Legal Updates

Royalty-free file images from Shutterstock

4 min read
Case Brief: Chang Peng Hong Clarence v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 58

In the District Court, Chang Peng Hong Clarence (“Chang”) was convicted of 20 corruption charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 54 months and a hefty fine of $6.2 million. If this fine is not paid, the District Court judge imposed 1 penalty order for Chang to serve an additional in-default imprisonment term of 28 months in prison.

Subsequently, the High Court acquitted him of one charge but increased his jail term for the remaining 19 charges to 80 months. The acquittal of one charge meant that the quantum of the fine was reduced. However, the High Court Judge also handed 3 penalty orders, hence the total duration of in-default imprisonment term was increased to 70.96 months.

Chang then appealed to the Court of Appeal arguing that the Court should only impose a single penalty order (duration not exceeding 30 months per order) that reflects the entire sum of gratification received. The Court of Appeal endorsed the correctness of imposing multiple penalty orders for offences under the PCA and clarified that ‘the sentencing judge can and must impose more than one penalty when an accused person has been convicted of two or more offences for the acceptance of gratification in contravention of the PCA.’ Since Chang was convicted on 19 charges, 19 penalty orders were issued by the Court of Appeal, each order with duration commensurate with the amount of gratification stated in each charge.

The cumulative in-default imprisonment term amounted to 196 months. However, since the law prescribes that the maximum imprisonment term should not exceed 20 years (240 months), the Court of Appeal adjusted the in-default imprisonment term to 120 months instead. The Court of Appeal considered that ‘120 months [of imprisonment] to be the appropriate term to disincentivise non-payment of the 19 penalty orders.’ This means that Chang would now have to pay a fine of $5,877,595 (being the amount that he corruptly received) and if he fails to do so, he would have to serve an additional imprisonment term of 120 months (ie. 10 years).

This case is noteworthy as it gives clarity to sentencing guidelines for in-default imprisonment that an accused person would face under charges relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also sends a strong message of deterrence to recipients of corrupt gratification with the perverse mentality that they can simply serve a few more months of imprisonment to retain the benefits of crime.

The above is a short summary and should not be relied upon as comprehensive legal advice. Please refer to the full judgment. If you wish to speak with a lawyer, please get in touch at lowhongquan@ascentsialawcorp.com or yipsheeyin@ascentsialawcorp.com or kennykhoo@ascentsialawcorp.com.

Writer: Low Hong Quan
Associate Director | DID:6327 5763 | Email: lowhongquan@ascentsialawcorp.com