ST : Convicted lawyer cleared of wrongdoing

Jul 16, 2010

Convicted lawyer cleared of wrongdoing

Landmark ruling spells out how far lawyers must go to verify claims

By Selina Lum & K.C. Vijayan



AFTER five years and spending about $1 million in legal fees, lawyer Bachoo Mohan Singh finally left court a free man yesterday.

Convicted of helping a client dishonestly make a false claim before a court, he was first sentenced to three months' jail. Upon appeal, his conviction was upheld, though his sentence was reduced to one month's jail and a $10,000 file.

But he persisted and took his case all the way to the Court of Appeal.

Yesterday, the three-judge court cleared him, in a decision split two-to-one. It was a landmark ruling for, among other things, spelling out the extent to which lawyers should go to verify their clients' claims.

Mr Singh, 63, made legal history as the first person charged in Singapore with making such a false claim, an offence that has been in force for over a century.

He was also the first lawyer in the Commonwealth convicted of abetting his client in making a false claim.

Mr Singh's case arose out of a purported 'cashback' scheme in 2003 which inflated the sale price of a Housing Board flat belonging to his client.

In 2005, he was accused of helping the seller make a false claim based on the inflated price. He insisted that he did not know that the claim was false and had merely followed his client's instructions.

He fought the case all the way to settle the legal issue of what exactly is a false claim, and how far a lawyer has to go to make sure that what his client tells him is true.

Convinced that his case was a matter of public interest because it raised questions about the law, Mr Singh took his case to the Court of Appeal comprising Justices V.K. Rajah, Andrew Phang and Choo Han Teck.

Yesterday, Justice Rajah, who wrote the bulk of the 99-page judgment, delivered the court's decision, with Justice Phang concurring.

In concluding that Mr Singh's conviction was wrong, the two judges said the lower courts' findings that he was dishonest were questionable and undermined by 'mistaken legal analysis'.

The dissenting judge, Justice Choo, felt otherwise. 'I am of the view that no one - either in the trial... or the High Court on appeal - misapprehended the law,' he said.

He felt that no questions of law of public interest had been raised.

Justice Rajah said he did not see how the claim filed by Mr Singh could be considered false or that the lawyer knew that it was false.

He noted that Mr Singh had accepted his client's account that he was unwittingly dragged into a cashback scheme, and filed the claim based on his instructions.

As for the duty of a lawyer, the judge said a lawyer should doubt his client's instructions only if they 'plainly appear to be without foundation'.

'A solicitor is not obliged to verify his client's instructions with other sources unless there is compelling evidence to indicate that it is dubious,' he said.

In this case, there was nothing to suggest that Mr Singh should have taken steps to verify what his client told him.

He added that the client had given the same account to investigators consistently, and so the lawyer could not be faulted for believing him.

Speaking to The Straits Times after his acquittal, Mr Singh said the loss of livelihood and reputation, and the uncertain future his family faced over the past five years were a 'bigger cost' than the legal fees he paid.

However, he said he retained his faith in the judicial system here throughout.

He said: 'I'm cool because my conscience is clear. I'm vindicated because of the strength and integrity of the system.'

He questioned the resources the prosecution poured into the case. At one point, there were six prosecuting officers on record in the appeal hearings, among others, and the 50-day district court trial stretched over a year.

His family in Perth was relieved to hear of his acquittal yesterday, because 'a great burden has been removed from their chests'.

'At the end of the day, after going through a case like this, you know who your friends are,' he said.

'I am glad I can get on with my life after my five lost years. All the uncertainty is now gone, I can work and pay off my debts.'

selinal@sph.com.sg

vijayan@sph.com.sg


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the case

A 2003 property transaction involving a five-room flat in Redhill is at the centre of this case.

Both the sellers, taxi driver Koh Sia Kang and his wife, and the buyers, Mr Kang Siew Guek and his wife, agreed on a price of $390,000.

But in an alleged cashback scheme - which Mr Koh denies - the selling price was inflated to $490,000 in declarations to the Housing Board. In such a scam, a higher price is declared to secure a bigger loan for the buyer.

The cash difference between the actual and declared prices is either kept by the buyer or split with the seller. The buyers later backed out, and Mr Koh, 53, then sued them for breach of agreement.

In April 2004, Mr Bachoo Mohan Singh helped him file a court claim asking for the difference between the agreed-upon price and the $380,000 which he had sold the flat for.

A year later, Mr Singh was charged with helping Mr Koh make a false claim. He was represented by then senior counsel K. Shanmugam. His trial began in 2006, and in 2007, he was sentenced to three months' jail.

He appealed last year. Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, the Law Society's president, then volunteered to argue Mr Singh's case for free. His conviction was upheld, but the High Court reduced his sentence to a month's jail and a $10,000 fine. He then applied to refer issues of law in his case to the Court of Appeal.