1 In June 2023, the accused, Zhou Jianwen, brought a group of foreign workers to the Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”), ostensibly to lodge a complaint about the non-payment of salaries to these workers. In the course of investigations into the accused’s complaint, the MOM discovered that although the accused held a work permit as a construction worker with Songning Pte Ltd (“Songning”), he was in fact operating the business of another construction company, Zi Teng Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd (“Zi Teng”). In addition, at least two of the foreign workers he brought to the MOM were illegally employed by Zi Teng as they only held work permits as construction workers in other companies.

2 Following the MOM’s investigations, four charges were eventually brought against the accused:

(a) One charge for being a self-employed foreigner when he did not have a valid work pass to do so, by operating the business of Zi Teng for the purpose of gain, an offence under s 10(1) read with s 10(2) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (“EFMA”), punishable under s 10(2)(a) of the EFMA.

(b) One charge for making a statement to the Controller of Work Passes which the accused knew was false in a material particular, by stating in an application for a work permit that he would be employed by Songning as a construction worker, when he had no intention to be so employed, an offence under s 22(1)(d) punishable under s 22(1)(i) of the EFMA.

(c) Two charges for Zi Teng employing two foreign employees, Zhang Xiangbo (“Zhang”) and Xue Xiaolong (“Xue”), when they did not have a valid work pass, which offence was committed with the accused’s consent when he purported to act in the capacity of director of Zi Teng, which was an offence under s 5(1) read with s 5(6) and s 20(1)(a), punishable under s 5(6)(a) of the EFMA.

3 The accused claimed trial to the four charges.

4 After carefully considering the evidence adduced during the trial, I found that the Prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused of the charges accordingly. In particular, I noted that the accused had admitted to virtually every element of each of the charges against him, in the course of his investigative statements and at trial. The evidence of both the Prosecution witnesses and even the accused’s own defence witness further buttressed the charges. The arguments that the accused mounted against the charges either pertained to personal grievances unrelated to the charges, were baseless allegations against the Prosecution, or were not relevant defences.

5 After hearing submissions on sentence, I sentenced the accused on the four charges as follows:

(a) For MAC-909209-2024 (being a self-employed foreigner without a valid work pass) – a fine of $11,000 in default 25 days’ imprisonment.

(b) For MAC-909210-2024 (making a false declaration in a work permit application) – seven weeks’ imprisonment.

(c) For MAC-909207-2024 (employing foreign employee Xue without a valid work pass) – a fine of $6,000, in default 15 days’ imprisonment.

(d) For MAC-909208-2024 (employing foreign employee Zhang without a valid work pass) – a fine of $7,000, in default 18 days’ imprisonment.

6 The global sentence imposed was seven weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $24,000, in default 58 days’ imprisonment. The accused did not pay the fine.

7 The accused filed an appeal only against conviction on the charges. Although I granted the accused bail pending appeal, as at the date of this judgment, he did not manage to find a bailor to stand bail for him. As a result, he is currently serving his sentence. I understand that his earliest date of release is 31 July 2026.

8 When I delivered the verdict and sentence on the charges, I had provided my oral grounds. These are the full reasons for my decision.

9 The trial took place over eight days in September and October 2025 and February 2026.

10 The Prosecution called nine witnesses:

(a) Yap Wui Han (“Yap”), the former local director of Zi Teng;

(b) Liu Qingfa (“Liu”), the director of Songning;

(c) Koh Jinliang Raymond (“IO Koh”), Mavis Tan Soh Choo and Mok Chee Keong, employment inspectors from the MOM;

(d) Teo Chor Hoon, the interpreter for the accused’s cautioned statements;

(e) Xue Ke Monica, Wong Shi Hui and Yong Kwok Ming, officers from the Work Pass Division of the MOM.

11 The Prosecution further sought to admit two statements recorded from Xue and Zhang, the two foreign workers employed by Zi Teng. In these statements, Xue and Zhang detailed their work on various projects handled by Zi Teng, under the supervision of the accused.

12 The applications were made pursuant to s 32(1)(j)(iii) of the Evidence Act 1893. The relevant provisions state:

13 To invoke s 32(1)(j) of the Evidence Act, two cumulative requirements must be satisfied. First, the Prosecution must show that the relevant witnesses were outside Singapore, and second, that it was not practicable to secure their attendance: Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal [2015] 2 SLR 686 (“Gimpex”) at [98]. At the next step, the Court had to consider whether there was a need to exercise its discretion under s 32(3) of the Evidence Act, that is, whether otherwise admissible evidence should be excluded in the interests of justice because other countervailing factors outweighed the benefit that would be gained by its admission. These included cases where the hearsay statement was not necessary because it duplicated other evidence in the case, where it would delay proceedings, where it would distract, confuse or mislead, where the evidence was unreliable, or where the prejudicial effect of the statement outweighed its probative value: Gimpex at [106].

14 The Prosecution submitted that in relation to Xue, the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority (“ICA”)’s entry/exit screening ¹ showed that Xue had left Singapore on 18 July 2023, prior to the commencement of the trial. There was no evidence that he returned to Singapore thereafter. IO Koh testified that he had made numerous attempts since May 2025 to contact Xue to secure his attendance. He began by calling Xue and various contacts who might have been aware of Xue’s contact details. When this did not yield any meaningful leads, he contacted the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Singapore to obtain the relevant contact details. He was eventually provided with Xue’s Chinese phone number. He managed to contact Xue but Xue promptly informed him that he was not willing to return to Singapore. ²

15 In relation to Zhang, the ICA entry/exit screening showed that Zhang last left Singapore on 8 August 2024. ³ There was also no evidence that he returned to Singapore thereafter. IO Koh tried to contact Zhang at his last known contact number, but the mobile number was no longer in use. He then sent several emails to Zhang, to an email address provided by Zhang prior to him leaving the country, to request his attendance at trial, but received no response. Thereafter, IO Koh reached out to Zhang’s employment agent and obtained his WeChat contact details. He then called and sent Zhang messages on the WeChat platform. Zhang wanted his active debarment from working in Singapore to be lifted in exchange for testifying at the trial. IO Koh told him that this was not possible. Zhang eventually indicated that he was unwilling to come to Singapore to testify as he was working and had no time to do so. ⁴

16 I was satisfied that the Prosecution had proven the two cumulative requirements for the admission of the statements. I also considered that the accused had no relevant objection to the admission of these statements. I further found no grounds to exclude the statements in the interests of justice. I duly admitted the two statements pursuant to s 32(1)(j)(iii) of the Evidence Act.

17 The accused elected to testify in his defence. He called one other defence witness, Yang Hua, who worked on a project handled by Zi Teng at Bulim Square, which the accused managed. ⁵

18 I now consider each of the charges that the accused claimed trial to in turn. The charge for being a self-employed foreigner without a valid work pass stated:

19 The relevant provisions of the EFMA are as follows:

20 In this regard, s 2 of the EFMA defines a self-employed foreigner in the following terms:

21 To prove this charge, the Prosecution needed to show the following:

(a) The accused was a foreign national;

(b) The accused was operating the business of Zi Teng for the purpose of gain between around 1 August 2021 and around 23 June 2023; and

(c) The accused did not have a valid work pass to operate the business of Zi Teng.

22 The Prosecution pointed out that it was undisputed that the accused was a foreign national. Between 1 August 2021 and 23 June 2023, he only held work permits under either Yunan Pte Ltd (“Yunan”) or Songning. ⁶ He thus did not have a valid work pass to work for Zi Teng.

23 The accused operated the business of Zi Teng since at least 2015 by sourcing for and managing construction projects he obtained on behalf of Zi Teng. In this regard, he secured at least three projects for Zi Teng: a project at Bulim Square, a project at Sengkang Grand, and a project at Parc Clematis (among others). The Prosecution pointed to the following sources of evidence supporting this proposition: ⁷

(a) The accused’s admissions during cross examination;

(b) The accused’s admissions in his own statements to the MOM in the course of investigations (Exhibits P13 and P15);

(c) Objective documentary evidence such as progress claims for the Parc Clematis project and notes in his personal notebook;

(d) The Defence’s own witness, Yang Hua, who testified that the accused managed the Bulim Square project and gave him work instructions; and

(e) Yap’s evidence that he was registered as the local director of Zi Teng, because the accused, as a foreigner, could not register himself as Zi Teng’s director. However, Yap’s role was limited to back-end administrative tasks and the accused was the one who operated the company.

24 The accused offered no defence to the charge, beyond occasional assertions that he was making actual contributions to Singapore’s construction industry and was not involved in any scam or fraud. ⁸

25 Having considered the totality of the evidence, I found that the Prosecution had proven every element of the charge and the accused advanced no relevant defence. I explain.

26 The accused was a foreign national from the People’s Republic of China.

27 Based on the MOM’s Integrated Work Pass System Screening of the accused, the only work pass that the accused held between 1 August 2021 and 23 June 2023 (ie, the relevant period of the offence) was under either of two companies:

(a) Yunan (from 8 September 2020 to 8 September 2021); and

(b) Songning (from 16 September 2021 to 27 September 2022 and from 21 December 2022 to 27 December 2024). ⁹ The work pass that the accused held under Songning was also the subject of MAC-909210-2024, which I will deal with in the next section.

These work passes clearly did not allow the accused to manage his own construction company, Zi Teng.

28 Despite this, the accused operated the business of Zi Teng during the material period. The accused consistently admitted to this without qualification in the statements he gave to the MOM:

(a) In his statements dated 23 June 2023 and 12 July 2023, ¹⁰ he stated that he took over Zi Teng from his friend, one Zhang Wei, sometime in 2015. He paid Zhang Wei $50,000 in cash. After taking over the company, he was unable to register himself as a local director as he was only a work permit holder. As such, he paid Singaporeans or permanent residents to stand in as director, paying them $1,300 to $1,400 for their services. ¹¹

(b) In his statement dated 23 June 2023, ¹² he admitted that he made the decisions in Zi Teng and sourced all the projects for Zi Teng, and represented Zi Teng to sign contracts awarded to it.

(c) In his statement dated 13 July 2023, ¹³ he stated that sometime from June 2022, he secured three projects for Zi Teng from Zhong Xing Engineering Pte Ltd (“Zhong Xing”) – the Bulim Square project, the Sengkang Grand project and the Parc Clematis project. These projects were all for plumbing and sanitary works. Although he initially signed contracts on behalf of Zi Teng, Zhong Xing was uncomfortable with the arrangement as he did not hold any position within the company. For this reason, Yap signed on the contracts as the registered director of Zi Teng.

(d) In his statement dated 22 March 2024, ¹⁴ he admitted that he oversaw all three projects and that he engaged all the workers to work for Zi Teng.

29 The core of these admissions was again confirmed by the accused during cross examination: ¹⁵

(a) He operated Zi Teng since 2015.

(b) He was responsible for sourcing, negotiating and managing projects for Zi Teng, and making business decisions on behalf of the company. He also sourced for workers for these projects and gave work instructions to the workers. He did this even though other individuals were registered as the director of Zi Teng. The projects included the Bulim Square project, the Sengkang Grand project and the Parc Clematis project.

(c) Yap only signed on Zi Teng’s contracts because Zhong Xing required a Singaporean to append their signature on the documents. ¹⁶

30 The accused’s admissions were further supported by objective documentary evidence, including the following: ¹⁷

(a) A work order from Zhong Xing to Zi Teng for the Bulim Square project dated 29 June 2022, with a total value of $1.9 million.

(b) A work order from Zhong Xing to Zi Teng for the Sengkang Grand project dated 26 July 2022, for the installation of PPR pipes, sanitary pipes and WC stands, at a value of $1,700 per unit.

(c) A work order from Zhong Xing to Zi Teng for the Parc Clematis project dated 13 September 2022, for the installation of PPR pipes and sanitary pipes, at a value of $380-$570 per unit.

(d) A progress claim submitted by Zi Teng to Zhong Xing for the Parc Clematis project for $40,729.50. ¹⁸

31 The accused’s operation of Zi Teng was also corroborated by two other witnesses at trial:

(a) Yap confirmed that as the registered director of Zi Teng, he only handled administrative matters for Zi Teng, such as filing GST submissions, annual returns and income tax submissions. He understood that Zi Teng was the accused’s company. The accused sourced for projects, led the work on those projects, and brought workers onsite to carry out the works. Yap testified that he only signed on the contracts on behalf of Zi Teng because Zhong Xing required the director of Zi Teng to sign on them. The accused also agreed that this was the arrangement between him and Yap, as Yap did not have any knowledge of the construction industry's operations. ¹⁹

(b) Yang Hua, the accused’s Defence witness, was a worker deployed to the Bulim Square project. He confirmed that the accused was managing the Bulim Square project and gave him work instructions. ²⁰

32 Finally, the accused operated Zi Teng for the purpose of gain as he admitted that he did so to earn a living for himself. ²¹

33 As to the accused’s defence, it was irrelevant that Zi Teng had performed actual construction work, as that was not the crux of the offence of the accused being a self-employed foreigner without a valid work pass.

34 I move on to the next charge, which read as follows:

35 The relevant provisions of the EFMA state:

36 The elements of the offence were as follows:

(a) The accused made a statement to the Controller of Work Passes in connection with an “Application for a Work Permit”, stating that he would be employed by Songning as a construction worker;

(b) The statement was false in a material particular; and

(c) The accused knew that the statement was false in a material particular.

37 The Prosecution’s case was that the accused sought the assistance of Liu (the director of Songning) to obtain a work permit for him. The accused in fact intended to use his work permit under Songning to legalise his stay in Singapore and operate the business of Zi Teng. He had no intention of working for Songning as a construction worker. This was both Liu’s evidence and the accused’s own admission. ²²

38 In order to do so, the accused knowingly made a statement that was false in a material particular. He did this by signing under the “Declaration by Foreign Employee” section of the Application for Work Permit form, ²³ declaring that he would be employed by Songning as a construction worker. ²⁴ The accused admitted to this in his statement to the MOM, and this arrangement was also corroborated by Liu. ²⁵ Although the accused claimed at trial that he did not sign the declaration, the Prosecution submitted that this was an afterthought as it was contrary to his unambiguous admission in his statement.

39 Witnesses from the MOM Work Pass Division testified that if the accused's declaration in the Application for Work Permit form – that he would be employed by Songning as a construction worker – were untrue, his work permit application would have been rejected. ²⁶

40 In relation to this charge, the accused argued that:

(a) Liu was aware and consented to applying for a work permit for him under Songning; ²⁷ and

(b) He did not sign the declaration in the Application for Work Permit form. ²⁸

41 In my view, this charge was also proven by the Prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.

42 The accused admitted during cross-examination that he never intended to work and did not work for Songning as a construction worker after making the declaration, ²⁹ but intended to use the work permit issued under Songning to remain in Singapore to operate the business of Zi Teng instead. ³⁰

43 This was also his position in his statements to the MOM:

(a) In his statements to the MOM dated 23 June 2023 and 12 July 2023, ³¹ he stated he had initially worked as a construction worker at Songning. However, sometime in July 2022, he managed to secure three projects on behalf of Zi Teng and did not have time to work for Songning. He asked Liu how much he would need to pay the latter to maintain his work permit. Liu quoted him a sum of $1,000 a month. He paid $1,000 per month to Liu in cash.

(b) In his statement to the MOM dated 22 March 2024, ³² he stated that since June 2022, he started “moonlight[ing]” to work for Zi Teng in the three project sites. He was unsuccessful in applying for a work pass under Zi Teng, so he approached Liu to ask him to apply for a work pass for him using Liu’s company (Songning). He informed Liu upfront that he had “no intention of working for his company and the purpose of applying for a work pass [was] to allow [him] to continue to stay in Singapore, so that [he could] attend to [his] company matters at Zi Teng”. ³³ Thus, from 29 December 2022 to 19 June 2023, he “did not perform any works for Songning” and his “attention was focused on the management of Zi Teng…and the 3 work order that the company had secured with Zhong Xing”.

(c) In the same statement, ³⁴ he further admitted that the signature appended in the relevant section of the Application for Work Permit form belonged to him. He signed the document with the understanding that he would be issued with a work permit to work for Songning and could only work for this company, but he in fact had no intention of working for the company.

44 The accused’s evidence in his statements was further corroborated by Liu at trial. Liu testified that he applied for the accused’s work permit under Songning, pursuant to the accused’s request, and that the accused never worked for Songning during the material period. Instead, the work permit application was to facilitate the accused being able to stay in Singapore legally to carry on his own business in Zi Teng. ³⁵

45 Despite this arrangement, an “Application for Work Permit” dated 29 December 2022 (Exhibit P8) was submitted to the MOM, containing a declaration that the accused would be employed by Songning as a construction worker. In fact, the accused never worked as a construction worker at Songning following the declaration. The declaration was therefore false in a material particular.

46 Since the accused had no intention to work for Songning as a construction worker and only intended to use the work permit to legalise his stay in Singapore to operate his own business at Zi Teng, he knew that the declaration was false in a material particular.

47 In relation to the accused’s defences, it was irrelevant to the establishment of this charge that Liu was aware of and consented to applying for a work permit for the accused under Songning. This only meant that Liu had also committed an offence. In this regard, Liu faced a mirror charge under s 22(1)(d) read with s 20(1)(a) punishable under s 22(1)(i) of the EFMA, for consenting to Songning making a false declaration to the Controller of Work Passes that the accused would be employed by Songning as a construction worker. He was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment.

48 As for the accused’s abrupt claim in the course of cross-examination that the signature on the declaration did not belong to him, I found this to be an afterthought. This was contrary to the clear admission in his statement ³⁶ that he had signed the document. There were no challenges to the voluntariness or accuracy of the statement, which was recorded in Mandarin, a language he could understand. The fact that he penned the signature was also confirmed by Liu during his testimony in court. ³⁷ Even more fundamentally, the accused himself admitted in the course of his questioning of Liu that he signed the document. ³⁸

49 The final two charges related to two foreign employees, Xue and Zhang, respectively and stated as follows:

50 The relevant provisions state:

51 The definition of “employ” in s 2 of the EFMA is to engage or use the service of any person for the purpose of any work, whether under a contract of service of otherwise and with or without salary.

52 Section 12 of the EFMA further states:

53 The elements of each charge were that:

(a) Xue and Zhang were foreign nationals;

(b) Xue and Zhang were employed by Zi Teng as construction workers between February 2023 and March 2023, and between November 2022 and January 2023 respectively;

(c) Xue and Zhang did not have valid work passes to be employed by Zi Teng as construction workers; and

(d) The accused, purporting to act in the capacity of director of Zi Teng, consented to the offence by making the decision for and on behalf of Zi Teng to employ Xue and Zhang as construction workers.

54 The Prosecution’s case was that both Xue and Zhang were foreign nationals. They held work permits under YCM Construction Pte Ltd and Loy Hwee Suan Building Construction Pte Ltd respectively as construction workers. They were not permitted to work for Zi Teng. In spite of this, they were employed by Zi Teng and worked at the worksite. Xue was deployed to the Sengkang Grand project and Zhang to the Parc Clematis project. ³⁹

55 Although the accused was not the registered director of Zi Teng, he acted in the capacity of director and made the decision to employ the two workers at Zi Teng and gave them work instructions. He admitted this both in court and in his statements to the MOM. ⁴⁰ This was also corroborated by Xue and Zhang’s statements, which were admitted under s 32(1)(j)(iii) of the Evidence Act.

56 The accused’s arguments in relation to this charge were that:

(a) First, the MOM had allowed Xue and Zhang to attend the Safety Orientation Course and permitted them to enter the worksites. The MOM should not have done so if they were of the view that the workers were illegally deployed. ⁴¹

(b) The practice of employing foreign workers holding work permits in other companies was rampant in the construction industry. ⁴²

57 It was undisputed that Xue and Zhang were both foreign nationals from the People’s Republic of China.

58 It was also undisputed that both of them did not hold work passes under Zi Teng. Instead, the MOM’s Integrated Work Pass System Screenings showed that Xue held a work permit under YCM Construction Pte Ltd ⁴³ and Zhang held a work permit under Loy Hwee Suan Building Construction Pte Ltd. ⁴⁴ They were thus not permitted to work for Zi Teng pursuant to s 12 of the EFMA.

59 Xue and Zhang were employed by Zi Teng as construction workers. In this regard, the accused admitted during cross-examination that Zhang was deployed to the Parc Clematis project and Xue was deployed to the Sengkang Grand project. ⁴⁵ In his statements dated 23 June 2023 and 22 March 2024, ⁴⁶ he further stated that Xue worked for him for about 20 days between March and April 2023, although he could not recall the exact period. Xue worked for him between November 2022 and end-January 2023.

60 This was corroborated by the statements of Xue and Zhang:

(a) Zhang stated that he was deployed to a condominium project at Clementi from November 2022 to end-Jan 2023. The accused was the supervisor at the worksite and gave him work instructions. ⁴⁷

(b) Xue stated that he worked for the accused at a condominium site in Buangkok for 22 days between 18 February 2023 and 17 March 2023. In this regard, he provided a copy of his calendar, in which he had placed a tick next to every day that he worked for the accused at the project. ⁴⁸ Although the duration of work differed slightly from the accused’s account in his statement (20 days), I preferred Xue’s account as it was corroborated by documentary evidence in the form of his calendar. I also noted from the accused’s statement that he could not recall the precise period that Xue worked for him. During cross-examination, the accused further downplayed the number of days that Xue worked, ⁴⁹ and recanted from the account in his statement which was recorded without any challenge on accuracy or voluntariness. In my view, this made his estimation of dates less credible. It appeared to me that he had revised his estimation of the number of days worked by Xue downwards at trial to minimise the amount of salary purportedly owed to Xue.

61 In light of the foregoing, Xue and Zhang satisfied the definition of being employed by Zi Teng, regardless of whether there was any formal contract, or whether they were paid for their work (that is, even if they were owed their salaries).

62 The accused admitted in the course of trial and in his statements that he made the decision for Zi Teng to employ Xue and Zhang. ⁵⁰ The accused also gave them work instructions. This was further corroborated by the statements of Xue and Zhang. ⁵¹ He thus purported to act in the capacity as director of Zi Teng and consented to their illegal employment.

63 The accused’s belated argument that the arrangement must have been legal because the MOM allowed Zhang and Xue to be registered for Safety Orientation Courses and enter the worksite was irrelevant to the crux of the offence. It shifted the blame to the MOM when the onus was on the accused not to employ any foreign workers without valid work passes, as required under s 5(1) of the EFMA.

64 The fact that the practices were rampant – even if such an assertion was true – did not detract from the Court’s function in the present case, which was to assess whether in this case, the accused himself had committed the offences for which he had been charged. For the foregoing reasons, I found that he had.

65 It is evident from the analysis above that the accused had essentially admitted to every element of each of the charges. Fundamentally, he accepted that he was operating the business of Zi Teng, which led to the four related charges – for being a self-employed individual without a valid work pass, for falsely declaring in a work permit application that he was employed by Songning as a construction worker when he was in fact managing Zi Teng, and for Zi Teng employing two foreign nationals, Xue and Zhang, to work on Zi Teng’s projects with his consent, while they held work passes under different companies. I had explained in the preceding sections of this judgment why the specific defences he mounted against each charge were largely irrelevant to the core of the offending conduct which he had admitted to.

66 In this section, I will address some of the recurring arguments the accused raised throughout the course of the trial.

67 First and foremost, the accused was aggrieved that he was facing four charges when his initial purpose in going to MOM had been to lodge a complaint about unpaid salaries owed to workers employed by Zi Teng. He perceived this to be unfair. However, as I had repeatedly explained to the accused during the trial, the matter of unpaid salaries was ultimately a separate issue. None of the proceeded charges involved the non-payment of salaries to workers. The fact that salaries had been left unpaid did not detract from the offences he committed as a result of operating Zi Teng in the manner that he did. Ironically, it served to confirm that Zi Teng had indeed employed workers – namely, Xue and Zhang – when they did not hold a valid work pass under the company.

68 Second, the accused alluded to personal disputes he had with Yap (the former registered director of Zi Teng) and Liu (the director of Songning). In doing so, he made various allegations that they had “stolen” his company and his projects. ⁵² He was dissatisfied that he was the only one who had been charged, and appeared to believe that Yap and Liu had escaped liability entirely. However, this trial was not a forum for the resolution of any business disputes between the parties. The accused was free to pursue this by way of civil recourse. In addition, Yap and Liu had been charged for mirror offences arising out of their involvement in the arrangement. I accorded full weight to their evidence at trial. Both had been convicted and sentenced for their own charges – Yap having paid a fine and Liu having served an imprisonment term. I also did not consider the accused to be mounting a challenge to the reliability of their evidence, as the bulk of what they testified to did not differ materially from the accused's own confessions, whether in his statements or at trial.

69 Third, the accused argued that Yap should be the one held liable as the registered director of Zi Teng. ⁵³ But it was clear from the evidence that Yap was only registered as the director of Zi Teng because the accused needed a Singaporean to be registered as the local director. The accused admitted that he was the one who managed the front-end operations of Zi Teng, and he acted in the capacity of a de facto director of Zi Teng, for example, by employing Xue and Zhang to work on Zi Teng’s projects.

70 Fourth, as alluded to earlier, the accused argued that practices such as deploying workers holding work permits under other companies were prevalent in the construction industry. ⁵⁴ He contended that he was doing legitimate work under Zi Teng and was contributing to Singapore’s construction industry. ⁵⁵ On this basis, he made a series of increasingly serious allegations against the Prosecution throughout the course of trial. He variously alleged that the Prosecution was biased against him on grounds of his nationality, ⁵⁶ cast doubt on the fairness and “conscience” of the Prosecution ⁵⁷ and went so far as to allege that the Prosecution had colluded with its witnesses. ⁵⁸ He also stated that the Prosecution and the Court were “driving him to his grave”. ⁵⁹ While he initially apologised for these allegations and retracted them, ⁶⁰ he subsequently adamantly refused to do so even after being given ample opportunities to. ⁶¹ I found no basis whatsoever for his allegations. In my judgment, the charges were brought with sufficient evidence, and the prosecution was conducted fairly. In my view, the accused’s querulous conduct at trial only demonstrated his evident lack of remorse.

71 The accused did not file an appeal against the sentences I imposed on the four charges. Nonetheless, I set out some brief remarks on sentence, to supplement those I delivered orally during the sentencing mention.

72 The accused was untraced prior to this series of offences.

73 The Prosecution submitted that general and specific deterrence were the primary sentencing considerations for offences under the EFMA. It sought a global sentence of seven to eight weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $26,000 to $29,000. ⁶²

74 For MAC-909209-2024, the Prosecution sought a fine of between $11,000 and $12,000. In the absence of High Court sentencing frameworks, the Prosecution highlighted various offence-specific factors such as the length of the accused’s operation of Zi Teng, his deliberate circumvention of restrictions on foreign directorship, and the difficulty of detection of this offence. As for offender-specific factors, the Prosecution highlighted that although the accused was untraced, he had claimed trial and was not entitled to a discount for pleading guilty. He also remained unremorseful throughout the trial. ⁶³

75 The Prosecution compared the case to Public Prosecutor v Rahman Mohammed Ataur [2020] SGMC 172 (“Rahman”), where the offender pleaded guilty to doing food delivery and freelance construction jobs for one year and six months. He was fined $8,000. In that case, the Court observed that the usual sentence for offences with durations of between one year and one month and one year and 10 months was a fine of $8,000 to $9,000. The Prosecution pointed out that the present case was more egregious than Rahman because the accused actively operated a construction business (as opposed to the offender in Rahman, who engaged in small-scale odd jobs), managing high value projects and employing other foreigners to perform construction works. ⁶⁴

76 Furthermore, the Prosecution highlighted that Yap was charged for a similar offence under s 10(1) read with s 23(1) of the EFMA for engaging in a conspiracy with the accused for the accused to be a self-employed foreigner, by registering himself as the local director of Zi Teng. Yap was fined $8,000. Given that the accused’s culpability was higher than Yap’s and he had claimed trial, a higher sentence should accordingly be imposed on him. ⁶⁵

77 For MAC-909210-2024, the Prosecution submitted for seven to eight weeks’ imprisonment, applying the High Court sentencing framework in Chiew Kok Chai v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 713 (“Chiew Kok Chai”).

78 The High Court in Chiew Kok Chai held that a custodial sentence should be the norm for offences under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA, and that a fine would not generally be sufficient unless there were substantial mitigating factors present. ⁶⁶

79 The Prosecution considered that the present case fell within Band 1 of the Chiew Kok Chai framework, based on factors such as the materiality of the false declaration, the nature, sophistication and extent of the deception, the consequences of the deception, the specific role played by the accused and his motive in circumventing the work pass framework. The starting point would be around six to seven weeks’ imprisonment. At the second stage of the framework, the Prosecution examined the same offence-specific factors and adjusted the sentence upwards to seven to eight weeks’ imprisonment. ⁶⁷

80 The Prosecution then compared the present case to that of Chiew Kok Chai itself. In that case, the offender pleaded guilty to three charges for conspiring to obtain work passes for three foreign workers under one company, when the actual intention was for the foreigners to work under another company instead. Two similar charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. The deception was maintained for five to six months. The offender was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment. The Prosecution submitted that a longer sentence was warranted in the present case. While the period of offending was similar, the accused had claimed trial and his overall culpability was higher than that of the offender in Chiew Kok Chai, given that he had intended to obtain a work permit in order to illegally operate Zi Teng. ⁶⁸

81 The Prosecution further compared this case to that of Liu. Liu pleaded guilty to a single charge under s 22(1)(d) read with s 20(1)(a) of the EFMA for consenting to Songning falsely declaring that the accused would be employed by Songning as a construction worker. He was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment. The Prosecution contended that a significant uplift ought to be imposed on the accused. This was because he had claimed trial, and was notably more culpable than Liu. In particular, the accused was the one who approached Liu to obtain the work permit for the former. ⁶⁹

82 For MAC-909207-2024, in relation to the employment of Xue, the Prosecution sought a fine of between $7,000 and $8,000. For MAC-909208-2024, in relation to the employment of Zhang, the Prosecution sought a fine of between $8,000 and $9,000. ⁷⁰

83 The Prosecution noted that the minimum sentence for a first-time offender was a fine of $5,000, pursuant to s 5(6)(a) of EFMA. In Public Prosecutor v Express Corporate Services Pte Ltd [2025] SGDC 123 (“Express Corporate Services”) (at [81]), the District Judge stated that the minimum fine should be reserved for cases where the offender pleaded guilty, and the period of illegal employment was extremely short, for example, a few days.

84 The Prosecution highlighted the offence-specific factors in this case. Xue was employed by Zi Teng for around 22 days. Zhang was employed by Zi Teng for about three months. As the sole controlling mind of Zi Teng, the accused personally made the decision to employ Xue and Zhang and deploy them to the work sites. The offences were also difficult to detect. ⁷¹

85 The Prosecution then compared the present case to Express Corporate Services itself. In that case, the offender’s foreign domestic worker performed administrative tasks in the offender’s office for about one year on a part-time basis. The offender claimed trial to the charge, was convicted, and was fined $10,000. The appeal against the decision was dismissed. The Prosecution highlighted that compared to the foreign worker in Express Corporate Services, Xue and Zhang worked for Zi Teng on a full-time basis. The accused’s culpability was also higher because the operation of Zi Teng was itself illegal, whereas the offender in Express Corporate Services operated a legitimate business. The Prosecution further stated that the period of employment for Zhang was longer than that of Xue, and it thus sought a higher fine in relation to the charge involving the illegal employment of the former. ⁷²

86 Finally, the Prosecution highlighted the accused’s spurious allegations against the MOM and prosecution, evincing his utter lack of remorse. These allegations were increasingly serious and he refused to retract most of them despite being given the opportunity to do so.

87 When asked to submit on sentence, the accused rehashed his arguments in relation to conviction. Despite repeated reminders by the Court to confine his submissions to sentencing, he declined to address the matter at all. ⁷³

88 I broadly agreed with the Prosecution’s sentencing submissions, which were in my view fair and reasonable.

89 For MAC-909209-2024 (being a self-employed foreigner without a valid work pass), I considered that:

(a) The accused operated Zi Teng for a lengthy period of one year and 11 months from 1 August 2021 to 23 June 2023. I also considered that he was not doing ad hoc work, but running the company on a full-time basis and was involved in all aspects of its operations. These included the oversight of at least three major projects worth several million dollars.

(b) I also agreed with the Prosecution that he deliberately circumvented restrictions on the directorship of Zi Teng by seeking the assistance of Yap and others to register as its local director.

(c) The offence was difficult to detect and would not have been detected if not for the accused going to the MOM to resolve salary issues with employees of Zi Teng.

90 Yap was sentenced to a fine of $8,000. In my view, a fine of $11,000 in default 25 days’ imprisonment would sufficiently capture the accused’s higher culpability compared to Yap. The accused approached Yap to register as a local director of Zi Teng and stood to benefit from this arrangement. I also agreed that this case was more aggravated than Rahman because the accused had actively operated Zi Teng on a full-time basis and managed large projects awarded to it.

91 For MAC-909210-2024 (making a false declaration in a work permit application), I applied the High Court sentencing framework in Chiew Kok Chai. At the first stage, I considered the presence of the following offence-specific factors:

(a) The false representation was material. The MOM officers testified that they would not have granted the work permit if they knew that the accused were not actually working for Songning as a construction worker. ⁷⁴

(b) The deception was difficult to detect. It was not detected until the accused walked into the MOM to report the unresolved salary dispute with the employees at Zi Teng.

(c) The consequence of the deception was that the accused was able to obtain a work permit to stay in Singapore to manage Zi Teng.

(d) The accused played a key role in the offence as he was the one who was the directing mind behind the act and approached Liu to obtain the work permit under Songning.

(e) The accused obtained a financial gain from staying in Singapore to operate the business of Zi Teng.

(f) The motive of the false information was to obtain an immigration advantage, to remain in Singapore to manage Zi Teng.

92 At the second stage, I declined to make any adjustments on the ground of offender-specific factors as the accused had claimed trial and was not entitled to the discount accorded for pleading guilty. I noted that Liu was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment for this charge. In my view, given that the accused was the primary beneficiary of the work permit and the one who approached Liu to make the application on his behalf, the accused’s culpability was higher and accordingly a higher sentence should be imposed.

93 I thus imposed a sentence of seven weeks’ imprisonment.

94 For MAC-909207-2024 (employing foreign employee Xue without a valid work pass), the minimum fine under s 5(6)(a) was $5,000. I sentenced the accused to a fine of $6,000 in default 15 days’ imprisonment. I primarily considered the length of Xue’s employment, which was around 22 days.

95 For MAC-909208-2024 (employing foreign employee Zhang without a valid work pass), I sentenced the accused to a fine of $7,000 in default 18 days’ imprisonment as the period of illegal employment of Zhang was longer at around three months.

96 The total sentence imposed was seven weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $24,000, in default 58 days’ imprisonment. The accused had no means to pay the fine. ⁷⁵ I thus calibrated the in-default sentences to ensure that they were not unduly crushing on the accused. The accused did not pay the fine.

97 After I sentenced the accused on the four charges, he indicated that he intended to appeal against my decision. ⁷⁶ I was thus prepared to grant him a deferment of sentence pending his filing of the Notice of Appeal, and to offer him bail pending the deferment of sentence. ⁷⁷ However, his bailor, who was present in court, indicated that he no longer wished to continue standing bail for the accused, and discharged himself. ⁷⁸ I allowed the accused to make two local phone calls to find an alternative bailor and adjourned the case to the afternoon. ⁷⁹ Although the accused initially claimed that he did not need the phone calls and would not be able to find a bailor, I explained to him that it would be in his interest to find a bailor given the short sentence imposed, and the risk that he might finish serving sentence before the appeal was heard. ⁸⁰ The accused eventually stated that he would make one phone call. In the meantime, he was brought to the State Courts lock-up.

98 When the Court session resumed in the afternoon, it transpired that the accused had not made the phone calls he was granted, as he refused to use the phone at the State Courts lock-up. He insisted on using his own mobile phone that had been taken away by prisons officers upon his entry into the lock-up. He also claimed that no one would pick up a call from the lock-up phone because it would be an unknown number. He refused to accept that this was an operational process that applied to all who were in custody. ⁸¹ He was belligerent and disrespectful in his conduct, and consistently raised his voice in Court despite warnings not to do so. ⁸² Since he did not manage to find a bailor, I ordered that the sentence was to commence on that day (20 May 2026). ⁸³

99 The next day, the accused filed a Notice of Appeal against conviction. I thus fixed the matter for a post-sentence mention. The accused indicated that he wished to apply for a stay of execution and bail pending appeal. ⁸⁴ I permitted him two further local phone calls, and granted him bail pending appeal in the sum of $20,000. ⁸⁵ This was double the amount of his agency bail, as he had been convicted and sentenced. A portion of the bail sum – $5,000 – was to be provided as monetary security, as I considered that the accused was a foreign national with no roots in Singapore, and was a flight risk. I indicated that his sentence would only be stayed if he successfully found a bailor to furnish the bail pending appeal.

100 At the time of this judgment, he had not found a bailor who was able to furnish the bail offered. He is currently serving his sentence. I understood that his earliest date of release is 31 July 2026.

101 It is evident from the analysis above that the accused admitted to virtually every element of the charges against him and advanced no real defence to the charges. He was instead aggrieved about various matters unrelated to the charges against him, chief of which was his perception that it was unfair for him to have been charged in court when his initial purpose in going to MOM had been to report the non-payment of salaries owed to his workers at Zi Teng. While I appreciated why the accused might have felt this way, his sentiments were ultimately of no relevance to the matters before the Court. The offences uncovered in the course of the investigation were entirely separate from the matter he had initially sought to report, and his dissatisfaction with the turn of events had no bearing on whether the charges against him were made out.

102 For the reasons above, I convicted the accused of the four charges. I imposed sentences on the charges, which were in my view fair and proportionate.

103 The accused is presently serving sentence as he did not manage to secure a bailor to furnish the bail pending appeal that was offered to him.