Chinpo Shipping v Public Prosecutor: DPRK Sanctions & Remittance Business
Chinpo Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd appealed against its conviction in the State Courts for one charge under the United Nations (Sanctions – Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Regulations 2010 and one charge under the Money-changing and Remittance Businesses Act. The High Court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and See Kee Oon J, allowed the appeal in part, setting aside Chinpo’s conviction and sentence on the DPRK Regulations Charge but affirming the District Judge’s decision in respect of the MCRBA Charge. The court ordered that the fine of S$80,000 paid by Chinpo in relation to the DPRK Regulations Charge be refunded.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Chinpo Shipping was convicted of violating DPRK sanctions and operating an unlicensed remittance business. The High Court overturned the DPRK sanctions conviction but upheld the remittance business conviction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial | Ang Feng Qian of Attorney-General’s Chambers G Kannan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Randeep Singh of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Ken Hwee of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chinpo Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Feng Qian | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| G Kannan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Randeep Singh | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Ken Hwee | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Edmond Pereira | Edmond Pereira Law Corporation |
| Dharinni Kesavan | Edmond Pereira Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Chinpo Shipping was convicted of transferring funds that could contribute to North Korea's nuclear program and operating a remittance business without a license.
- Chinpo made 605 outward remittances totaling US$40,138,840.87 on behalf of OMM and other DPRK entities between 2 April 2009 and 3 July 2013.
- On 8 July 2013, Chinpo remitted US$72,016.76 to CB Fenton for the return passage of the Ship through the Panama Canal.
- The Ship was carrying arms and related materiel hidden under 10,500mt of sugar.
- Chinpo did not have a valid remittance license at the material time.
- Chinpo continued remitting moneys for OMM to preserve its working relationship with OMM.
- Tan promised to “help your company for inward/outward remittances” by continuing to operate Chinpo despite the decline in the demand for ship agency and ship chandelling services from the DPRK entities.
5. Formal Citations
- Chinpo Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9016 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 108
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Chinpo was incorporated in Singapore | |
| DPRK conducted a nuclear test | |
| Resolution 1718 was adopted by the UNSC | |
| DPRK conducted a further nuclear test | |
| Resolution 1874 was adopted by the UNSC | |
| Chinpo began making outward remittances on behalf of OMM and other DPRK entities | |
| The Ship departed the DPRK for a voyage to Cuba and back | |
| Chinpo remitted US$54,269.76 to CB Fenton for transit expenses of the Ship in the Panama Canal | |
| The Ship passed through the Panama Canal en route to Cuba | |
| The Ship discharged its cargo of steel plates at Havana, Cuba | |
| The Ship docked at Mariel, Cuba, and took on arms and related materiel | |
| The Ship docked at Puerto Padre, Cuba, and took on 10,500mt of sugar | |
| Chinpo received €253,365.56 from Expedimar S.A. for the cargo discharged at Havana | |
| Chinpo made its last outward remittance on behalf of OMM and other DPRK entities | |
| Chinpo remitted US$72,016.76 to CB Fenton for the return passage of the Ship through the Panama Canal | |
| The Ship was interdicted by the Panamanian authorities | |
| District Judge's grounds of decision reported | |
| High Court judgment reserved | |
| High Court judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of United Nations Sanctions
- Outcome: The High Court overturned the conviction, finding that the transfer of funds did not directly contribute to the DPRK's nuclear-related programs.
- Category: Substantive
- Operating a Remittance Business Without a License
- Outcome: The High Court upheld the conviction, finding that Chinpo Shipping was operating a remittance business without a valid license.
- Category: Substantive
- Elements of Crime - Actus Reus
- Outcome: The court considered the physical elements required to prove the offences.
- Category: Substantive
- Elements of Crime - Mens Rea
- Outcome: The court considered the mental element required to prove the offences.
- Category: Substantive
- General Exceptions - Mistake of Fact
- Outcome: The court considered the defence of mistake of fact.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of United Nations Sanctions
- Operating a Remittance Business Without a License
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- International Trade Law
- Regulatory Law
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Chinpo Shipping Company (Private) Limited | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 104 | Singapore | Reports the grounds of decision of the District Judge in the case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 753 | Singapore | Cited for the observation on strict liability. |
| Ng Keng Yong v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 89 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of negligence. |
| Lim Poh Eng v Public Prosecutor | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 428 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of care for someone with special knowledge or experience. |
| Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (Hong Kong) Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 524 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale for s 3 of the Moneylenders Act. |
| Chow Yoong Hong v Choong Fah Rubber Manufactory | Privy Council | Yes | [1962] AC 209 | Unknown | Cited for the degree of system and continuity in moneylending transactions. |
| Lena Leowardi v Yeap Cheen Soo | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 581 | Singapore | Cited for the prohibition of the business of moneylending rather than the act of lending money. |
| Subramaniam Dhanapakiam v Ghaanthimathi | Unknown | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 164 | Singapore | Cited for the transactions undertaken only incidentally to the provision of other services. |
| Litchfield v Dreyfus | Unknown | Yes | [1906] 1 KB 584 | United Kingdom | Cited for the transactions undertaken only incidentally to the provision of other services. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| United Nations Act (Cap 339, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| United Nations (Sanctions – Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Regulations 2010 (S 570/2010) | Singapore |
| Money-changing and Remittance Businesses Act (Cap 187, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- DPRK Regulations
- MCRBA
- Remittance Business
- United Nations Sanctions
- Ship Agency
- Ship Chandelling
- OMM
- Chong Chon Gang
- Transfer
- Materiel
15.2 Keywords
- DPRK
- Sanctions
- Remittance
- Shipping
- Money-laundering
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- International Sanctions
- Remittance Business Regulation