Chan Sek Keong J

The appellant was as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He commenced practice as a sole proprietor under the name of Philip Wong & Co on 1 May 1969. His practice was mainly in the area of conveyancing. On 20 March 1989, he was struck off the rolls of advocates and solicitors by the Supreme Court on a disciplinary charge which was unrelated to the offences in respect of which the present appeal against sentence has been brought.

On 21 March 1989, the Council of the Law Society of Singapore passed a resolution vesting in the Law Society all moneys held in the clients' account in the name of the appellant's firm and took control of it on 22 March 1989. The bank statement as at 31 March 1989 showed that the firm had a credit balance of $5,903.60 in the clients' account.

On 11 April 1989, the appellant surrendered himself to the Commercial Affairs Department and he was formally arrested on the following day. On 14 April 1989, he was adjudged a bankrupt by the High Court.

On 24 April 1989, the appellant was charged with six charges of criminal breach of trust in his capacity as an agent of clients' moneys held in the clients' account of the firm. In the event, the prosecution proceeded with only two charges, to which the appellant pleaded guilty, on the agreement that the remaining four charges were to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence. The material facts of the six charges may be tabulated thus: Case no Amount involved No of clients Period DAC 4241$143,220.15 7 10.1.89 - 9.3.89 DAC 4242$683,039.40 9 25.1.88 - 31.12.88 DAC 4243$650,419.50 1 13.5.88 - 28.12.88 DAC 4244$163,961.29 6 20.4.87 - 29.12.87 DAC 4245$128,879.21 3 14.3.86 - 15.11.86 DAC 4246$ 71,712.81 4 1.1.85 - 15.6.85 Total$1,841,232.20 30

The statement to facts which the appellant accepted for the purpose of pleading guilty to the two charges under DAC 4241 and DAC 4242 also disclosed that the bulk of the money misappropriated from the clients' account consisted of moneys paid by clients for completion of property transactions, payment of stamp fees and also one large sum held as stakeholder. There is no disclosure on what the appellant had done with the moneys dishonestly misappropriated by him over the years.

The appellant was represented by counsel in the plea of guilty. Counsel put forward the following factors in mitigation:

(1) he surrendered himself and co-operated with the police, resulting in the expedited completion of investigation;

(2) he pleaded guilty and therefore demonstrated his remorse;

(3) he was a bankrupt and struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors;

(4) he was a man of good character and contributed to community service in the following respects:

(a) as a member of the Dunearn Secondary School Advisory Board from 1969-1989;

(b) as a tutor in the Postgraduate Law Course from 1980-1988;

(c) as the President of the Singapore Ten Pin Bowling Congress from 1985-1989/March, during which he helped to raise $430,000;

(d) as a blood donor for 18 times from 1980-1989.

The senior district judge sentenced the appellant to serve, consecutively, a term of three years' imprisonment on each of the two charges. In his grounds of decision, the judge reminded himself that the maximum sentence he could impose for the two offences was seven years' imprisonment for each offence, so that the three years he actually imposed was a little short of one-half of the maximum sentence within his own jurisdiction. He accepted all the mitigation factors I have mentioned above save that the appellant's record of community service was not expressly adverted to in his grounds of decision.

The judge was of the view that in spite of what he regarded as strong mitigation factors, he could not overlook the following facts:

(i) the appellant misappropriated moneys he was holding as an advocate and solicitor, a position of trust in society;

(ii) the regularity of the misappropriations over the period from 1985 to 1989;

(