Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar: Confiscation Order for Drug Trafficking Benefits
In Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman, the High Court of Singapore granted the Public Prosecutor's application for a confiscation order against Abdul Kahar. The court found that Abdul Kahar had unexplained wealth derived from drug trafficking activities and ordered him to pay $167,429.51 to the State. The decision was delivered by Justice Vincent Hoong on 2 February 2021.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Public Prosecutor sought a confiscation order against Abdul Kahar for benefits derived from drug trafficking. The court granted the order, finding unexplained wealth.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Application Allowed | Won | Chan Yi Cheng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Adrian Loo of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman | Defendant | Individual | Confiscation Order | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chan Yi Cheng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Adrian Loo | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Defendant was arrested on 6 July 2010 with diamorphine.
- Defendant was convicted of two charges of trafficking in diamorphine.
- Defendant's net worth increased by $360,794.08 between 2005 and 2010.
- Defendant's known sources of income during that period totaled $193,364.57.
- Defendant could not satisfactorily explain the remaining $167,429.51.
- Defendant deposited $60,000 into his mother's bank account.
- The Public Prosecutor sought a confiscation order for $167,429.51.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Abdul Kahar bin Othman, Originating Summons No 1378 of 2018, [2021] SGHC 23
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant arrested by Central Narcotics Bureau and found with diamorphine. | |
| Defendant convicted by the High Court of drug trafficking charges. | |
| High Court judge found the Defendant was a courier. | |
| Judge decided that the Defendant was not a courier and passed the death sentence. | |
| Criminal motion to reopen the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Public Prosecutor filed Originating Summons No 1378 of 2018. | |
| Hearing on the Originating Summons. | |
| Defendant applied for leave to file an appeal out of time. | |
| Court of Appeal granted leave to file an appeal out of time. | |
| Defendant filed his Notice of Appeal. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Confiscation of Benefits from Drug Dealing
- Outcome: The court ordered the confiscation of $167,429.51, representing the value of benefits derived from drug dealing.
- Category: Substantive
- Presumption of Benefits Derived from Drug Dealing
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant failed to satisfactorily explain his holding of $167,429.51, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income, thus triggering the presumption under s 4(4) of the CDSA.
- Category: Substantive
- Definition of Realisable Property
- Outcome: The court determined that certain assets held by the Defendant constituted 'realisable property' under s 2(1) of the CDSA, which could be used to satisfy the confiscation order.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Confiscation Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Drug Trafficking
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Asset Recovery
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdul Kahar bin Othman v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] SGCA 11 | Singapore | Cited regarding the uncanny coincidence between the period when the Defendant was peddling drugs and the inexplicable large sums deposited into his mother’s bank account during that same period. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 4 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 7 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 10 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 4(4) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 2(1) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 33B(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 12(7)(b) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Confiscation Order
- Drug Trafficking
- Benefits Derived
- Realisable Property
- Unexplained Wealth
- Diamorphine
- Net Worth
- Known Sources of Income
15.2 Keywords
- confiscation order
- drug trafficking
- singapore
- criminal law
- abdul kahar
- public prosecutor
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Drug Trafficking
- Asset Confiscation