Pair accused of graft acquitted after judge finds CPIB statements ‘inaccurate and unreliable’
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 14 Oct 2024
Author: Shaffiq Alkhatib
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the pair beyond a reasonable doubt that the loans given were done so corruptly.
A district judge acquitted two men accused of graft-related offences linked to a former Land Transport Authority (LTA) deputy group director on Oct 11, after finding the statements taken by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) “inaccurate and unreliable”.
Mr Pay Teow Heng, 56, was accused of giving Henry Foo Yung Thye bribes in the form of loans totalling $350,000 in 2017 and 2018.
Mr Pay was a director at construction firm Tiong Seng Contractors (TSC) at that time, and allegedly did so to advance the business interest of TSC with LTA.
Mr Pek Lian Guan, 59, then TSC’s managing director, was accused of intentionally aiding Mr Pay in giving the bribes.
The prosecution said that LTA had engaged TSC to construct an MRT station under a contract initially valued at $315 million, adding that Mr Pay was Foo’s counterpart in the contract.
In September 2021, Foo, then 47, was sentenced to 5½ years’ jail for taking about $1.24 million in bribes in the form of loans from several contractors and subcontractors.
In his verdict dated Oct 11, District Judge Soh Tze Bian noted that investigating officer (IO) Tan Kiat Tat, also known as IO Jeffrey, admitted during the trial that he tried to “frame” Mr Pek when drafting his first statement.
“This choice of words suggests an intention to portray Pek in a manner that could imply guilt rather than providing an impartial and objective account of the interview,” the judge added.
Meanwhile, a second CPIB officer, IO Chris Lim, “had a blatant disregard for the truth” when recording Mr Pay’s second CPIB statement.
During the trial, the prosecution stated in its submissions that it was undisputed that Mr Pay had given Foo the loans. The prosecution said the main issue to be decided was whether the loans were given corruptly or innocently.
Mr Pay’s defence during the trial was that he had felt sorry for Foo, who had told him he needed money to pay his mother’s gambling debts. Mr Pay then decided to help Foo, the court heard.
In his verdict, Judge Soh said he found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Mr Pay and Mr Pek beyond a reasonable doubt that the loans given to Foo were done so corruptly.
He added: “The prosecution cannot rely on the respective inaccurate and unreliable incriminating CPIB statements of Pay and Pek to prove its case.”
The judge had noted that “IO Jeffrey’s approach included embellishing and inserting his own words into Pek’s statements, deviating from the actual language and context of Pek’s responses”.
He added that Mr Pek’s first statement which IO Tan (Jeffrey) recorded also contained several self-incriminating remarks that were repeated four times.
“Such repetition is not a faithful representation of what Pek actually said during the interview but rather indicates an attempt to emphasise Pek’s culpability,” Judge Soh said.
“This is further supported by IO Jeffrey’s admission under cross-examination that he used a cut-and-paste method to compile the statement, and it did not matter to him whether Pek in fact repeated himself in that manner, implying that the repetition might not reflect the true nature of Pek’s interview responses.”
He also noted that during the trial, IO Lim admitted that he approached an interview with a preconceived notion that Mr Pay had committed some form of offence.
“(IO Lim) admitted that Pay’s first CPIB statement was ‘not good enough’ to implicate Pay in a corruption offence. In my view, this scenario raises significant concerns about the reliability of Pay’s second CPIB statement.”
The judge further noted: “(IO Lim) provided false explanations to an exhausted Pay regarding the meaning of the words recorded in his statement.
“His approach was mischievous and conveniently selective, as he selectively recorded only those parts of Pay’s statements that could be construed as incriminating while ignoring or omitting exculpatory evidence.”
On Oct 11, Judge Soh granted Mr Pay and Mr Pek a discharge amounting to an acquittal, which means they cannot be charged again over the same offences.
Asked if it will appeal against the judge’s verdict, the Attorney-General’s Chambers told The Straits Times: “(We are) presently studying the court’s judgment and will decide on the next course of action thereafter.”
Mr Pay’s legal team from WongPartnership was led by Senior Counsel (SC) Tan Chee Meng.
Its spokesperson told ST: “Our client would like to convey his heartfelt gratitude to his family and friends who stood by him throughout these difficult five years.
“All he had wanted to do was to help a friend in need, and he is extremely pleased that the court has now vindicated him.”
Speaking through his legal team from Drew & Napier led by SC Cavinder Bull, Mr Pek said he is relieved to have proven his innocence in court, adding: “My family and I are very pleased with the outcome of this case.”
Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1827