NUS law prof in CPIB probe over exchanging grades for sex
-
janet_lee88:
LOLHe claimed he sobbed, he begged and was scolded vulgarities at CPIB. Yet faced with the 4 officers, he was as timid as a mouse. Where was his pride?
Maybe he needs to recuperate at IMH for all the panic attacks and hyperventilating episodes in court. -
Just relax:
U have misunderstood what I have said, it still goes back to intent.AC_Power:
[quote=\"Just relax\"]The difficulty for prosecution is to show that gifts=better grades, otherwise accepting gifts just shows poor judgment by Tey. Even the affair is poor judgment by Tey, unless affair=better grades. Accepting gifts or affair with students is a disciplinary issue and employee (Tey) can be punished including suspension or dismissal depending on severity. When does accepting gifts or affair become a crime? when it is an attempt to corrupt. Then for it to be corrupt somebody must have made the 1st move that had the corrupt intent, was it Tey or Ko? Or neither in which case no crime.
This is a common misconception. Please read my post couple of pages back.
For a corruption case to stand, the prosecution only needs to prove 2 things:
1) The person receiving the gratification is in the position of power or influence over the person offering the gratification;
2) The person has indeed received the gratification.
In this case, Tey clearly can influence DK's grades and Tey clearly had received the gratification. Prosecution has proven their case. Now it is left to Tey to prove that what he has no corrupted intent when receiving the gifts and having sex with her.
Today the Prosecution asked the question in submission what was Ng Boon Gay's intent when receiving oral sex and that is what I had highlighted in my post. Referring to the statute is not enough as the Court's in the past have always asked the question what was the intent of the receiver (Tey).
If the intent was to merely have fun then there is no corruption, if the intent was to help her grades then it is corruption. In a criminal case you have to show a criminal intent in addition to doing the act.[/quote]While its generally taken dat intent must be proven by prosecution in criminal cases, it does not apply to corruption cases under PCA.
AC Power is correct.
d onus is on d accused to prove dat there is no corrupt intent. -
phtthp:
d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA.
u are right.AC_Power:
For a corruption case to stand, the prosecution only needs to prove 2 things:
1) The person receiving the gratification is in the position of power or influence over the person offering the gratification;
2) The person has indeed received the gratification.
In this case, Tey clearly can influence DK's grades and Tey clearly had received the gratification. Prosecution has proven their case. Now it is left to Tey to prove that what he has no corrupted intent when receiving the gifts and having sex with her.
because under PCA, that is how they define \"coruption\" below :-
\"Under Section 6 of the PCA, a corruption offence is committed :-
a.\tan agent corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business;
b.\tany person corruptly gives or agrees to give or offers any gratification to any agent as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do any act in relation to his principal's affairs or business, or for showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to any person in relation to his principal's affairs or business; or
c. ...
Anyone found guilty of an offence under Section 5 or 6 of the PCA shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000/- or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.\"
info source :-
http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=204 -
Way2GO:
Way 哥 knows law de.... Don't play play (although he insists that the only laws he knows is his wife's parents, ie his in laws).
d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA. -
Imami:
Way 哥 knows law de.... Don't play play (although he insists that the only laws he knows is his wife's parents, ie his in laws).Way2GO:
d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA.
-
Just relax:
U have misunderstood what I have said, it still goes back to intent.AC_Power:
[quote=\"Just relax\"]The difficulty for prosecution is to show that gifts=better grades, otherwise accepting gifts just shows poor judgment by Tey. Even the affair is poor judgment by Tey, unless affair=better grades. Accepting gifts or affair with students is a disciplinary issue and employee (Tey) can be punished including suspension or dismissal depending on severity. When does accepting gifts or affair become a crime? when it is an attempt to corrupt. Then for it to be corrupt somebody must have made the 1st move that had the corrupt intent, was it Tey or Ko? Or neither in which case no crime.
This is a common misconception. Please read my post couple of pages back.
For a corruption case to stand, the prosecution only needs to prove 2 things:
1) The person receiving the gratification is in the position of power or influence over the person offering the gratification;
2) The person has indeed received the gratification.
In this case, Tey clearly can influence DK's grades and Tey clearly had received the gratification. Prosecution has proven their case. Now it is left to Tey to prove that what he has no corrupted intent when receiving the gifts and having sex with her.
Today the Prosecution asked the question in submission what was Ng Boon Gay's intent when receiving oral sex and that is what I had highlighted in my post. Referring to the statute is not enough as the Court's in the past have always asked the question what was the intent of the receiver (Tey).
If the intent was to merely have fun then there is no corruption, if the intent was to help her grades then it is corruption. In a criminal case you have to show a criminal intent in addition to doing the act.[/quote]I get what you mean. Just to highlight to you that prosecution does not need to prove intent to have him convicted. That's why prosecution can question NBG's intent in his submission. In other cases if prosecution ask the same question, the judge would have the case thrown out straight away.
-
Just relax:
verdict for NBG - due on Valentine's day (14 Feb) :-
Today the Prosecution asked the question in submission what was Ng Boon Gay's intent when receiving oral sex and that is what I had highlighted in my post. Referring to the statute is not enough as the Court's in the past have always asked the question what was the intent of the receiver (Tey).
If the intent was to merely have fun then there is no corruption, if the intent was to help her grades then it is corruption. In a criminal case you have to show a criminal intent in addition to doing the act.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/verdict-for-ex-cnb-director-ng-boon-gay-due-14-feb-114858417.html
an auspicious day to hear the verdict -
AC_Power:
U have misunderstood what I have said, it still goes back to intent.This is a common misconception. Please read my post couple of pages back.
For a corruption case to stand, the prosecution only needs to prove 2 things:
1) The person receiving the gratification is in the position of power or influence over the person offering the gratification;
2) The person has indeed received the gratification.
In this case, Tey clearly can influence DK's grades and Tey clearly had received the gratification. Prosecution has proven their case. Now it is left to Tey to prove that what he has no corrupted intent when receiving the gifts and having sex with her.
Today the Prosecution asked the question in submission what was Ng Boon Gay's intent when receiving oral sex and that is what I had highlighted in my post. Referring to the statute is not enough as the Court's in the past have always asked the question what was the intent of the receiver (Tey).
If the intent was to merely have fun then there is no corruption, if the intent was to help her grades then it is corruption. In a criminal case you have to show a criminal intent in addition to doing the act.[/quote]
I get what you mean. Just to highlight to you that prosecution does not need to prove intent to have him convicted. That's why prosecution can question NBG's intent in his submission. In other cases if prosecution ask the same question, the judge would have the case thrown out straight away. :)[/quote]
You have to be more precise in the 2 elements that you have mentioned.
What the prosecution has to show is the following:
1. That by an objective standard Tey, Ng Boon Gay and the SCDF chief had corruptly received gifts; and
2. That the recipient had a corrupt intent.
For the 1st element, the objective part of corruptly receiving the prosecution must prove and this is easy enough since all 3 men had affairs in the course of work which objectively would be considered corruptly receiving.
For the 2nd element in the case of Ng Boon Gay and SCDF chief there is a presumption of a corrupt intent when a public servant receives a gift in the course of his work. Ng Boon Gay and SCDF chief have the burden of rebutting this presumption.
That is why the Ng Boon Gay Defence has emphasized the relationship of Ng with Cecilia to show that Ng did not have a corrupt intent and that it was simply an affair. It will be the same Defence for the SCDF chief. Otherwise they should not be convicted for simply being unfaithful husbands. -
Sun_2010:
Way 哥 knows law de.... Don't play play (although he insists that the only laws he knows is his wife's parents, ie his in laws).Imami:
[quote=\"Way2GO\"]
d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA.[/quote]So good to have people from various background in KSP! :boogie:
-
Way2GO:
Section 8 of PCA is a presumption section which states :
d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA.
\"Where in any proceedings against a person under section 5 or 6, it is proved that any gratification has been paid or given to or received by a person in the employment of the Government or any department thereof or of a public body by or from a person or agent of a person who has or seeks to have any dealings with Government or any department thereof or any public body, that gratification shall be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as an inducement or reward as hereinbefore mentioned unless the contrary is proved.\". This effectively shifts the burden to the corrupt offender, who has to prove to the Court that the gratification involved is not given or received corruptly.\"
info source
http://app.cpib.gov.sg/cpib_new/user/default.aspx?pgID=202
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login