OTHER LAWYERS’ VIEWS
CNA contacted some attorneys concerning the situation, with just a few declining remark.
Mr Navindraram Naidu, associate at Dentons Rodyk & Davidson and former deputy director of corruption and monetary crimes at AGC, mentioned there’s “generally no obligation on the part of law enforcement and the prosecution to explain how prosecutorial discretion was exercised”.
“However, a more detailed explanation by the authorities regarding any evidential difficulties they have alluded to, could assist in giving the public a better appreciation of the basis behind this decision,” he mentioned.
“The long and wide reach of the Prevention of Corruption Act covers corrupt acts done by Singapore citizens overseas,” mentioned Mr Naidu. “In such cases, it may be necessary to secure evidence that is located overseas.”
He mentioned that whereas such proof could also be obtained by way of the Mutual Help in Legal Issues Act 2000, there could also be sensible difficulties in doing so for specific instances.
Even when the related proof might be obtained, its admissibility in court docket proceedings in Singapore continues to be one other hurdle that must be cleared, mentioned Mr Naidu.
Nevertheless, he mentioned that such challenges in acquiring proof might not essentially be insurmountable.
In earlier corruption instances, the prosecution has relied on statements of witnesses who’re abroad, topic to the suitable safeguards, he mentioned.
Mr Marshall Lim, associate at Martin & Companions and former deputy public prosecutor and deputy senior state counsel, mentioned the choice to prosecute or not is a multi-faceted one that may be damaged down into two important steps:
First, an evaluation of whether or not there’s enough proof that discloses an offence, and second, whether or not it’s within the public curiosity to prosecute.
Amongst many components that the prosecution naturally considers is nationwide coverage, mentioned Mr Lim.
“In the context of the Keppel Offshore Marine case, the facts are particularly hurtful because it challenges our commitment to zero corruption. All things being equal, it might even be suggested that court prosecution ought to be default when corruption is found,” mentioned Mr Lim.
Nevertheless, he mentioned that whereas it would seem logical to prosecute anybody accused of corruption to fulfil this essential nationwide coverage, this “cannot be an unyielding position that automatically subordinates or diminishes other factors that the prosecution must also consider in determining whether the public interest is served by court prosecution”.
“There is no doubt that our policy of zero corruption must extend to the human actors involved in cases of corporate corruption,” mentioned Mr Lim.
“However, we must take care to avoid prematurely suggesting that a decision not to prosecute in one case threatens our commitment to law and order or reflects an erosion of our ethos.”
He mentioned that to take action is “to do injustice to the high constitutional office held by the Public Prosecutor, and the difficult task that he and his officers undertake daily to uphold the rule of law”.
Lawyer Ramesh Tiwary mentioned that folks will speculate, as a result of the explanations and standards utilized by the AGC are “unknown or even obscure”.
He mentioned there’s a lack of readability on when and why conditional warnings are given in any specific case.
Nevertheless, he mentioned there’s additionally equally an issue with requiring full disclosure from the AGC, as some people could be legally protected or privileged.
“The AGC may have information which they may not want to divulge, to protect a source, or that information may be legally privileged and thus cannot be made public,” he mentioned.
CNA has contacted CPIB and AGC for feedback.
ASSERTIONS BASED ON “INADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF FACTS”: INDRANEE
Ms Indranee mentioned in her Fb publish on Thursday that she was conscious that “some people have made assertions about the stern warnings” issued to the Keppel O&M workers in lieu of prosecution.
“These assertions are being made based on an inadequate understanding of the facts and of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement between (Keppel O&M) and the United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office,” she mentioned.
She mentioned she would clarify the details in Parliament on Feb 6.
“As a country and as a Government, we do not condone or tolerate corruption,” she mentioned.
“This has always been our position, and continues to be so. If there were grounds and sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges, they would have been brought. At the same time, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated based on sentiment. The rule of law applies both ways.”
#asiannews #asian_news
