Case Details
- Citation: [2019] SGHC 48
- Title: Lee Chen Seong Jeremy & 2 Ors v Public Prosecutor
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 1 March 2019
- Case Type: Criminal Revision No 9 of 2018
- Judges: See Kee Oon J
- Petitioners/Applicants: Lee Chen Seong Jeremy; Agnes Elizabeth So Siong Guat; Khong Choun Guan
- Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Legal Area(s): Criminal Procedure and Sentencing; Criminal Procedure Code reporting of seized property; Revisionary jurisdiction
- Statutes Referenced: Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”); Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed); Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed); Business Names Registration Act (Cap 2014 Rev Ed) (as referenced in the judgment extract)
- Key Provision(s): Section 370(1) CPC
- Cases Cited: [2016] SGHC 69; [2019] SGHC 48 (this case)
- Judgment Length: 52 pages; 16,245 words
Summary
This High Court decision concerns the statutory procedure for reporting the seizure of property during criminal investigations, and the extent to which the prosecution may supplement its report after the statutory deadline has passed. The case arose from the seizure of company files and electronic devices from three individuals associated with the “Sourcelink” and “Canaan” groups of companies. The police seized the property in June 2017 in investigations conducted by the Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”) into alleged offences under the Penal Code and company-related legislation.
The key statutory framework was s 370(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”), which regulates how a law enforcement officer must report the seizure to a Magistrate. Where the property remains relevant to ongoing investigations, the officer must make a report to the Magistrate one year after seizure. The Magistrate may then convene a hearing to determine whether continued seizure is justified. In this case, the CAD made the s 370 report within the one-year deadline, but the Magistrate was not satisfied that the report sufficiently justified continued seizure. The prosecution sought to place additional material before the Magistrate and, when that proved insufficient, asked to be heard ex parte even though the hearing had already begun inter partes.
Allowing the criminal revision, the High Court held that the Magistrate erred in admitting supplemental material that effectively went beyond what could properly be considered after the one-year deadline for the s 370 reporting procedure. The court also addressed the prosecution’s attempt to obtain an ex parte hearing after inter partes proceedings had commenced. Ultimately, the High Court stepped into the Magistrate’s shoes and ordered the release of the seized property to the persons entitled to possession.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The petitioners were three individuals involved in the management of companies, particularly within the “Sourcelink” and “Canaan” groups. The property in dispute consisted chiefly of company files and various electronic devices. On 6 June 2017, the police seized the property pursuant to investigations by CAD into alleged offences under the Penal Code and the Companies Act. Although there were three petitioners, the substantive investigations were directed primarily at the first petitioner, Lee Chen Seong Jeremy (“Mr Lee”).
On 5 April 2018, CAD wrote to Mr Lee seeking his consent to the continued seizure and retention of the seized property. Mr Lee did not consent. Through solicitors, the petitioners informed CAD that they did not agree to continued seizure. As a result, the matter proceeded under the statutory reporting mechanism in s 370 CPC.
On 6 June 2018, CAD filed a report to the Magistrate under s 370(1)(b) CPC, which applies where the property is still relevant to ongoing investigations after the initial period. The report stated that CAD was investigating possible offences including alleged offences under ss 406 and 420 of the Penal Code, s 148(1) of the Companies Act, and s 35(1) of the Business Names Registration Act, and that investigations were ongoing. The report was later amended on 2 July 2018, largely to correct clerical and typographical errors and to update the tables of seized items.
The inter partes hearing before the Magistrate took place on 19 July 2018. Before that hearing, the prosecution filed a fresh annex (“the Annex”) providing more detail on how the seized items were relevant to the investigations. The Annex described complaints received between 9 June 2014 and 8 March 2016 and reiterated the allegations against Mr Lee, including: (1) cheating an investor into investing in Canaan Medical Pte Ltd; (2) misappropriating monies from Mobdown Pte Ltd; and (3) managing companies/businesses while being an undischarged bankrupt. At the hearing, the Magistrate expressed difficulty determining relevance based on the material before her, namely the amended s 370 report and the Annex.
Following this, the prosecution asked to be heard ex parte. The petitioners objected because the proceedings were already inter partes. The Magistrate adjourned the matter, allowed the prosecution to prepare an ex parte report, and indicated she would hear parties again on whether the prosecution should be allowed to be heard ex parte at that stage. The proceedings were adjourned to 17 August 2018.
Before the adjourned hearing, the prosecution filed an addendum (“the Addendum”) on 15 August 2018 on its own initiative. The Addendum was made available to the petitioners and provided further information about the offences under investigation and the asserted relevance of the seized items. The Magistrate indicated she could have sight of the Addendum, while also making clear she had not requested information on an ex parte basis at the earlier stage. At the adjourned hearing on 17 August 2018, the petitioners objected strongly to the prosecution’s filing of the Addendum and argued that the Magistrate should not rely on the Annex or Addendum because they were filed outside the one-year deadline under s 370(1)(b) CPC.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The criminal revision raised several interrelated legal questions concerning the proper conduct of s 370(1)(b) CPC proceedings. First, the court had to determine whether “fresh material” could be admitted to supplement the s 370 report after the one-year deadline had lapsed. This issue required the court to interpret the statutory purpose of s 370(1) and to decide whether the prosecution could effectively improve its case by adding new relevance material after the deadline.
Second, the court addressed whether the prosecution had a right to be heard ex parte after inter partes proceedings had already commenced. This issue implicated procedural fairness and the structure of the s 370 reporting hearing, particularly where the Magistrate had already begun an inter partes process and the prosecution sought to shift to an ex parte mode to place further material before the court.
Third, the petitioners contended that the Magistrate erred in failing to apply s 370 CPC properly and in allegedly exhibiting no bias or prejudgment. While “bias” was raised as part of the petitioners’ submissions, the thrust of the revision was procedural and statutory: whether the Magistrate’s approach to the admissibility and consideration of material complied with the CPC framework and whether the threshold for continued seizure had been met.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court approached the case by focusing on the statutory architecture of s 370(1) CPC. The court emphasised that seizure of property during investigations is commonplace, but the law does not permit indefinite retention. Section 370(1) provides a structured mechanism to ensure that seized property is not held without judicial oversight. The officer must either report that the property is no longer relevant (s 370(1)(a)) or, if it remains relevant, report one year after seizure (s 370(1)(b)). The Magistrate may then convene a hearing if necessary, allowing interested persons to attend and make representations. The Magistrate must be satisfied that the property is indeed relevant for the purposes of investigations before continued seizure can be justified.
On the first issue—whether fresh material could be admitted after the one-year deadline—the court treated the one-year deadline as a meaningful statutory boundary. The purpose of the deadline is to compel the law enforcement agency to crystallise its justification for continued seizure within a defined time. The court’s reasoning, as reflected in the extract, indicates that the prosecution’s attempt to supplement the s 370 report with additional annexes and addenda after the deadline undermined the statutory safeguard. In practical terms, if the prosecution could keep adding relevance material after the deadline, the interested persons’ statutory protection against indefinite retention would be diluted.
The court also considered the procedural posture of the case. The s 370 report was filed within the one-year deadline. However, the Annex and Addendum provided additional detail on relevance and on the offences under investigation. The petitioners argued that these were not merely clarifications but substantive supplements that should not be considered once the deadline had passed. The High Court accepted the petitioners’ core point that the Magistrate should not treat the one-year deadline as a flexible guideline that could be circumvented by later submissions. The court’s approach thus reinforced that s 370(1)(b) requires the prosecution to put before the Magistrate, within the deadline, the material necessary to establish relevance for continued seizure.
On the second issue—whether the prosecution could be heard ex parte after inter partes proceedings had begun—the court examined the fairness and coherence of the procedure. The extract shows that the Magistrate initially indicated difficulty in determining relevance and then adjourned to consider whether the prosecution should be allowed to be heard ex parte. The petitioners objected because the hearing was already inter partes. The High Court’s allowance of the revision indicates that the prosecution’s attempt to shift to an ex parte mode at that stage was not consistent with the statutory design of s 370(1)(b), which contemplates an inter partes hearing where interested persons can make representations. Allowing ex parte supplementation after the inter partes process has commenced would risk depriving interested persons of the opportunity to respond to the very material that is decisive for continued seizure.
Finally, the court addressed the threshold for the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction and the substantive determination of the s 370 application. The parties agreed that the High Court could step into the Magistrate’s shoes and determine whether the seized property was relevant for the purposes of investigations. This is significant because it reflects the High Court’s willingness to provide effective relief rather than remitting matters where the statutory safeguards have been breached. The court therefore did not confine itself to abstract procedural critique; it assessed whether the prosecution had met the statutory requirement to justify continued seizure.
In the end, the High Court concluded that the Magistrate’s approach—particularly in admitting and relying on supplemental material beyond what was properly permissible after the one-year deadline—was erroneous. The court’s reasoning culminated in a finding that the continued seizure was not justified on the material properly before the Magistrate under the s 370(1)(b) framework. The court’s decision thus combined strict statutory interpretation with procedural fairness concerns.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court allowed the criminal revision. It ordered that the seized property be released to the petitioners, being the persons entitled to their possession. This outcome followed from the court’s conclusion that the prosecution had not properly justified continued seizure under s 370(1)(b) CPC, and that the Magistrate erred in the handling of supplemental material and the procedural conduct of the hearing.
Because the parties agreed that the High Court could determine the relevance question directly, the court effectively replaced the Magistrate’s determination. The practical effect was immediate: the property could not remain in police custody and had to be returned to the petitioners.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is important for practitioners because it clarifies the operation of s 370(1)(b) CPC and strengthens the statutory protection against indefinite retention of seized property. The decision underscores that the one-year deadline is not merely administrative; it is a substantive safeguard. Law enforcement agencies and the prosecution must ensure that the s 370 report, filed within the deadline, contains sufficient material to enable the Magistrate to be satisfied of relevance for ongoing investigations.
For defence counsel and interested persons, the case provides a procedural basis to challenge continued seizure where the prosecution attempts to “top up” its justification after the deadline. It also signals that courts will scrutinise attempts to introduce ex parte processes after inter partes proceedings have begun, given the central role of representations by interested persons in s 370 hearings.
For prosecutors and investigators, the decision has practical implications for case management. It suggests that the prosecution should treat the s 370 report as the core evidential platform for the Magistrate’s decision. If additional detail is needed, it should be prepared and included within the statutory timeline, rather than relying on later annexes or addenda that may be excluded or disregarded. The case therefore affects how CAD and the prosecution structure and present relevance material, particularly in complex commercial investigations involving voluminous electronic and documentary evidence.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), s 370(1)(a) and s 370(1)(b)
- Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (as referenced in the s 370 report: ss 406 and 420)
- Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (as referenced: s 148(1))
- Business Names Registration Act (as referenced: s 35(1))
Cases Cited
- [2016] SGHC 69
- [2019] SGHC 48
Source Documents
This article analyses [2019] SGHC 48 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.