For a full explanation of criminal breach of trust offences in Singapore and the elements required to prove them, see our pages on criminal breach of trust offences and their punishment and the elements and defences.

How do the courts decide the sentence?

Criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) is punishable under sections 406 to 409 of the Penal Code 1871 (“PC”). The courts sentence by reference to the maximum punishment for the provision charged and to the sentences imposed in earlier cases, adjusted for the features of the case.

Comparable precedents and the Lam Leng Hung principles

The leading decision is Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals [2017] 4 SLR 474 (“Lam Leng Hung”). It concerned CBT charges under section 406 of the PC against the leaders of City Harvest Church (reduced from section 409), and the court described the case as without direct precedent.

It does not set a prescribed framework or a matrix of sentencing ranges, and its outcome reflects exceptional facts. Its statements of principle have, however, been applied in later cases under sections 406 and 408 of the PC:

  • the amount misappropriated is the starting consideration, adjusted for the other factors in the case; and
  • where general deterrence (i.e., discouraging others from committing similar crimes) is the dominant consideration, it does not always require a sentence at the top of the range.

In practice, courts derive a starting point from comparable precedents, calibrated mainly to the amount, and then adjust it for the features of the case.

Factors that increase the sentence

The factors given weight in the decided cases include the following:

  • The amount and the loss. The amount misappropriated, and whether the victim’s loss was repaid or made good, are the most important considerations (on repayment, see our page on what can reduce a sentence for criminal breach of trust).

  • The manner of offending. The following have all been treated as aggravating (i.e., making the offence more serious):

    • planning and premeditation;

    • the length of time over which the offending took place;

    • the creation of false documents, or other steps to cover it up;

    • the layering of the proceeds through other accounts; and

    • drawing family members into the offending.

  • The offender’s position and gain. The abuse of a position of corporate trust is aggravating, and in a 2026 case (Public Prosecutor v Ong Siew Kwee and others [2026] SGDC 299) the offender’s high position of trust was specifically relied on. Applying the whole of the money to personal use is aggravating. Conversely, the absence of any personal gain, and a motive other than greed, may reduce the sentence (see our page on what can reduce a sentence for criminal breach of trust).

  • The victim. The profile of the victim matters. In a 2026 decision (Public Prosecutor v Loy Wei Ezekiel and another [2026] SGDC 186, described in the table below), the vulnerability of the victim, an elderly and cognitively impaired company owner, was treated as aggravating.

Factors personal to the offender

Factors personal to the offender fall on both sides:

How the principles were applied in Lam Leng Hung itself

In Lam Leng Hung, the leaders of City Harvest Church were convicted of using some $24 million of the church’s building fund, through sham bond investments, for the church’s “Crossover” music project. They were also convicted in respect of further sums in “round-tripping” transactions to redeem those bonds, and of falsifying accounts. Once the CBT charges were reduced from section 409 to section 406 of the PC, the court approached sentence afresh.

The sums were large, which would ordinarily place the sentences at the upper end. But the court found exceptional mitigating factors (i.e., factors that reduce the sentence):

  • the leaders made no personal gain;
  • they genuinely (if misguidedly) believed that the transactions served the church; and
  • for most of the charges, they did not intend any permanent loss, since the funds were to be repaid with interest.

The deceit and concealment involved remained aggravating. General deterrence was the dominant consideration. But the court held that a substantial custodial sentence was enough to deter others who might act from altruistic motives through unlawful means.

The total sentences were:

  • three years and six months’ imprisonment for the senior pastor (including 28 months on the charge involving $11 million);
  • three years and four months, and three years and two months, for two other leaders;
  • two years and six months for the administrator of the music project;
  • one year and six months for a leader whose involvement was limited; and
  • seven months for an employee who carried out the decision-makers’ instructions.

How have the courts applied this approach since?

The table below summarises how the courts have applied this approach in some of the decided cases, and the provision under which each offender was charged.

Type of caseWhat happenedThe takeaway
An employee keeping sale proceeds meant for staff welfare
CBT by an employee (s 408)		In a 2020 decision (Chong Kum Heng v Public Prosecutor [2020] 4 SLR 1056), a project manager was convicted after trial of three charges under section 408 of the PC for misappropriating $111,000, $54,000 and $49,000 from the sale of his employer’s surplus cable, and of six money laundering charges for using the money. He had made no restitution.
The District Judge started from an earlier case (Public Prosecutor v Wan Kam Lan, an unreported 2018 District Court decision), in which an employee who had falsified records and issued company cheques to herself received 14 months for $125,796 after pleading guilty and making partial restitution, and increased that sentence by 50%, to 21 months. The High Court accepted that some increase was justified, but held that 50% was disproportionate because the earlier case was more serious in its use of falsified records and cheques. It reduced the CBT sentences to 18, 10 and 10 months, and the total sentence from 39 to 32 months.		An earlier case is a guide, not a formula. The court compares the facts of the two cases, here the absence of a plea and of restitution against the more serious use of false records, rather than simply scaling up the earlier sentence.
A young director and a vulnerable victim
CBT by any person (s 406)		In a 2026 decision (Public Prosecutor v Loy Wei Ezekiel and another [2026] SGDC 186), a District Court sentenced a 22-year-old full-time national serviceman who, as a director, had taken $1,268,500 in 2016 from a company. The company was owned by an elderly and cognitively impaired man. Because the conduct took place in 2016 (before section 409 of the PC was extended to directors), the director could be charged only under section 406, which carries a maximum of seven years’ imprisonment. He was convicted after trial and showed no remorse.
The court derived a starting point of five years from earlier cases, calibrated to the amount, and imposed 66 months on the CBT charge. It treated the following as aggravating: the victim’s vulnerability; the planning; the abuse of corporate trust; an elaborate cover-up; the use of all the money for himself; and the involvement of a family member.
His youth carried limited weight because he had conceived and carried out a complex scheme over months. His clean record carried little weight given that he faced 35 charges. With 34 money laundering charges, the total was 100 months.		The victim’s vulnerability can significantly increase the sentence. Personal mitigation factors such as youth and a clean record carry less weight where the offending was premeditated and sustained.
Large-scale misappropriation by a senior executive
CBT by an employee (s 408)		In another 2026 decision (Public Prosecutor v Ong Siew Kwee and others [2026] SGDC 299), the head of a group of companies was a signatory to the bank account of a related company. He caused $15.8 million to be transferred out of it and supported the transfers with a forged lease and backdated documents. He was convicted under section 408 of the PC after trial. Full restitution had been made, but only under a civil judgment (i.e., repayment was made only after the victim sued him and obtained judgment).
The court approached the sentence as follows:
• it treated the amount, his high position of trust and the false paper trail as aggravating;
• it held that restitution under a judgment did not show remorse, but still had to be given weight, because no loss was ultimately suffered;
• from earlier cases in which six to 10 years had been imposed on single charges involving about $5.4 million to $8.8 million, it set a starting point of 10 to 11 years;
• it adjusted that starting point downwards because there was a single charge, the conduct was not a lengthy series of acts, and restitution had been made; and
• it declined to impose the District Court’s limit of 10 years, which it reserved for the worst cases.
The court imposed nine years’ imprisonment on the CBT charge. With a consecutive sentence for giving false evidence, the total was 10 years and six months. Appeals have been filed.		Repayment made late, or only under compulsion, does not show remorse. Nevertheless, it is still given weight, because the victim’s loss has been made good, and here it was one of the reasons the sentence came down from the 10 to 11 year starting point.
A long-running scheme by an employee involving very large sums
CBT by an employee (s 408)		The heaviest sentences have been imposed for sustained schemes involving very large sums and no restitution. In a 2022 decision (Public Prosecutor v Juandi bin Pungot [2022] 5 SLR 257), the High Court imposed 10 years’ imprisonment on a charge involving $8.83 million. The charge was part of an employee’s scheme that ran for 11 years and involved $93.8 million in total, and the sentence for the CBT charges as a whole was 25 years.The duration of the scheme and the total amount, with nothing repaid, can bring the sentence on each charge towards the upper end of the range, and the total sentence to many years.
A lawyer misusing clients’ money
CBT by an attorney (s 409, before 2020)		In a 2012 decision (Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew and another appeal [2013] 1 SLR 1095), a lawyer was convicted after trial of two charges of CBT in the way of his business as an attorney, under the predecessor to section 409 of the PC, for misappropriating $1.5 million and about $1.94 million that he held for his clients, and of two charges of cheating. He had left Singapore and was untraced for about six years before he was extradited. On the Prosecution’s appeal, the High Court increased the sentence on each CBT charge to six years, running consecutively, making a total of 12 years.Where a lawyer abuses the trust placed in him by his clients, the court will impose a strong deterrent sentence.

Can the sentence be a fine?

Under sections 407, 408 and 409 of the PC, imprisonment is mandatory. A fine may be added to the term of imprisonment, but cannot replace it. Under section 406, a fine alone is available.

Whether a fine alone is appropriate under section 406 of the PC depends on the facts of each case. The courts have recognised that it may be appropriate in some cases, for example:

  • Small sums, where the offender was not intended to benefit. In a 2019 decision (Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor [2019] 4 SLR 838) concerning a related form of dishonesty (knowingly giving an agent false receipts intended to mislead the agent’s principal, an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960), the High Court observed that charges involving small sums would individually have merited only fines, where the offender was not intended to benefit. The custodial threshold (the point at which imprisonment, rather than a fine, becomes appropriate) was crossed only because of the premeditated and sustained nature of the conduct as a whole. The court reduced the sentence from 13 weeks to five weeks.

The amount involved, whether restitution was made, whether the offender gained personally and the offender’s record will all bear on whether a fine alone may be appropriate. This is often a central question in submissions on sentence.