Ng Siam Cheng Sufiah v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Revision for Improper Seizure of Funds

In Ng Siam Cheng Sufiah v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Ms. Sufiah Ng Siam Cheng's application for criminal revision, which sought a declaration that $406,933.02 was improperly seized by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). The petitioner alleged procedural irregularities and improprieties. The court, led by See Kee Oon J, found no merit in the application, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate serious injustice warranting revision. The court also addressed the scope of the s 370 reporting process under the Criminal Procedure Code. The application was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision application regarding the seizure of funds by the Commercial Affairs Department, finding no serious injustice.

1.7 Decision Date

1 December 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Application Dismissed	Won	Magdalene Huang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Koh Mun Keong of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ng Siam Cheng Sufiah	Petitioner	Individual	Application Dismissed	Lost	Mahadevan Lukshumayeh of Lukshumayeh Law Corporation Loh Chong Yong Thomas of TL Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
See Kee Oon	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Magdalene Huang	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Koh Mun Keong	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mahadevan Lukshumayeh	Lukshumayeh Law Corporation
Loh Chong Yong Thomas	TL Law Corporation

4. Facts

The petitioner invested in Asia Pacific Bullion Pte Ltd (APB), handing over 4kg of gold.
APB and The Gold Guarantee Pte Ltd (TGG) were owned and controlled by Lee Song Teck.
Lee operated complex investment schemes using APB and TGG.
Lee left Singapore before CAD commenced investigations.
The petitioner lodged a police report against APB and TGG after not receiving payment.
The CAD seized APB’s account with United Overseas Bank (UOB) containing $406,933.02.
The petitioner obtained default judgment against APB for $320,960.00.

5. Formal Citations

Ng Siam Cheng Sufiah v Public Prosecutor, Criminal Revision No 4 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 281

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-11-01	Petitioner encountered advertisement by Asia Pacific Bullion Pte Ltd
2013-01-18	Lee Song Teck left Singapore
2013-01-23	Petitioner lodged a Police Report at the CAD against both APB and TGG
2013-01-30	Petitioner commenced Suit No 83 of 2013 against APB
2013-02-01	CAD seized APB’s account with United Overseas Bank
2013-03-05	Petitioner was granted default judgment in Suit No 83/2013
2013-03-12	Seizure reported to Magistrate
2013-07-11	Petitioner's counsel requested release of judgment sum to CAD
2013-07-16	CAD replied stating they could not release the UOB funds
2018-02-02	Magistrate ordered CAD to apply for a Disposal Inquiry
2018-07-16	CAD applied for a Disposal Inquiry
2018-11-26	Court directed CAD to conduct a 'townhall' session
2019-05-14	Present application filed
2019-09-18	Application dismissed
2019-12-02	Reasons for decision set out in full

7. Legal Issues

Revisionary Powers of the High Court
- Outcome: The court found that the case fell within the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction but the petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for revision.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Threshold for exercise of revisionary powers
  - Procedural irregularities
  - Infringement of right to be heard
  - Infringement of right to information
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 1 SLR 470
  - [2019] 4 SLR 867
  - [2015] 2 SLR 1
  - [2017] 4 SLR 333
  - [2009] 3 SLR(R) 307
  - [2013] 4 SLR 1049
  - [2015] 2 SLR 903
  - [2017] 5 SLR 1064
Seizure of Property
- Outcome: The court held that legal control and custody of the UOB funds vested with the Magistrate, but the funds continued to be under seizure by the CAD. The court found no basis to invalidate the prior extensions of seizure.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Legality of continued seizure
  - Custody and control of seized funds
  - Compliance with s 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] 3 SLR(R) 307
  - [2013] 4 SLR 1049
  - [2017] 4 SLR 333

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that seizure was invalid
Liberty to make claim on seized monies
Release of UOB funds to satisfy judgment debt

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Criminal Breach of Trust
Cheating

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Soh Guan Cheow Anthony v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 470	Singapore	Cited regarding the interpretation of 'judgment, sentence or order' in the context of criminal revision proceedings.
Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2019] 4 SLR 867	Singapore	Cited to clarify the scope of criminal revision and the interpretation of 'judgment, sentence or order' in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Public Prosecutor v Sollihin bin Anhar	High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited to support the view that the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction is wide and not limited to final orders.
Rajendar Prasad Rai and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2017] 4 SLR 333	Singapore	Cited regarding the exercise of discretion to extend seizure under s 370 of the CPC and the broad scope of the High Court's revisionary jurisdiction.
Ung Yoke Hooi v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 307	Singapore	Cited regarding the legal control and custody of seized properties after a s 370 report is made, and the legal effect of delays in reporting seizure.
Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 1049	Singapore	Cited regarding the legal control and custody of seized properties after a s 370 report is made.
Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 903	Singapore	Cited regarding the right to be heard for interested parties on the occasion of reporting or subsequent reporting of seizure under s 370 of the CPC.
Oon Heng Lye v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 5 SLR 1064	Singapore	Cited to affirm the threshold requirement of 'serious injustice' for the exercise of the High Court's revisionary powers.
Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 1271	Singapore	Cited regarding the high threshold for abusive conduct in the context of civil procedure.
Arun Kaliamurthy and others v Public Prosecutor and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 1023	Singapore	Cited regarding the definition of abuse of process of the court in criminal proceedings.
Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp	High Court	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 532	Singapore	Cited regarding the circumstances under which the court may disallow costs as between a client and his or her counsel.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 13 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 59 r 8(1)(a) of the ROC

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Section 400(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 370(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
ss 409 and/or 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 35(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Criminal revision
Seizure of property
Disposal Inquiry
Commercial Affairs Department
Section 370 report
Right to be heard
Right to information
Procedural impropriety
Serious injustice
UOB funds

15.2 Keywords

criminal revision
seizure
CAD
High Court
Singapore
funds
procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Criminal Procedure	80
Criminal Revision	75
Sentencing	70
Seizure of Property	65
Criminal Law	60
Disposal Inquiry	50
Administrative Law	30
Contract Law	20
Company Law	15

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Revisionary Powers
Seizure of Assets