High Court Prosecutors Challenge Acquittal in High-Profile Graft Case

On July 22, prosecutors from Singapore urged the High Court to reconsider the acquittal of Mr. Pay Teow Heng, director of Tiong Seng Contractors, and Mr. Pek Lian Guan, chief executive and chairman of Tiong Seng Holdings. The two were previously cleared of bribery charges against former Land Transport Authority (LTA) deputy group director Henry Foo Yung Thye, who was sentenced to five and a half years in prison for accepting S$1.24 million in bribes.

The accusations against Mr. Pay and Mr. Pek include a claim that Mr. Pay paid S$350,000 to Foo in 2017 and 2018 to promote Tiong Seng's business dealings with the LTA, with Mr. Pek accused of assisting in this act. The acquittal by District Judge Soh Tze Bian was based on his findings that there were procedural flaws in the investigation conducted by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Specifically, the judge criticized the investigative officer for approaching the questioning with preconceived biases and noted the inadequacies in the compilation of statements from both men, leading him to conclude that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

During the recent hearing, Deputy Public Prosecutor Alan Loh called for a "de novo" review of the case, which means the court would reconsider the evidence without regard to the previous ruling. He argued that the multiple failures by the district judge warranted this review to ensure justice is upheld. Loh highlighted that Judge Soh had not properly addressed key issues or conflicting evidence in the case against the two men, claiming he largely adopted the defense's arguments in his decision.

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon acknowledged that while judges can agree with one side’s arguments, in this case, the issue raised by the prosecution was that Judge Soh failed to engage with their evidence and points effectively. The defense attorneys contended that the prosecution's arguments were lacking in substance and defended Judge Soh's approach as an exercise of his judicial discretion, suggesting that he was forming his conclusions independently. Chief Justice Menon reserved judgment on the matter, citing the complexity of the case and the substantial material before him, indicating that there may be a need for additional hearings.