Case Details
- Citation: [2019] SGHC 48
- Case Number: Criminal Revision No 9 of 2018
- Decision Date: 01 March 2019
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Coram: See Kee Oon J
- Title: Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others v Public Prosecutor
- Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s): Lee Chen Seong Jeremy; Agnes Elizabeth So Siong Guat; Khong Choun Guan
- Respondent: Public Prosecutor
- Counsel for Petitioners: Adrian Wong and Ang Leong Hao (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)
- Counsel for Respondent: Peter Koy, Sng Yi Zhi Eugene and Ben Mathias Tan (Attorney-General’s Chambers)
- Legal Area: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Revision of proceedings
- Statutory Provisions Referenced: Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), in particular s 370(1); Penal Code (Cap 224); Companies Act (Cap 50); Business Names Registration Act (including the 2014 version)
- Key Procedural Provision: s 370(1) CPC (reporting seizure of property and continued seizure after one year)
- Judgment Length: 27 pages; 15,368 words
- Related/Editorial Note: The application in Criminal Reference No 1 of 2019 was withdrawn
Summary
Lee Chen Seong Jeremy and others v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGHC 48 concerned the statutory regime governing how long law enforcement agencies may retain seized property while investigations are ongoing. The High Court, per See Kee Oon J, allowed a criminal revision brought by the “interested persons” challenging the Magistrate’s decision to permit continued seizure of property under s 370(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). The court held that the prosecution had not established, on the material properly before the Magistrate, that the seized property remained relevant for the purposes of the investigations.
More importantly for practitioners, the case addressed novel procedural questions about the s 370 reporting process: whether the prosecution may supplement the s 370 report with fresh material after the inter partes hearing has begun, and whether the prosecution can seek to be heard ex parte at that stage. The High Court emphasised that the statutory scheme is designed to prevent indefinite retention of property and to ensure that continued seizure is justified by demonstrable relevance to ongoing investigations. On the facts, the court ordered the release of the seized property to the petitioners.
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 police seized property—chiefly company files and various electronic devices—on 6 June 2017. The seizure was made in the course of investigations commenced by the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force (CAD) into alleged offences under the Penal Code and the Companies Act. Although there were three petitioners, the investigations were substantively directed at the first petitioner, Mr Lee Chen Seong Jeremy.
After the seizure, the CAD sought to retain the property. On 5 April 2018, CAD wrote to Mr Lee asking for his consent to continued seizure and retention. Mr Lee did not consent. Through solicitors (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP), the petitioners informed CAD on 12 April 2018 and 17 April 2018 that they did not give consent. This lack of consent triggered the statutory reporting mechanism under s 370 CPC, which requires the law enforcement officer to report to a Magistrate either that the property is no longer relevant (s 370(1)(a)) or, if it remains relevant, to report one year after seizure (s 370(1)(b)).
On 6 June 2018, within the one-year deadline from the date of seizure, CAD filed a report to the Magistrate pursuant to s 370(1)(b). The s 370 Report stated that CAD was investigating possible offences under specified provisions, including sections of the Penal Code, the Companies Act, and the Business Names Registration Act, and that investigations were ongoing. CAD later amended the report on 2 July 2018, largely to correct clerical errors, remove items wrongly included in the seizure tables, and include items that had been omitted initially.
The inter partes hearing before the Magistrate took place on 19 July 2018. Before that hearing, the prosecution filed a fresh Annex to the amended s 370 Report, providing additional detail on how the seized items were relevant to the investigations. The Annex referenced complaints received between 9 June 2014 and 8 March 2016 and reiterated allegations that Mr Lee had, among other things, cheated an investor into investing in Canaan Medical Pte Ltd, misappropriated monies from Mobdown Pte Ltd, and managed companies/businesses while being an undischarged bankrupt. The Magistrate indicated she had difficulty determining relevance based on the material before her, which included the amended s 370 Report and the fresh Annex.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The High Court identified and addressed novel legal questions about the s 370 reporting procedure. The first issue was whether fresh material could be admitted to supplement the s 370 report after the inter partes hearing had commenced. The petitioners argued that the statutory scheme imposes a strict one-year “long-stop” deadline and that allowing supplementation after that deadline undermines the protective purpose of s 370 CPC.
The second issue concerned procedural fairness and the Magistrate’s powers during the inter partes hearing. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the prosecution was entitled to be heard ex parte after the inter partes hearing had begun, and whether the prosecution had effectively “forsaken” any such right by indicating it was content to proceed inter partes. The petitioners contended that the Magistrate erred by indicating she was prepared to hear the prosecution ex parte at that stage, thereby depriving interested persons of the opportunity to respond to potentially decisive material.
Finally, on the particular facts, the High Court also considered whether it could, in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction, “step into the shoes” of the Magistrate and determine whether the seized property was indeed relevant for the purposes of the investigations. This was crucial because the outcome depended not only on procedural correctness but also on whether the prosecution had met the substantive threshold for continued seizure.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
See Kee Oon J began by situating the case within the statutory purpose of s 370 CPC. The court noted that while seizure of property is commonplace during investigations, the law enforcement agency does not have an indefinite right to hold the property. Section 370(1) regulates reporting to a Magistrate so that continued seizure is subject to 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)). In the latter case, the Magistrate may convene an inter partes hearing, allowing interested persons to attend and make representations. The Magistrate must be satisfied that the property is indeed relevant to justify continued seizure.
On the procedural question of supplementation, the High Court treated the one-year deadline as a meaningful statutory constraint. The petitioners’ position was that s 370 imposes a “guillotine” effect: the prosecution must justify continued seizure based on material properly before the Magistrate within the statutory reporting framework. The court’s analysis focused on whether the prosecution could effectively extend or circumvent that framework by filing additional annexes and addenda after the report had been filed and after the hearing had begun. While the extract provided does not include the full reasoning, the court’s ultimate conclusion—that the seized property should be released—reflects a finding that the prosecution’s approach did not satisfy the statutory requirement of establishing relevance on the appropriate footing.
The factual chronology illustrates why the issue mattered. The prosecution filed a fresh Annex before the 19 July 2018 hearing, and the Magistrate expressed difficulty assessing relevance. After the Magistrate adjourned the matter to allow the prosecution to prepare for an ex parte component, the prosecution filed an Addendum on 15 August 2018 on its own motion. The petitioners objected that the Addendum and Annex were filed outside the one-year deadline and that the Magistrate should not rely on them. At the adjourned hearing on 17 August 2018, the Magistrate indicated she could have sight of the Addendum but clarified she had not requested ex parte information; she had instead suggested that the prosecution consider providing information inter partes to avoid the need for an ex parte hearing.
Despite this, the prosecution then sought to be heard ex parte to place yet more material before the Magistrate even though the inter partes hearing had already commenced. The Magistrate acceded to this and allowed the prosecution to present additional material ex parte. The High Court treated this as a significant procedural misstep. The protective function of the inter partes hearing under s 370(1)(b) is to ensure that interested persons can challenge the prosecution’s justification for continued seizure. Allowing ex parte supplementation after the hearing has begun risks undermining that function, particularly where the Magistrate’s satisfaction of relevance is the central substantive requirement.
In the revision, the High Court also addressed the substantive threshold. The court agreed with the parties that it could determine relevance itself. The High Court ultimately was not persuaded that the prosecution had provided sufficient material to justify continued seizure. This conclusion was consistent with the statutory design: continued seizure is exceptional and must be justified by evidence demonstrating that the seized property remains relevant to ongoing investigations. Where the material is insufficient, the court must order release.
Although the provided extract truncates the remainder of the judgment, the overall structure indicates that the High Court treated both procedural and substantive deficiencies as fatal to the prosecution’s case. The court’s allowance of the criminal revision and order for release show that the prosecution’s reliance on late or additional material, coupled with the ex parte hearing approach, did not meet the standard required by s 370 CPC.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court allowed the criminal revision and ordered that the seized property be released to the petitioners, being the persons entitled to their possession. The court’s decision effectively reversed the Magistrate’s decision to permit continued seizure.
Practically, the outcome meant that the CAD and prosecution could not continue to hold the company files and electronic devices under the s 370(1)(b) regime on the basis of the material that had been presented. The decision underscores that once the statutory framework is not properly satisfied—procedurally and substantively—continued seizure cannot be maintained.
Why Does This Case Matter?
Lee Chen Seong Jeremy v Public Prosecutor is significant because it clarifies the limits of the s 370 reporting process and reinforces the statutory safeguards against indefinite deprivation of property. For investigators and prosecutors, the case signals that the one-year deadline is not a mere formality. The prosecution must be prepared to justify continued seizure with adequate material within the statutory scheme, and it cannot rely on piecemeal supplementation to cure deficiencies.
For defence counsel and interested persons, the decision strengthens the ability to challenge continued seizure. It highlights that the inter partes hearing is not a procedural afterthought but a core mechanism for testing relevance. The court’s disapproval of ex parte supplementation after the inter partes hearing has begun supports arguments that interested persons should have meaningful opportunities to respond to the material that forms the basis for the Magistrate’s satisfaction.
From a precedent perspective, the case addresses “novel questions of law” regarding supplementation and ex parte hearings in the s 370 context. It therefore provides a useful framework for future disputes about what material can be considered, when it can be introduced, and how the Magistrate should manage the hearing to preserve fairness and statutory compliance. Practitioners should treat the decision as guidance on both prosecutorial disclosure strategy and defence objections during s 370 proceedings.
Legislation Referenced
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), in particular s 370(1)
- Penal Code (Cap 224)
- Companies Act (Cap 50)
- Business Names Registration Act (including the 2014 version)
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.