For a full explanation of sentencing in criminal breach of trust offences, see our page on how the courts decide the sentence.

What can reduce the sentence?

The following have been given weight in decided cases:

  • Restitution. Repaying the money is, in practice, the most significant mitigating factor in criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) cases:

    • It reduces the economic harm suffered by the victim and, if timely and voluntary, is evidence of remorse, as the High Court explained in a 2019 decision (Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor [2019] 4 SLR 838).

    • Restitution made late still reduces the harm (although the extent of the reduction in sentence may be smaller). In a 2026 District Court case (Public Prosecutor v Daichi Khamkrasin [2026] SGDC 318), the offender misappropriated US$50,000 entrusted to him for an investment in a luxury watch. The Prosecution initially asked for seven and a half months’ imprisonment on the CBT charge. After the offender repaid the money, it asked for five months, and five months was imposed. The repayment, of $65,000 in full and final settlement, was made only after several adjournments of the sentencing hearing, but the court still treated it as a major mitigating factor. The offender has appealed against the sentence, and the appeal was pending as at the date of this article.

    • Restitution made only under a civil judgment (i.e., repayment made only after the victim sued the accused and obtained judgment) is given weight because no loss remains, but not as evidence of remorse (Public Prosecutor v Ong Siew Kwee and others [2026] SGDC 299).

    • Conversely, the absence of any restitution was one of the reasons for a higher sentence in a 2020 High Court decision (Chong Kum Heng v Public Prosecutor [2020] 4 SLR 1056).

  • No personal gain, and a motive other than greed. In the City Harvest case, Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals [2017] 4 SLR 474 (“Lam Leng Hung”), the absence of personal gain and the leaders’ genuine belief that they were acting in the church’s interests were treated as exceptional mitigating factors. In an earlier District Court case (Public Prosecutor v Luciana Lim Ying Ying [2015] SGDC 257), the most significant mitigating factor was that the offender derived no financial benefit. She was motivated not by greed but by debts she had guaranteed to unlicensed moneylenders.

  • No intention to cause permanent loss. In Lam Leng Hung, the funds were to be repaid with interest, and for most of the charges no permanent loss was intended.

  • A limited role. In Lam Leng Hung, the leader whose involvement was limited, and the employee who carried out the decision-makers’ instructions, received much shorter sentences than the decision-makers themselves.

  • A single act rather than a series. In the 2026 case involving $15.8 million (Ong Siew Kwee), the starting point was adjusted downwards because there was a single charge and the conduct was not a lengthy series of acts.

  • Youth and previous good character. These are recognised mitigating factors. But in a 2026 case involving a 22-year-old director (Public Prosecutor v Loy Wei Ezekiel and another [2026] SGDC 186), they carried limited weight because the scheme was complex and sustained.

  • A plea of guilty (see below).

The sentencing outcome depends heavily on identifying the mitigating factors that are relevant and carry real weight on the particular facts, supporting them with evidence, and presenting them at the right stage of the sentencing process.

How does a plea of guilty affect the sentence?

A plea of guilty can have a significant effect on the sentence, and its timing matters. The Sentencing Advisory Panel has issued Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas, which suggest that an earlier plea may attract a larger reduction. The guidelines are guidance only: they are not binding on the courts, and whether a reduction is given, and how much, is for the sentencing court to decide in the circumstances of each case.

In the 2026 watch investment case (Public Prosecutor v Daichi Khamkrasin [2026] SGDC 318), a plea of guilty to the CBT charge, entered at an earlier stage under the guidelines, reduced a sentence of six months to five, while the pleas of guilty to the other charges, entered at a late stage, attracted a reduction of 5%. In Chong Kum Heng, the absence of a plea was one of the reasons why the sentence was higher than in the earlier case used for comparison.

A plea of guilty admits the offence and gives up any defence. It is therefore very important that the decision whether, and when, to plead guilty is made only after the evidence, the available defences and the mitigating factors have been properly assessed.

How are sentences combined when there are multiple charges?

CBT charges are often brought together with other charges. These are distinct offences. In Chong Kum Heng, it was held not to be double punishment to charge both the CBT and the later use of the money, which was charged as money laundering under what was then section 47(1)(c) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (now section 54(1) – see our page on money laundering offences). The CBT charges (for depositing the money into his own bank accounts) and the money laundering charges (for using the money) did not overlap, because they were different acts.

Each charge receives its own sentence, and the court then decides which sentences run consecutively (one after another) and which run concurrently (at the same time).

Where an offender is convicted at one trial and sentenced to imprisonment for three or more distinct offences, at least two of the sentences must run consecutively (section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010). For example, in the 2026 case of the 22-year-old director (Loy Wei Ezekiel), a 66-month CBT sentence led to a total of 100 months together with the money laundering charges. In Ong Siew Kwee, a nine-year CBT sentence led to a total of 10 years and six months with a consecutive sentence for giving false evidence.

The overriding principle is proportionality: the total sentence must fit the offender’s overall criminality. The High Court has explained the main tools in Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 SLR 998:

  • The one-transaction rule. This is a common law principle, developed by the courts rather than set out in legislation: offences that form part of a single transaction should generally not attract consecutive sentences. Whether offences form part of a single transaction is decided as a matter of common sense, having regard to factors such as how close the offences were in time, place and purpose, and whether they invaded the same legally protected interest.
  • The totality principle. The court takes a “last look” at the total. It asks whether the total is substantially above the normal level of sentence for the most serious offence, and whether it would be crushing and out of keeping with the offender’s record and prospects. If so, the court may change which sentences run consecutively, or adjust individual sentences.
  • No double counting. The same aggravating factor must not be counted against the offender twice.

Parity and consistency with past cases

Proportionality is also measured against the sentences imposed on others:

  • Parity between co-offenders. Where several people took part in the same criminal enterprise, their sentences should generally be in line with each other, allowing for relevant differences in their roles and personal circumstances. The High Court has held (Lim Bee Ngan Karen v Public Prosecutor [2015] 4 SLR 1120) that this applies even where co-offenders are charged with different offences. In Lam Leng Hung, the six leaders received total sentences ranging from three years and six months to seven months, differentiated according to their roles.
  • Consistency with past cases. Courts compare the case with sentences imposed in similar cases, as Chong Kum Heng shows. Comparisons must, however, be with the offence actually charged and the law that applied. In a 2026 decision (Public Prosecutor v Chai Song Lin [2026] SGDC 4), a District Court declined to use sentences for CBT by employees under section 408 of the Penal Code 1871 when sentencing an employee charged with cheating, because the offence and its maximum punishment were different.

Other matters also affect the total, such as whether some charges are taken into consideration (i.e., further charges which the offender admits and agrees may be taken into account in sentencing, instead of being tried separately) rather than proceeded with, and whether conduct is combined into a single amalgamated charge, that is, one charge covering several similar acts (see our page on amalgamated charges). These questions involve a number of factors and judgments, and are frequently the subject of submissions on sentence.