Suggest a correction

Content

[SAL Ann Rev]: Criminal Law

Match the official source exactly.

What needs fixing?

Wrong or mistyped textWrong structure or numberingWrong title or detailsDuplicated content

Proposed text

(2024) 25 SAL Ann Rev 1

(Published on e-First 29 July 2026)
14. CRIMINAL LAW
Benny TAN Zhi Peng
LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore),
MPhil in Criminological Research (Cambridge);
Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore);
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore.
I.
Introduction 14.1
This chapter reviews the most significant cases decided in
Singapore in 2025 which developed criminal law principles. The three parts discuss case law developments relating to: (a) the general part of the criminal law; (b) offences under the Penal Code 18711 (“PC 2020”); and
(c) offences under the Immigration Act2 (“IA 2008”), the Securities and
Futures Act3 (“SFA 2006”), the Payment Services Act 20194 (“PSA 2019”), as well as the Enlistment Act5 (“EA 2001”).
II.
General part of criminal law – test for corporate attribution in criminal context 14.2
The 2025 General Division of the High Court (“General
Division”) (three-judge coram) case of Public Prosecutor v China Railway
Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch)6 is, at the time of writing, the most authoritative case in Singapore for the test of corporate attribution in criminal cases. In that case, the accused, a  foreign company, was charged for corruption offences under s  6(b) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.7 The charges alleged that two of the accused company’s employees had corruptly given gratification in the form of loans to an employee of the Land Transport Authority of Singapore. The parties were involved in certain train line construction projects in Singapore. One of the accused company’s employees, Xi Zhengbing (“Xi”), was the general manager and head representative of the accused company’s branch in
Singapore. The Prosecution’s case for corporate attribution was based 1 2020 Rev Ed.
2
Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed.
3
Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed.
4
Act 2 of 2019.
5
Cap 93, 2001 Rev Ed.
6
[2025] 4 SLR 69.
7
Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed.
© 2026 Contributor(s) and Singapore Academy of Law.
No part of this document may be reproduced without permission from the copyright holders.

2
SAL Annual Review
(2024) 25 SAL Ann Rev entirely on the roles and conduct of Xi.8 It also confirmed at the trial in the District Court that the charges were against the accused company and that “the Singapore Branch was not a separate legal entity”.9 The trial court acquitted the accused company of all its charges on the basis that
Xi’s acts and knowledge could not be attributed to the accused company.
14.3
Prior to the case, the prevailing test for corporate attribution in criminal cases in Singapore was that set out in Tom‑Reck Security Services
Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor10 (“Tom‑Reck”). Under this test, a person’s knowledge or act(s) will be attributed to a company if the person may be said to be the “directing mind and will”11 of the company. This arises either:12 (a) when the person is the living embodiment of the company;
or (b) if that person’s act(s) are performed as part of a delegated function of the company’s management.
14.4
A complication arose because other rules of attribution had been developed in other jurisdictions. Such rules are:13
(a)
The primary rules of attribution – these are rules found in a company’s constitution or law which vest specific powers in bodies such as the board of directors or the shareholders (acting as a whole).
(b)
The general rules of attribution  – these are rules that impute to a company its agents or employees’ act(s) within their actual or ostensible scope of authority to the company.
(c)
The special rules of attribution – these are rules which exclude attribution based on general principles of agency or vicarious liability.
14.5
The General Division carefully considered these other rules and generally did not find them attractive for reasons including:14
(a)
The rules may be overly inclusive, ensnare a company which may have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent 8
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [22].
9
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [9] and [22].
10
[2001] 1 SLR(R) 327.
11
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [27].
12
Tom‑Reck Security Services Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor [2001] 1 SLR(R) 327 at [17].
13
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [40]–[58].
14
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [40]–[58].
© 2026 Contributor(s) and Singapore Academy of Law.
No part of this document may be reproduced without permission from the copyright holders.

(2024) 25 SAL Ann Rev

3

Criminal Law its agents or employees’ illegal acts, and impose an unrealistic standard on a company.
(b)
The rules may engender too much uncertainty.
(c)
Parliament is the proper authority to determine whether an expansion of the ambit of corporate criminal liability for corruption offences is necessary in Singapore. In particular, pursuant to a  recent review of the Prevention of Corruption
Act,15 Parliament had accepted that the Act presently (with the
Tom‑Reck test being operative) “offers sufficient basis for the prosecution of corporate bodies in Court if the facts of the case call for it”. 16 14.6
In the end, the General Division affirmed that the Tom‑Reck test should continue to apply in Singapore as the appropriate test for corporate attribution in criminal cases. Under this test, the focus remains on whether the wrongdoer can be considered to be the directing mind and will of the company vis‑à‑vis the offending act(s).17 The court helpfully offered the following additional guidance:18
(a)
The analysis should not be too focused on identifying an “alter ego” or an individual who is driving the company but should instead “look at whether the actions of the employee were in truth reflective of the actions of the company”.19
(b)
It may still be possible to attribute the wrongdoer’s act(s)
and knowledge to the company if the company’s directors or senior management were aware that the illegal act(s) were carried out by the wrongdoer but chose not to do anything because the act(s) benefited the company (or at least did the company no harm).
(c)
The special rules of attribution may still be applicable in limited circumstances where it is just to do so, bearing in mind the policy and the object of the relevant legislation. This includes instances where regulatory offences are concerned.
15
Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed.
16
Singapore Parl Debates; Vol 95, Sitting No 70; [4 October 2022].
17
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [59].
18
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [59]–[64].
19
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [59].
© 2026 Contributor(s) and Singapore Academy of Law.
No part of this document may be reproduced without permission from the copyright holders.

4
SAL Annual Review
(2024) 25 SAL Ann Rev 14.7
Applying the Tom‑Reck test to the facts of the case, the General
Division concluded that, on the evidence, Xi could not be said to be the directing mind and will of the accused company. Xi was neither the living embodiment of the company nor were his acts performed as part of a function properly delegated by the company’s management.20
The Prosecution’s main argument was that Xi should be considered the living embodiment of the company because his acts “fell within the appropriate sphere of his responsibility”.21 The General Division rejected this argument because:22
(a)
The accused company had an extensive hierarchy and the Singapore branch was merely one of its numerous branches.
(b)
There were strict reporting lines within the accused company.
(c)
Xi did not have the necessary authority in respect of the tender process for the construction projects, and, moreover, a power of attorney issued to him in respect of one of the projects excluded any power of entering into loans.
(d)
There was insufficient evidence to prove that the accused company’s top management knew or was complicit in Xi’s illegal acts such that his acts could be considered to have received the accused company’s tacit approval.
14.8
The General Division left open the issue of whether the aggregation  of different acts by and knowledge of more than one associated persons of a  company was permissible for the purpose of holding the company criminally liable for their combined effect.23 14.9
Additionally, this case involved specifically corruption offences.
It remains to be seen whether the General Division’s position on corporate attribution (ie,  the Tom‑Reck test remains the general operative test)
applies generally to all other (non‑regulatory) offences in Singapore.24 20
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [65]–[78].
21
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [66]–[69].
22
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [65]–[78].
23
Public Prosecutor v China Railway Tunnel Group Co Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2025]
4 SLR 69 at [79].
24
On the conceptual distinction between “penal offences” and “regulatory offences”
and the potential difficulties in drawing that distinction, see Tai Wei Shyong SC,
Deputy Attorney-General, “Sentencing: Public Interest, Policy and Accountability”, keynote address at the Sentencing Conference  2022 (1  November 2022) at paras 17–22 <https://isomer-user-content.by.gov.sg/109/12edec5d-ea01-474d-8eb7-
(cont’d on the next page)
© 2026 Contributor(s) and Singapore Academy of Law.
No part of this document may be reproduced without permission from the copyright holders.

(2024) 25 SAL Ann Rev

5

Criminal Law
III.
Offences under Penal Code
A.
Elements of offence of possessing intimate image under section 377BD(2) of Penal Code 1871 14.10
In the case of Public Prosecutor v DGH,25 the two accused persons were charged for various offences under the PC 2020. One of the accused,
DGI, was charged for, among other offences, one count of possession of intimate image under s 377BD(1)(b) of the PC 2020, which is punishable under s 377BD(2) of the PC 2020. The General Division noted that there was a lack of case law setting out the elements for that offence.26 It thus took the opportunity to state that the elements for the offence are, broadly speaking, as follows:27
(a)
the accused possesses or has gained access to an
“intimate image or recording”28 of the victim;
(b)
the “intimate image or recording” being an image or recording depicting the victim doing a private act, or depicting the victim’s genital or anal region, or, if the victim is a female, her breasts, whether these private parts be bare or covered by underwear; and
(c)
the accused knows or has reason to believe that the image or recording is such an “intimate image or recording”, that his possession of or access to the same was without the victim’s consent, and that such possession or access will or is likely to cause humiliation, alarm or distress to the victim.
14.11
This offence is subject to the defences set out in s 377BM of the same Act.
14.12
In this case, DGI had taken and possessed a photograph of the victim in the shower without the victim’s permission, while the victim was  lying unconscious and fully naked. Further, DGI’s act of later deleting the photograph and his explanation for doing so revealed that he knew that his possession of the photograph would be likely to cause humiliation to the victim. The defences in s 377BM also do not apply because there was no reason for DGI to have taken the photograph of 9f73983f2f73/dag-wei-shyong’s-sentencing-conference-2022-speech.pdf> (accessed 1 July 2026).
25
[2025] SGHC 140.
26
Public Prosecutor v DGH [2025] SGHC 140 at [258].
27
Public Prosecutor v DGH [2025] SGHC 140 at [263]–[264].
28
Public Prosecutor v DGH [2025] SGHC 140 at [263]. The term is defined in s 377BE(5)
of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed).
© 2026 Contributor(s) and Singapore Academy of Law.
No part of this document may be reproduced without permission from the copyright holders.

6
SAL Annual Review
(2024) 25 SAL Ann Rev the victim in the shower. Accordingly, the court found the elements of the offence under s 377BD(1)(b), read with s 377BD(2), made out against
DGI and convicted him of the charge.29
B.
Meaning of “enmity, hatred or ill‑will” and “knowingly promotes” under section 298A(a) of Penal Code 14.13
In Subhas Govin Prabhakar Nair  v Public Prosecutor,30 the accused was charged for four counts of knowingly attempting to promote feelings of ill‑will between racial and religious groups in
Singapore under s 298A(a) of the Penal Code31 (“PC 2008”). The first two charges involved the accused posting certain messages on a social media platform.  The third charge concerned the accused holding up a particular display during a stage play, while the fourth charge arose from the accused posting a video on a social media platform.32 For ease of reference, s 298A of the PC 2008 states as follows:
Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony 298A.
Whoever—
(a)
by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, knowingly promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion or race, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill‑will between different religious or racial groups; or
(b)
commits any act which he knows is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
14.14
The accused claimed trial to the charges and was convicted by the District Court and sentenced to a global sentence of six weeks’
imprisonment.33 Dissatisfied, the accused appealed his conviction and sentence. In the appeal, the General Division had to decide on the proper interpretation of the phrase “enmity, hatred or ill‑will” as well as the requirement of “knowingly promotes” under s 298A(a).
29
Public Prosecutor v DGH [2025] SGHC 140 at [265]–[268].
30
[2025] 3 SLR 295.
31
Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed.
32
Subhas Govin Prabhakar Nair v Public Prosecutor [2025] 3 SLR 295 at [4]–[18].
33
Subhas Govin Prabhakar Nair v Public Prosecutor [2025] 3 SLR 295 at [19]–[27].
© 2026 Contributor(s) and Singapore Academy of Law.
No part of this document may be reproduced without permission from the copyright holders.

(2024) 25 SAL Ann Rev