NUS law prof in CPIB probe over exchanging grades for sex

[AC_Power]

Just relax:

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.

U have misunderstood what I have said, it still goes back to intent.

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.

[phtthp]

Just relax:

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.

verdict for NBG - due on Valentine's day (14 Feb) :-
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

[Just relax]

AC_Power:

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.

U have misunderstood what I have said, it still goes back to intent.

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.

[concern2]

Sun_2010:

Imami:

[quote=\"Way2GO\"]

d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA.

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).

[/quote]So good to have people from various background in KSP! :boogie:

[phtthp]

Way2GO:

d appropriate section shd be Section 8, Chp 241 of PCA.

Section 8 of PCA is a presumption section which states :

\"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

[Just relax]

Yes section 8 shifts the burden of intent from prosecution to accused, and as I had mentioned in my earlier posts, it all boils down to what was the intent of Tey. The prosecution will poke holes into whatever Tey says happened and of course if Ko says they had a relationship then it is for prosecution to suggest that notwithstanding relationship Tey still intended to improve Ko’s grades or tht alternatively Ko intended Tey to improve Ko’s grades.


The other aspect is Tey saying he paid Ko back which is to avoid the "corruptly accepting" aspect of the section, but this cannot really work as he still had sex. So by saying he repaid Ko, he is suggesting that he had no corrupt intent all along, but was stupid to have accepted gifts including having sex and when realized it was foolish decided to pay her back.

[CayennePepper]

Only in KSP can a discussion on this case meander into a discussion on what the issue turns on.

Er, so does concurrence of act and intent need to be proved at all?

[winchester]

CayennePepper:

Only in KSP can a discussion on this case meander into a discussion on what the issue turns on.

Er, so does concurrence of act and intent need to be proved at all?

looks like for corruption, once got gratification, intent is moot.

the horny prof is screwed either way once he had sex with his student or students. i heard that some of his malaysian students and a malaysian nus colleague ong guan sin went down to court to support him as they thought the sex and abortion with that girl was all made up. sense of denial.

all the support would not change the fact that tey is a wolf.

[pirate]

CayennePepper:

Only in KSP can a discussion on this case meander into a discussion on what the issue turns on.

Er, so does concurrence of act and intent need to be proved at all?

First, depends on whether the prosecution can show that the good professor is \"a person in the employment of the Government or any department thereof or of a public body\". Is NUS a \"public body\"?

If no, there is no presumption and prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt there was a corrupt intent, ie the intent was to lead her to believe that he was going to muck about with her grades.

If yes, the professor must rebut the presumption of corruption by showing on a balance of probabilities there was no corrupt intention. Given the admitted relationship and practical impossibility of changing grades, meh... who knows? Just ask yourself, based on the evidence given, is it more likely that the acts on the couch and the gifts were because they were carrying on this ESM, or is more likely that it was because the good professor led her on to believe that he was going to muck about with her grades?
:?

[phtthp]

winchester:

the horny prof is screwed either way once he had sex with his student or students. i heard that some of his malaysian students and a malaysian nus colleague ong guan sin went down to court to support him as they thought the sex and abortion with that girl was all made up. sense of denial.

all the support would not change the fact that tey is a wolf.

as long as Tey committed that act on the red sofa with her, get many Malaysian students and friends support him in court - no use. Unless he is innocent, didn't do it.

then why would DK make up a story about s* and abortion ?
what advantage for her ?