v Public Prosecutor | District Court | Yes | [2001] SGDC 161 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for sentencing in corruption cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v Subramaniam s/o Muneyandi | District Court | Yes | [2003] SGDC 259 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent for sentencing in corruption cases, but distinguished on the facts. |
| Tee Kok Boon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 398 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court cannot revise a decision of a subordinate court which had been upheld on appeal by the High Court. |
| Public Prosecutor v Muhammad Noor Indra bin Hamzah | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1007 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that criminal revisions may not be used as a backdoor appeal against sentence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 394 of the CPC | Singapore |
| s 13(1) of the PCA | Singapore |
| s 400(2) of the CPC | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gratification
- Corruption
- Sentence
- Premeditation
- Deterrence
- Abuse of influence
15.2 Keywords
- Corruption
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Sentence
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 10 |
| Administrative Law | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Corruption
- Sentencing