lss_dt_reports_version: 25

This data as json

_id _item _version _commit title content pdf-link pdf-content timestamp url unique_id _item_full_hash
25 25 1 1049 In the Matter of Kang Bee Leng Advocate & Solicitor In the Matter of Kang Bee Leng Advocate & Solicitor The Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) had determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (the Act) that whilst no cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action under section 83 of the Act, the Respondent should be reprimanded and ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. The proceedings against the Respondent arose out of a complaint by the Attorney-General that the Respondent had breached Rule 70D of the Act. Prior to this complaint, the Respondent had been convicted of an offence under section 39 of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA) for failing to file a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) despite having reasonable grounds to believe that the $5.5 million paid by her client towards the purchase of a property represented proceeds that were linked to a Ponzi scheme operating in China. The evidence showed that the Respondent had been informed by the real estate agent that her client had been detained by the authorities in China for her involvement in a Ponzi scheme and thereafter the Respondent came across various news articles verifying that her client had indeed been involved the said Ponzi scheme. The Respondent became suspicious that the monies used by the client to pay for the said property purchase could have been derived from fraud. However, despite her suspicions, she did not file an STR as stipulated under section 39(1)(a) of the CDSA. On 17 April 2018, she was sentenced to a fine of $10,000 for an offence under section 39 of the CDSA. The Respondent was charged for failing to disclose to a STR Officer by way of a suspicious transaction report or to an authorised officer under the CDSA that the monies paid by her client towards the purchase of a property represented proceeds of an act that may have constituted criminal conduct despite having reasonable grounds to believe so and had thereby breached section 70D of the Act, such breach amounting to improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor under section 83(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. Additionally, an alternative charge was tendered against the Respondent citing section 83(2)(h) of the Act for misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession. Findings by the DT The Respondent pleaded guilty to the charge referencing section 83(2)(b)(ii) of the Act at the onset of the proceedings. The DT noted that the obligation for a solicitor to file an STR imposed by the CDSA is one of strict compliance and failure to do so not only constituted a criminal offence but also invited disciplinary proceedings to be taken out against her under section 70G of the Act. Having considered the Respondent’s mitigation submissions, the DT accepted that her failure to file the STR was more of a lapse in judgement rather than a deliberate refusal to do so and noted that there was no dishonesty involved. Further, other than acting as the conveyancing lawyer in the aborted purchase of the property, the Respondent was not in any way involved in the criminal conduct relating to the receipt of four payments towards the purchase of the said property. Given the said circumstances, the DT determined pursuant to section 93(1)(b) of the Act that no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action existed under section 83 of the Act against the Respondent but she should be reprimanded and ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. The DT further determined that costs for the proceedings be fixed at $2,000. The Council’s Decision Pursuant to section 94(3)(a) of the Act, the Council of the Society agreed with the findings of the DT and ordered the Respondent to pay a penalty of $1,000.     2020-06-06T06:00:04+00:00 https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/ In the Matter of Kang Bee Leng Advocate & Solicitor_https://lawgazette.com.sg/notices/disciplinary-tribunal-reports/dtr-jun-2020/ 555f64b9cf717d8c8ce2953ad243079d46aa5a27

Links from other tables