[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-639401-105":59,"doc-detail-639401-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","public-prosecutor-v-tan-liang-ann-ground-of-decision-criminal-lawstatutory-offences","Public Prosecutor v Tan Liang Ann - Ground of Decision - Criminal Law—Statutory offences","","Grounds of decision in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore for MA 234/1997. Tan Liang Ann, a shop proprietor at Benjamin Gift Shop, was charged that on or about 27 January 1997 he corruptly gave a $50 gratification to a process server as an inducement to influence matters relating to his principal’s affairs in small claims tribunal disputes. The trial resulted in acquittal, followed by a prosecution appeal. The judgment sets out relevant statutory provisions and the prosecution’s account of the events.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/public-prosecutor-v-tan-liang-ann-ground-of-decision-criminal-lawstatutory-offences/639401/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/public-prosecutor-v-tan-liang-ann-ground-of-decision-criminal-lawstatutory-offences/639401.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"OKfine","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-13","2026-10-22",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What offence was Tan Liang Ann charged with?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Tan was charged with corruptly giving a $50 gratification to a process server as an inducement for doing or forbearing to do acts in relation to the principal’s affairs, punishable under s 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What happened at the trial before the appeal?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Tan was acquitted at the end of the trial. The prosecution then appealed, and the court allowed the appeal and set out its reasons.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What was the context of the small claims tribunal dispute?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"An Australian tourist purchased goods from the shop, complained of overcharging, and lodged a claim with the small claims tribunal. The process involved serving notices for a consultation and encouraging settlement before adjudication.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},639401,1792708739,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962093957596,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE  \n[1998] SGHC 69  \nMA 234/1997  \nBetween  \nPublic Prosecutor  \n…Appellant  \nAnd  \nTan Liang Ann  \n…Respondent  \nGROUNDS OF DECISION  \nCriminal Law—Statutory offences  \nVersion No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)  \nThis judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports.  \nPublic Prosecutor v Tan Liang Ann  \n[1998] SGHC 69  \nMA 234/1997 Yong Pung How CJ 07 March 1998  \n1  \n1.YONG PUNG HOW CJ  \n2 The charge  \n3 The respondent, one Tan Liang Ann (Tan), was charged in the court below for the following offence:  \nYou,  \nTan Liang Ann  \nM/51  \nare charged that you, on or about 27 January 1997, at the  \nBenjamin Gift Shop at No 304 Orchard Road \\#01-104/105 Lucky  \nPlaza, Singapore, did corruptly give to an agent, to wit, one Lim  \nGeok Kwee, a process server (judiciary) of the subordinate  \ncourts, a gratification of a sum of fifty dollars ($50), as an  \ninducement for doing an act in relation to his principal`s affairs,  \nto wit, asking the tourists who lodged claims to the small claims  \ntribunal on disputes of goods sold by your shop, to settle the  \ndispute out of court and you have thereby committed an offence  \npunishable under s 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap  \n241) .  \nVersion No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)  \n4  \n2.As far as relevant, s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241 , 1993 Ed)(PCA) states:  \n6 If-  \n(b) any person corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gratification to any agent as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do any actin relation to his principal`s affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal`s affairs or business;  \nhe shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction  \nto a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term  \nnot exceeding 5 years or to both.  \n5  \n3.At the end of the trial, Tan was acquitted of the charge. The prosecution appealed. I allowed the appeal and now set out my reasons for doing so.  \n6 The facts  \n7 (a) The prosecution`s version of events  \n8  \n4.Tan is the proprietor of a Lucky Plaza shop in Orchard Road called Benjamin Gift Shop which sells, amongst other things, cameras and electronic goods.  \n9  \n5.On 23 January 1997, an Australian tourist by the name of Rodney Paterson  \nVersion No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)  \n(Rodney) went to the shop and bought goods amounting in total to $2,650 . Realising subsequently that he was being overcharged, Rodney lodged a complaint at the small claims tribunal against the shop on 27 January 1997.  \n10  \n6.The usual procedure when such a complaint is lodged is for the process server to go and serve a notice of consultation on the shop. Such a notice will require the shop proprietor and the complainant to attend a consultation before the registrar of the small claims tribunal at a given time and date. At the consultation, the parties will be encouraged to reach a settlement, on failure of which the matter will have to be adjudicated before a referee of the small claims tribunal.  \n11  \n7.It was also explained that the practice was for the complainants to accompany the process servers when they served the notice and documents on the shop. Should the complainant be able to reach a settlement at the shop, he or she would be asked to sign on the reverse side of the claim form indicating that the claim was settled. There would then be no need to appear before the small claims tribunal.  \n12  \n8.The process server involved in the case at hand was one Lim Geok Kwee  \n(Lim). At about 12pm on the daywhen Rodney lodged his complaint, Lim faxed the notice of consultation and the relevant receipt to Tan`s shop. Lim and Rodney subsequently went to the shop where they met Tan and one ","cbCaipcLekQMn4mf","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipcLekQMn4mf","pdf",294560,23,"English","# The charge\n## Relevant statutory provision under the Prevention of Corruption Act\n# The facts\n## Prosecution’s version of events\n## Usual small claims procedure and service of notices","[{\"question\":\"What offence was Tan Liang Ann charged with?\",\"answer\":\"Tan was charged with corruptly giving a $50 gratification to a process server as an inducement for doing or forbearing to do acts in relation to the principal’s affairs, punishable under s 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).\"},{\"question\":\"What happened at the trial before the appeal?\",\"answer\":\"Tan was acquitted at the end of the trial. The prosecution then appealed, and the court allowed the appeal and set out its reasons.\"},{\"question\":\"What was the context of the small claims tribunal dispute?\",\"answer\":\"An Australian tourist purchased goods from the shop, complained of overcharging, and lodged a claim with the small claims tribunal. The process involved serving notices for a consultation and encouraging settlement before adjudication.\"}]","Public Prosecutor v Tan Liang Ann - Ground of Decision - Criminal Law—Statutory offences | PDF",1792703431,58]