Corrupt individuals who fail to pay penalties for bribes received may face longer jail terms: Court
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 05 Dec 2024
Author: Selina Lum
Corrupt individuals who fail to pay penalties imposed by the court for bribes received now risk serving longer jail terms that are intended to prevent them from opting for jail time to retain their illicit gains.
Corrupt individuals who fail to pay penalties imposed by the court for bribes received now risk serving longer jail terms that are intended to prevent them from opting for jail time to retain their illicit gains.
The Court of Appeal on Dec 4 ruled that, instead of imposing one global penalty for multiple charges, sentencing judges must impose one penalty for each charge on which the accused person is convicted.
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), a person convicted of accepting bribes must also be ordered to pay a penalty equivalent to the amount of bribes received.
This is in addition to being sentenced to jail or a fine.
The in-default jail term for each penalty order is capped at 30 months. With the change, a convicted bribe recipient could end up serving a longer jail term than if a global penalty was imposed.
The ruling came in the case of Clarence Chang Peng Hong – a former manager at BP Singapore – who is currently serving a prison sentence for accepting $5.88 million in bribes from businessman Koh Seng Lee between 2006 and 2010.
Chang was initially handed one penalty order to pay $6.2 million, with an in-default imprisonment term of 28 months.
The apex court imposed 19 penalty orders, with a total of 10 years of in-default imprisonment if he fails to pay a $5.88 million penalty.
Mr Gary Low from Drew & Napier, Chang’s lawyer, told The Straits Times that his client intends to pay the penalty relating to the 19 orders.
The case centred on the interpretation of a provision in the PCA, which calls for the imposition of a penalty corresponding to the amount of bribe received.
In sentencing people who are convicted of accepting bribes, judges commonly impose a single penalty order even when offenders are convicted of multiple charges.
The Court of Appeal said the result of imposing a single penalty order is that whatever the total amount of bribes received, the same maximum in-default jail term of 30 months applies.
This may create a “perverse effect” of incentivising offenders who received substantial bribes to opt for jail time rather than disgorge their gains.
The apex court said such an interpretation would not accord with the parliamentary intent in enacting the provision.
The court also set out a framework for calibrating in-default jail terms.
Chang was initially convicted of 20 charges by a district court and sentenced to 4½ years’ jail.
The district judge imposed one penalty order totalling $6.2 million, with an in-default jail term of 28 months.
In 2023, Chang was acquitted of one charge on appeal to the High Court, but his jail sentence for the other 19 charges was increased to six years and eight months on the prosecution’s appeal.
The single penalty order was substituted with three penalty orders.
The total in-default terms amounted to about 70.96 months.
Chang then took the case to the Court of Appeal. He wanted the apex court to rule on whether a sentencing judge can impose more than one penalty when an accused person has been convicted of two or more offences for accepting bribes.
The court, comprising Justice Tay Yong Kwang, Justice Steven Chong and Justice Belinda Ang, answered in the affirmative.
Chang argued that the court must impose one penalty order that reflects the total value of the bribes.
He also argued that there was a consistent judicial practice of imposing a single penalty order even where offenders were convicted of multiple charges.
Prosecutors argued the practical implication of Chang’s interpretation was that the maximum in-default jail term would be capped at 30 months, constraining the court’s power to incentivise payment of the penalty.
The prosecution added that imposing multiple penalty orders would lead to more equitable in-default sentences and that the current sentencing practice lacked internal consistency.
It was a more “lucrative” option for offenders who received large bribes to serve the in-default terms, as compared with offenders who received smaller amounts, the prosecution said.
In contrast, multiple penalty orders would incentivise the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1607