2 men acquitted after court finds statements taken by CPIB investigating officers 'inaccurate & unreliable'

Two men accused of giving a former Land Transport Authority (LTA) deputy group director bribes in the form of loans were acquitted after the judge found the statements taken by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) "inaccurate and unreliable".

The former LTA deputy group director, Henry Foo Yung Thye, had taken about S$1.24 million in bribes, faced 36 charges in 2020 and was jailed in 2021.

According to The Straits Times, 56-year-old Pay Teow Heng was accused of giving Foo bribes in the form of loans totalling S$350,000 in 2017 and 2018.

Pay was a director at Tiong Seng Contractors (TSC) at the time and was accused of giving Foo bribes to advance TSC's business interests with LTA.

Pek Lian Guan, 59, was TSC's then managing director and was accused of intentionally aiding Pay in giving bribes.

The prosecution said LTA had engaged TSC to construct an MRT station under a contract initially valued at S$315 million.

Key issues

Delivering his verdict on Oct. 11, District Judge Soh Tze Bian considered three key issues, CNA reported.

The first was the conduct of the CPIB officer, who took the two men's statements.

Judge Soh found them "inaccurate, unreliable, and unsafe to rely on".

One investigating officer (IO), Chris Lim, who took Pay's second statement, admitted during the trial that he approached the interview with Pay with a "preconceived notion" that some form of offence had been committed.

CNA stated that Judge Soh found that Lim "had a blatant disregard for the truth" when recording Pay's second statement and that Lim's approach had been "mischievous and conveniently selective".

Lim had only recorded parts of Pay's statement that could be construed as incriminating, while omitting evidence that could exonerate him.

Judge Soh said: "As submitted by Pay's counsel, the procedural safeguards were meaningless in the face of IO Chris Lim's conduct based on his own evidence which unfortunately demonstrated him to be happy to stretch the truth and the prosecution has offered no explanations for his conduct."

For Pek, Judge Soh found that the first statement recorded by an IO named Jeffrey contained repeated self-incriminating remarks and was "not a faithful representation" of what Pek had said.

This indicated an attempt to emphasise his culpability, CNA said.

Jeffrey used "a cut-and-paste method" to compile the statement, which suggests that Pek's responses might not have been accurately reflected.

Jeffrey admitted during the trial that he tried to "frame" Pek when taking the first statement, drafting key parts of Pek's first statement in a way that gave the impression Pek was the one who came up with the idea of taking staff loans, CNA added.

The second key point Judge Soh considered was that Foo testified that Pay and Pek never asked for any quid pro quo.

Foo's testimony was in line with Pay and Pek's evidence that the loans were given "innocently and not corruptly".

According to CNA, Pay testified that the loans extended to Foo were personal loans intended to help him as a friend and out of goodwill rather than benefit his company.

Judge Soh noted that the prosecution did not impeach or challenge Foo's credibility, which led to the judge placing a greater weight on his evidence.

Judge Soh also rejected the prosecution's argument that Foo's admission of "feeling corrupted" and his guilty plea should be seen as a belief that Pay or Pek was corrupt.

CNA added that Judge Soh rejected the prosecution's attempt to rely on WhatsApp messages between Pay and Foo to show that Foo was indebted or obligated to Pay.

Judge Soh concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case against Pay and Pek beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered a discharge amounting to an acquittal for both men.

After the hearing, the Attorney-General's Chambers told CNA it was studying the judgement and would "decide on the next course of action thereafter".

Top photos via Google Maps