S'pore High Court sets aside acquittal in LTA bribery case after judge found to have copied defence submissions

The High Court has set aside the acquittal of two men charged with bribing a former Land Transport Authority (LTA) official, after the presiding district judge was found to have lifted large portions of the defence's submissions and presented them as his own findings.

The judge at the time, Soh Tze Bian, also failed to adequately weigh key prosecution evidence, The Straits Times (ST) reported on Mar. 23.

Soh retired in 2025. He faced similar complaints on two other occasions.

Background to the case

58-year-old Pay Teow Heng, who was a director at Tiong Seng Contractors (TSC) at the time, was accused of giving bribes in the form of loans totalling S$350,000 to then LTA deputy group director Henry Foo Yung Thye in 2017 and 2018.

These bribes were said to have been intended to advance TSC's business interests with LTA.

Pek Lian Guan, 61, TSC's then managing director, was accused of intentionally facilitating Pay's actions.

LTA had engaged TSC to construct an MRT station under a contract worth approximately S$315 million, with Foo overseeing the project on LTA's behalf.

When Foo faced personal financial difficulties, he reached out to Pay twice for help arranging some loans.

Pay did not immediately agree, but took Foo’s requests to Pek, who facilitated the approval of two staff loans from TSC to Pay.

According to ST, both men maintained they acted without corrupt intent.

In his defence, Pay claimed the loans were a gesture of goodwill to a personal friend, and Pek said he had no intention of using the arrangement to benefit the company.

Foo was convicted in September 2021 and sentenced to five and a half years' imprisonment for accepting approximately S$1.24 million in bribes, in the form of loans, from multiple contractors and subcontractors.

The acquittal

In October 2024, Soh acquitted both Pay and Pek, ruling that incriminating statements recorded by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau were "inaccurate and unreliable."

The prosecution appealed, arguing that Soh had adopted the defence's written submissions as his own findings without independently evaluating the evidence, giving rise to a reasonable doubt about whether he had discharged his judicial duties properly.

The prosecution’s appeal against their acquittals was heard on Jul. 22, 2025.

High Court's ruling

In a written judgment on Mar. 23, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said Soh had arrived at his decision in 2024 in breach of natural justice.

He held that "a fair-minded and informed observer would harbour a reasonable suspicion or apprehension" that the judge had not judiciously considered the material before him.

Menon emphasised that judicial copying is "unacceptable".

Beyond the risk of an unfair hearing for the losing party, such conduct can erode public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.

"There is a needless waste of the judicial resources that must be marshalled to examine not only the substantive merits of the decision below, but also the propriety of the process by which that decision was reached," he added.

Rather than ordering a retrial, the Chief Justice indicated he would personally re-examine the evidence on record.

Given that the trial spanned over 40 days across more than two years, he noted that a retrial would subject the parties to "a considerable amount of additional expenses and delay through no fault of their own, without any corresponding benefit".

"It is common ground between the parties that if I were to come to the view that the [grounds of decision] is tainted by a breach of natural justice, I should deal with the matter based on the record because no issue is taken with the way the evidence was adduced."

Background on Soh

Soh was appointed a district judge on Aug. 1, 2008 and retired from the Singapore Judicial Service on Jan. 17, 2025.

He had faced similar criticisms on two prior occasions.

In September 2023, the Chief Justice described Soh's reproduction of large portions of the prosecution's submissions, with minimal changes, as "wholly unsatisfactory as a matter of judicial practice."

In December 2024, Justice Aidan Xu raised further concerns about Soh's use of prosecution submissions without independent analysis.

Top photo from AFP