Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

acceptedVersion

Publication Date

1-2007

Abstract

After a 62-day trial, which concluded on 29 December 2006, all four defendants in the CrimsonLogic case1 were acquitted. The accused were the CEO, Financial Controller, Vice-President of the Trade & Logistics Business Unit and Corporate Counsel of CrimsonLogic, an IT systems provider. They were charged, on one count, with engaging in a conspiracy to pay a bribe of $35,000 to Mathias Tan, an IT manager of the supermarket Carrefour, as an inducement for Tan to recommend the award of an IT contract to CrimsonLogic. In acquitting the defendants, the trial judge declared that there was a 'serious doubt' as to the guilt of the fourth accused (the corporate counsel) and 'reasonable doubt' as to the guilt of the other three defendants.2 This appeared to be an affirmation of the judge's view of the greater degree of innocence of the fourth accused as opposed to any application of double standards of proof for different accused persons in the same trial. Among the many interesting features3 of the CrimsonLogic case is what happened at the conclusion of the trial. The District Judge read out a 67-page 'oral judgment' to a packed courtroom for over two hours.4 The following day, the parties received from the court, by e-mail, a 69-page, 234-paragraph written document titled 'Oral Judgment'. It was dated 29 December 2006. The oral judgment contained a number of qualifications or caveats. For example, it was stated that not all the evidence adduced in court had been set out but would 'focus on the evidence of the key prosecution witnesses'.5 Only 'the main reasons'6 for his decision would be given in the judgment. The reasons for this become clear with the learned District Judge's declaration that he 'will elaborate on these reasons if it becomes necessary'.7Thus in the oral judgment, the trial judge was only dealing with the 'main reasons' for his decision. No doubt, if the prosecution were minded to appeal, he would further 'elaborate on these reasons'.8 Again at page 69, paragraph 232, of the judgment comes the notice that despite his finding that the ethical lapse on the part of a company employee did not amount to a conspiracy to pay a bribe, the learned judge 'will elaborate on [his] analysis on the law of corruption if the need arises', again obviously if there were an appeal.

Discipline

Law and Society

Research Areas

Public Interest Law, Community and Social Justice

Publication

Singapore Law Gazette

First Page

23

Last Page

23

ISSN

1019-942X

Publisher

LexisNexis Asia Pacific

Additional URL

http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2007-9/feature2.htm

Download

Share

COinS