lss_dt_reports: 31

Data source: lawgazette.com.sg

This data as json

_id _item_id title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _commit
31 10ff6cd26c6f7bd0d07231439b544bf2548756ae In the Matter of Ong Cheong Wei, Advocate and Solicitor In the Matter of Ong Cheong Wei, Advocate and Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) determined pursuant section 93(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) that cause of sufficient gravity exists under section 83(2)(a) for disciplinary action. The Respondent was prosecuted on four charges for willfully making false entries in his income tax returns for the Years of Assessment 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2009. He pleaded guilty to two charges and the remaining two charges were taken into account and sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment and ordered to pay penalty of $118,341.78, being three times the amount of tax evaded. Council then referred his conduct to the Chairman, Inquiry Panel. The Inquiry Committee recommended that there should be a formal investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal and Council applied to the Chief Justice pursuant section 89 of the Act to convene a DT. The Respondent was charged that making false entries in his Income Tax returns for Years of Assessment 2007 and 2008, with intent to evade tax in breach section 96(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act (Cap. 134) implied a defect of character making him unfit for the profession within the meaning of section 83(2)(a) of the Legal Profession Act. The Respondent admitted to the charge. Findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal The DT noted from Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee [2003] SGHC 197 and Law Society of Singapore vs Tham Yu Xian Rick [1999] SGHC 213 that not every criminal conviction implies a defect of character rendering the advocate and solicitor unfit for the profession. The DT noted that there was no known case in Singapore where an advocate and solicitor had been convicted under the same offence as the Respondent and where disciplinary action was taken against the errant solicitor. The closest reported case was Law Society of Singapore vs Lim Chor Pee [1988] SGDSC 1 where the respondent in the matter was convicted for making an incorrect return without reasonable excuse which offence did not involve dishonesty. The respondent in that case was not found guilty of misconduct by the Court of Three Judges. The DT took the view that a tax evasion offence is a serious offence which implies a defect of character rendering the Respondent unfit for the profession and that it is an act of dishonesty. Referring to [107] in Chng Ghim Huat v PP [2000] SGHC, the DT shared the same view with the presiding Judge in the matter that a conviction for any other reason is equally a fraud on the State and an act of dishonesty. Taking the cue from several authorities from Australia and New Zealand, the DT noted that the respondents in these cases were said to be dishonest and unfit for the profession. In examining the Respondent’s mitigation plea, DT took the view that an acrimonious divorce does not quite explain the filing of false tax returns and in fact the Respondent had admitted to filing false returns since 2002 which was well before the start of his divorce proceedings in 2008. Even if he was coerced by his ex-wife to file the false returns as stated in his mitigation plea, such conduct is inexcusable as he either condoned the dishonesty initiated by the wife or worse still, continued with it. The DT determined pursuant to section 93(1)(c) of the Act that cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action exists under section 83 of the Act and made no order as to costs. The Council’s Decision Council adopted the findings and recommendations of the DT and accordingly proceeded to apply for leave under section 98 of the Act for the Respondent to show cause as to why he should not suffer the sanctions set out in section 83 of the Act. The Court of Three Judges The Court of Three Judges ordered that the Respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors on 9 November 2017.     2019-12-07T01:00:02+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/ In the Matter of Ong Cheong Wei, Advocate and Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/disciplinary-tribunal-reports-dec-2019/ 1049

Links from other tables