Prosecution says judge who acquitted duo of bribing ex-LTA official had copied defence arguments

A former district judge who acquitted two men of corruption in a case involving a former Land Transport Authority (LTA) official was accused by the prosecution of copying from the defence’s submissions and failing to consider all the evidence.

The prosecution made the allegations on July 22 during an appeal to Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon to reconsider the case afresh. The defence argued that the district judge had applied his mind in deciding to acquit Mr Pay Teow Heng, 56, and Mr Pek Lian Guan, 59.

Chief Justice Menon will give his decision at a later date.

Mr Pay, a director at construction firm Tiong Seng Contractors, was accused of giving bribes in the form of loans totalling $350,000 to LTA deputy group director Henry Foo Yung Thye in 2017 and 2018.

Mr Pek, the managing director of the firm, was accused of intentionally aiding Mr Pay in giving the bribes to Foo.

In October 2024, the two men were cleared by then District Judge Soh Tze Bian, who found that the incriminating statements the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had recorded from them were “inaccurate and unreliable”.

Mr Soh, who was appointed a district judge on Aug 1, 2008, retired from the Singapore Judicial Service on Jan 17.

In the past two years, the quality of his work has been criticised twice by two Supreme Court judges. In September 2023, Chief Justice Menon said Mr Soh’s conduct in reproducing large chunks of the prosecution’s written submissions in his grounds of decision with minimal changes was “wholly unsatisfactory as a matter of judicial practice”.

In December 2024, Mr Soh’s use of substantial portions of the prosecution’s submissions without his own analysis was flagged by Justice Aidan Xu as a serious concern.

In the current case, the prosecution contended that Mr Soh had adopted the defence’s written submissions as his own findings and failed to properly evaluate the conflicting evidence concerning the CPIB statements.

On July 22, Deputy Public Prosecutor Alan Loh argued that the judge had failed to “exercise his mind on the facts and circumstances of the case before him”.

The prosecutor highlighted instances where the judge had adopted the pejorative language from Mr Pay’s closing submissions. This included describing a CPIB investigation officer as “mischievous and conveniently selective” when recording Mr Pay’s statements.

DPP Loh also listed examples to show that the judge had replicated the assertions made in the defence’s closing submissions with minor stylistic changes.

Mr Pek’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Cavinder Bull, argued that the prosecution’s analysis of the wording of a selected number of paragraphs was too simplistic. Highlighting examples where the judge had given his own analysis, he said the judge had independently considered the evidence.

Mr Bull noted that Mr Soh had identified three issues on his own and reorganised the points made by the defence. He stressed that in criminal cases, it was entirely inappropriate to resolve any doubt in favour of the prosecution.

Mr Pay’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, said it was unfair for the prosecution to contend that the judge did not consider its arguments. Mr Tan said his closing submissions contained more than 60 pages criticising the credibility of the investigation officer, but the prosecution had “all of two pages” in reply.

He argued that the judge gave the prosecution a chance to rebut the defence’s points during oral submissions, but the specific concerns were not addressed. He said the judge was entitled to accept the defence’s argument because no contrary explanation from the prosecution was forthcoming.

In September 2021, Foo, then 47, was sentenced to 5½ years’ jail for taking about $1.24 million in bribes in the form of loans from several contractors and subcontractors.

Foo joined LTA in 1999. He was the deputy group director of the Thomson-East Coast and Cross Island lines from July 2017 to his resignation in September 2019.

The prosecution said that LTA had engaged Tiong Seng to construct an MRT station under a contract initially valued at $315 million. Foo had called Mr Pay to borrow money on the pretext of needing to repay his mother’s gambling debts to banks and loan sharks.

Mr Pay did not have enough money at the time, so he approached Mr Pek for help.

In his defence, Mr Pay said he gave the loan to help Foo as they were friends who met socially, and that he had no corrupt intent in lending money to Foo.

Similarly, Mr Pek testified that he did not lend money to Foo with the intention of benefiting the company.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: Business of Law (31 Jul & 1 Aug)