NUS law prof in CPIB probe over exchanging grades for sex

[AC_Power]

phtthp:

janet_lee88:

[quote=\"imwithchild\"]so much drama... is he respecting the court? the things that he have been saying and doing makes him look really desperate

Claimed he was sobbing...begged the director of CPIB etc etc etc.
How could an educated person be so lacking in humanity and values?
Court adjourned yesterday...wonder what will he be up to today.
Thank goodness his wife didn't show up in court.

his wife in Japan
http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1550800/Law_prof_claims_abuse_by_CPIB_officer.html[/quote]Looks like his strategy is to drag this on by bringing everyone in CPIB onto the stand.

This will end up backfire badly on him if he cannot convince the judge that there is no corruption intent when he received the gifts and sexual gratification from DK. Good luck to him. A long sentence awaits.

[phtthp]

if he is convicted, will his sentence be longer than 6 weeks for those 48 men involved with that underaged 17 year old pros ?


http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1560018/Law_prof_refuses_to_grill_CPIB_officers.html

youtube (page 3, 4)
http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1560034/Tey_summoned_to_CPIB_repeatedly_to_get_a_more_detailed_picture_.html

[Harlequin]

AC_Power:

Looks like his strategy is to drag this on by bringing everyone in CPIB onto the stand.

This will end up backfire badly on him if he cannot convince the judge that there is no corruption intent when he received the gifts and sexual gratification from DK. Good luck to him. A long sentence awaits.

On the other hand, it's also not easy for the prosecutor to prove that he had the intent to give, or had given, favorable grade to DK in return for accepting the favors and her gifts. Especially after DK's damaging testimonies.

I think corruption defines not just by accepting the gifts and favors, but by returning the favor?

[ngl2010]

phtthp:

if he is convicted, will his sentence be longer than 6 weeks for those 48 men involved with that underaged 17 year old pros ?


http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1560018/Law_prof_refuses_to_grill_CPIB_officers.html

youtube (page 3, 4)
http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1560034/Tey_summoned_to_CPIB_repeatedly_to_get_a_more_detailed_picture_.html

That one is with underaged pros. DK was above 17 when it happened. Maybe should be compared with Gay/Cecilia's case?

[AC_Power]

phtthp:

if he is convicted, will his sentence be longer than 6 weeks for those 48 men involved with that underaged 17 year old pros ?


http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1560018/Law_prof_refuses_to_grill_CPIB_officers.html

youtube (page 3, 4)
http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1560034/Tey_summoned_to_CPIB_repeatedly_to_get_a_more_detailed_picture_.html

Cannot compare in this way. Tey is charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act while the underage prostitute case is an offence under the Women charter I think.

[AC_Power]

Harlequin:

AC_Power:

Looks like his strategy is to drag this on by bringing everyone in CPIB onto the stand.

This will end up backfire badly on him if he cannot convince the judge that there is no corruption intent when he received the gifts and sexual gratification from DK. Good luck to him. A long sentence awaits.

On the other hand, it's also not easy for the prosecutor to prove that he had the intent to give, or had given, favorable grade to DK in return for accepting the favors and her gifts. Especially after DK's damaging testimonies.

I think corruption defines not just by accepting the gifts and favors, but by returning the favor?

Prosecution only needs to prove 2 things:

1) He is in the position of power or influence to grant favour to the person offering the gratification;
2) He has received the gratification.

Whether he return the favour or not is not something that the prosecution needs to prove. It is in the presumption.

PCA is one hell of a powerful legislation. Don't play play.

It is also the only one that is cross jurisdiction if I am not wrong. Meaning, if the gratification is received overseas, you are still liable. Other offences don't have such extension. Say if you have stolen something overseas and return home, you cannot be charged for this offense you have committed overseas even if the authority over there reported this to our police.

Unless it is a serious case like murder and we have an extradition treaty signed with that country. Then you will be handed over to them to be trial in their court, not ours.

[phtthp]

AC_Power:

PCA is one hell of a powerful legislation. Don't play play.

PCA = Prevention of Corruption Act
http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=204

[pirate]

AC_Power:

Prosecution only needs to prove 2 things:


1) He is in the position of power or influence to grant favour to the person offering the gratification;
2) He has received the gratification.

Whether he return the favour or not is not something that the prosecution needs to prove. It is in the presumption.

PCA is one hell of a powerful legislation. Don't play play.

But must have some common sense and examine the underlying relationship. Otherwise, every time somebody in a position of power or influence has an extramarital affair, it is presumed corruption. Even every time a minister go to bed with his wife can be presumed corruption also. Then CPIB will be very busy conducting 12 hour interviews left, right and centre. :siao:

[AC_Power]

pirate:

AC_Power:

Prosecution only needs to prove 2 things:


1) He is in the position of power or influence to grant favour to the person offering the gratification;
2) He has received the gratification.

Whether he return the favour or not is not something that the prosecution needs to prove. It is in the presumption.

PCA is one hell of a powerful legislation. Don't play play.

But must have some common sense and examine the underlying relationship. Otherwise, every time somebody in a position of power or influence has an extramarital affair, it is presumed corruption. Even every time a minister go to bed with his wife can be presumed corruption also. Then CPIB will be very busy conducting 12 hour interviews left, right and centre. :siao:

Yes, they must be more prudent as they are enforcing a very powerful law.

That's why my stance towards these 2 cases, NBG and Tey are slightly different.

NBG's case has more element of an EMA as they were together years before they have any dealings with each other. The IT project was not even initiated by NGB. CS' company is not the main tender but a sub-con for the project.

Tey? He bedded or sofa'ed DK when his is still her Prof. He received expansive gifts from DK when she is still his student.

So bottom line is this, if you really cannot tahan must go for EMA, don't find someone who you can give favour to.

Btw, note the part in bold. That one can never be corruption as they are doing what a married couple should be doing. Unless you are referring to the wife talking dirty to him to get him into mood as a form of corruption.

[Rational_Parent]

Rational_Parent:

I think the most damaging part for him is those gifts he received without declaring to the Uni as required. He tried to show that he'd paid for the pen but was flatly denied by DK. So if the pen was a belated birthday present or a token of love for him, why would he tried to proof that he'd paid for it? While the sexual favours may be consensual, I feel he'll not be able to remove this tail from the donkey's back even without the blindfold on.


NBG case is more challenging for the prosecution to proof acts of corruption imho, and the defense attorney has been superb in the handling of the case so far.