Case Details
- Citation: [2020] SGHC 12
- Title: AB Partners Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 03 February 2020
- Coram: Aedit Abdullah J
- Case Number: Criminal Revision Number 10 of 2019
- Applicant: AB Partners Pte Ltd
- Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Legal Area: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal Revision
- Procedural History (key dates): Seizure on 2 September 2016; first District Judge’s order on 26 October 2017; first review order on 4 May 2018; second review order (the “Order”) on 27 February 2019; criminal revision filed to challenge the Order
- Seized Property: Credit Suisse AG account number 141469 in the Applicant’s name
- Amount Seized: US$2,935,594.62
- Statutory Basis for Seizure/Continuation: Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), in particular s 35(1)(a) and s 370
- Key Statutory Provisions Raised for Release of Funds: CPC ss 35(7)–(8)
- Counsel for Applicant: Pereira Russell Si-Hao, Liu Guiliang and Lum Kwong Hoe Melvin (WongPartnership LLP)
- Counsel for Respondent: Vincent Ong and Lee Jing Yan (Attorney General’s Chambers)
- Judgment Length: 16 pages, 7,030 words
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2020] SGHC 12 (self-citation not applicable); Rajendar Prasad Rai and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2017] 4 SLR 333; Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others v Public Prosecutor [2019] 4 SLR 867; Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor [2015] 2 SLR 903; Oon Heng Lye v Public Prosecutor [2017] 5 SLR 1064
Summary
In AB Partners Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGHC 12, the High Court (Aedit Abdullah J) dealt with a criminal revision against a District Judge’s order permitting the continued seizure of funds pending investigations. The seized property was a bank account held in the applicant company’s name, said to contain proceeds of criminal conduct in Russia. The District Judge extended the seizure for a further period, and the applicant sought revision to set aside that order and obtain release of funds.
The High Court declined to order revision. While recognising that continued detention of seized property can, in appropriate circumstances, amount to serious injustice, the court was not persuaded that the threshold for intervention was met on the facts. The court emphasised that the continuation orders under the CPC require a reasonable basis for believing the seized property remains relevant to investigations, inquiries, or trial, and that the material before the District Judge—though contested—was sufficient to justify the extension in the circumstances. The court also rejected the applicant’s alternative request for release of funds under CPC ss 35(7)–(8), largely because no proper application had been made for that relief.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The applicant, AB Partners Pte Ltd (“AB Partners”), is a Singapore-incorporated company. At incorporation on 3 October 2013, its sole shareholder was Mr Boytsov Alexey Anatolyevich (“Boytsov”). On 2 September 2016, the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force (“CAD”) seized a Credit Suisse AG account (account number 141469) held in AB Partners’ name. The seizure was made pursuant to s 35(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), on the basis that the funds in the account were proceeds of criminal conduct in Russia. The account contained US$2,935,594.62.
Subsequently, on 22 February 2017, Boytsov sold all his shares in AB Partners to another individual, Ang Hock Chye (“Ang”), for US$10,000. Later, on 2 June 2017, AB Partners’ counsel wrote to CAD stating that they acted for the company. These steps are relevant because they show that the applicant was aware of the seizure and engaged with the authorities, even though the applicant’s position evolved over time.
CAD reported the seizure on 31 August 2017 under s 370(1)(b) CPC, seeking an order for continuation of the seizure and an adjournment of the matter within 12 months or until investigations were complete, whichever was earlier. The first District Judge granted an order on 26 October 2017 allowing CAD to retain the seized property for investigation purposes, with court review scheduled for 26 April 2018. On 1 March 2018, AB Partners’ shares were transferred from Ang to Liu Kaili (“Liu”) for S$1. Liu became the current sole shareholder.
On 26 April 2018, CAD made a further report and sought another extension. AB Partners’ counsel informed CAD by telephone that the company did not wish to be heard at the review. The first District Judge then granted another order on 4 May 2018, allowing retention for investigations and scheduling review for 25 October 2018. CAD made a third report on 25 October 2018, again seeking continuation. Ultimately, on 27 February 2019, the second District Judge issued the order that AB Partners challenged in criminal revision: an extension of the seizure with review to occur 12 months later, on 27 February 2020.
During CAD’s investigations, Liu was interviewed on 27 February 2019. The interview revealed that Liu could not provide details about any bank accounts in AB Partners’ name in Singapore and could not provide information about the source of the funds in the seized account. After that, on 18 April 2019, AB Partners’ counsel wrote to CAD asserting that Liu had a right to be heard at hearings under s 370 CPC and requesting further information concerning the seized property. AB Partners then sought criminal revision to set aside the District Judge’s order.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The High Court framed two principal issues. First, it had to determine whether criminal revision should be ordered to set aside the District Judge’s order and grant release of the funds. This required the court to consider the threshold for intervention in criminal revision, particularly where the challenged order relates to continuation of seizure under s 370 CPC.
Second, the court had to consider whether it should order release of an amount sufficient for the payment of expenses under CPC ss 35(7)–(8). This alternative relief was aimed at enabling AB Partners to meet day-to-day operational expenses and professional fees, notwithstanding the ongoing investigations.
Underlying both issues was the statutory requirement that, before a court grants continued seizure under s 370 CPC, it must be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for believing the seized property is relevant for the purposes of investigations, inquiry, or trial. The parties’ submissions therefore focused on whether the reports before the District Judge provided that reasonable basis, and whether any deficiency amounted to “serious injustice” warranting revision.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by addressing the legal framework for criminal revision of an order made under s 370 CPC. Although the extract provided truncates the remainder of the judgment, the court’s approach is clear from the way it engaged with established authorities on revisionary thresholds. The applicant relied on the proposition that the High Court’s criminal revisionary powers should be exercised where there is serious injustice, citing Rajendar Prasad Rai and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2017] 4 SLR 333. The applicant also relied on Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others v Public Prosecutor [2019] 4 SLR 867 to argue that wrongful retention without a legal basis for continued seizure can itself constitute serious injustice.
In applying these principles, the High Court considered whether the District Judge’s decision to extend seizure for a further period was supported by the statutory threshold. The applicant’s core argument was that the third report (and, by extension, the basis for the extension) contained only “bare assertions” that the funds remained relevant. The applicant emphasised that the longer the period of seizure, the greater the justification needed to show continued relevance, relying on Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor [2015] 2 SLR 903. The applicant also pointed to perceived uncertainty in the reports: the second report allegedly stated that the funds were traceable to criminal proceeds derived from Russian offences, whereas the third report allegedly used more tentative language (“may have been transferred”).
The applicant further argued that CAD’s investigations had reached a “brick wall” due to missing critical information from Russian authorities, and that the District Judge had not requested further information that could have supported a finding of reasonable basis. In addition, the applicant highlighted the size of the seized sum (US$2,935,594.62) as a factor weighing towards serious injustice.
On the other side, the Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no error in the District Judge’s order and, in any event, no substantial injustice. The respondent argued that the extension length was within the applicant’s control because the applicant could have requested earlier review if circumstances changed, particularly since the applicant later wished to be heard. More substantively, the respondent maintained that the reports provided a reasonable basis for believing the funds were traceable proceeds of crime, and that continued seizure was necessary to prevent dissipation pending return to rightful owners. The respondent also urged the court to recognise that cross-border investigations (here, involving Russia) often require a wider margin of appreciation.
In its analysis, the High Court indicated that it was not persuaded to order revision. While the extract does not reproduce the court’s full reasoning, the court’s concluding stance is explicit: it was “not persuaded that revision should be ordered,” and it offered a practical caution for future extensions. That caution is significant: the court noted that if further extensions are required, investigating agencies and the Prosecution should ensure there are sufficient grounds given the time elapsed since the original seizure in 2016. This suggests that the court accepted the general legal framework allowing continuation orders, but it was attentive to the risk of prolonged detention without adequate evidential support.
The court also addressed the alternative relief sought under CPC ss 35(7)–(8). The respondent submitted that the High Court lacked criminal revisionary power to grant such relief because no application had been made under those provisions. The High Court’s decision, as reflected in the extract, aligns with this procedural point. Even if the court had jurisdiction in principle, the court would still require a proper evidential basis demonstrating necessity for day-to-day expenses and legal fees. The respondent argued that AB Partners had not adduced evidence showing that release was necessary for operational expenses or legal fees. The court therefore declined to order release.
Finally, the court considered the applicant’s inability to show lawful entitlement to possession of the seized property. The respondent relied on Oon Heng Lye v Public Prosecutor [2017] 5 SLR 1064 to support the proposition that, absent proof of lawful entitlement, the applicant’s claim for release is weaker. The High Court’s refusal to grant revision and release is consistent with this reasoning: where the applicant cannot demonstrate entitlement and the statutory threshold for continued seizure is met, the court is reluctant to interfere.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed AB Partners’ criminal revision. It did not set aside the District Judge’s order of 27 February 2019 extending seizure of the funds in the Credit Suisse account for a further period. The practical effect is that CAD retained the seized funds pending the next scheduled court review and continuation of investigations.
In addition, the court did not grant the alternative request for release of funds for operational expenses and legal fees under CPC ss 35(7)–(8). The applicant therefore remained unable to access the seized funds for the purposes it sought, at least in the absence of a properly grounded application and sufficient evidence of necessity.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is important for practitioners because it illustrates how the High Court approaches criminal revision of continuation orders under s 370 CPC. The decision reinforces that revision is not automatic merely because seized property is substantial or because the applicant challenges the sufficiency of the reports. Instead, the applicant must show serious injustice, which in turn requires a careful evaluation of whether the statutory “reasonable basis” threshold was met at the time of the extension.
From a procedural standpoint, the case also highlights the significance of how and when relief is sought. AB Partners’ attempt to obtain release under CPC ss 35(7)–(8) failed, in part because no application had been made under those provisions. This serves as a practical reminder that criminal revision is not a substitute for making the correct statutory application for interim relief, and that courts will expect compliance with the procedural pathway intended by the CPC.
Substantively, the court’s caution about future extensions is a key takeaway. Where seizure has lasted for years, the Prosecution and investigating agencies must provide sufficient grounds to justify continued detention. While the court did not find serious injustice on the facts, the message is clear: as time passes, the evidential burden to demonstrate ongoing relevance and necessity becomes more demanding. Lawyers advising clients whose assets are seized should therefore focus on building a record—through timely engagement, requests for information, and properly supported applications—rather than relying solely on later revision.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), s 35(1)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), s 35(7)
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), s 35(8)
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), s 370(1)(b)
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), s 370(3)
- Criminal Justice Reform Act 2018 (referenced in metadata)
- Evidence Act (referenced in metadata)
Cases Cited
- Rajendar Prasad Rai and another v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2017] 4 SLR 333
- Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others v Public Prosecutor [2019] 4 SLR 867
- Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor [2015] 2 SLR 903
- Oon Heng Lye v Public Prosecutor [2017] 5 SLR 1064
Source Documents
This article analyses [2020] SGHC 12 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.