During former transport minister S Iswaran's trial on Tuesday (Sept 24), defence counsel Davinder Singh addressed his client's disgorgement of the money involved in the charges against him.

In a turn of events at the start of the trial, the prosecution amended the charges, choosing to proceed with four charges of obtaining valuable items as a public servant under Section 165 of the Penal Code and one charge for the obstruction of justice.

Iswaran, 62, then pleaded guilty to the amended charges.

The 30 other charges against him will be taken into consideration during sentencing.

Iswaran was accused of obtaining items worth more than $400,000 from Ong Beng Seng, billionaire hotelier and chairman of Formula One (F1) race promoter Singapore GP, as well as David Lum, managing director of mainboard-listed construction company Lum Chang Holdings.

The items included tickets to F1 races, football matches and musical shows allegedly obtained from Ong, and bottles of whisky, golf clubs and a Brompton bicycle allegedly obtained from Lum.

While reading out the statement of facts in court, Deputy Attorney-General (DAG) Tai Wei Shyong acknowledged that on Monday, Iswaran had voluntarily paid to the state the $380,305.95 involved in the charges under Section 165, and forfeited pricey bottles of whisky and wine, golf clubs and a Brompton bicycle.

But he pointed out that the ex-minister had "disgorged late in the day".

Disgorgement refers to giving up illegally obtained gains, and is different from restitution.

When made voluntarily before the commencement of proceedings, disgorgement has high mitigating value. But if the sole motive of doing so is to obtain a lighter punishment, then the court should grant it "limited mitigating weight", said Tai.

After factoring in the disgorgement, the prosecution sought a jail sentence of between six and seven months in total.

According to Singh, however, the offer of disgorgement was made and accepted immediately after the prosecution informed the defence that it would be amending the corruption charges.

"We didn't wait," he stated during the mitigation plea.

With regards to Iswaran receiving gifts from Ong and Lum, Singh said: "There was no planning, premeditation or sophistication involved. These were just gifts that were presented to him".

"It was never about the money, or greed of money," he added.

Singh then argued for his client to receive no more than eight weeks' jail in total for the five charges he pleaded guilty to.

He also pointed out that Iswaran had voluntarily returned the salary he received as a minister as well as his MP allowance, which he said showed his client's remorse.

In Iswaran's resignation letter in January, he said that he and his family could not keep the monies when he was unable to discharge his duties as a minister and MP.

Did Iswaran's actions cause harm?

During the trial, the prosecution brought up the extent of harm caused by Iswaran's actions to others, with Tai stating that Iswaran was "more than a passive accepter" of the gifts in question as Ong and Lum had links to business transactions associated with his official duties.

With a minister obtaining gifts over a long period of time, Tai argued that public confidence in the impartiality of the government will be severely undermined.

"Not punishing such acts will send a signal that such acts are to be tolerated," he said.

"The more senior the public servant in question, the more serious the offence. As a minister, Iswaran represents the highest level of executive in Singapore's government."

"Disgorgement cannot restore any damage to public interest," he added.

In response to this, Singh highlighted that the change in the nature of the case after the prosecution indicated it would no longer be proceeding on the charges against Iswaran under the Prevention of Corruption Act was "relevant to his client's approach on the case".

The defence counsel countered that the prosecution had accepted the Ministry of Trade and Industry's statement that there was nothing to suggest that F1 contracts were structured to the government's disadvantage.

"It is clear that there is little or no harm occasioned by offences in this case under Section 165 and Iswaran's culpability is low," Singh said.

While Iswaran pleaded guilty to the five charges, he has not compromised the government's position, its standing or reputation, Singh added.

Prosecution and defence spar over corruption charges

Tai then responded that the corruption charges against Iswaran were amended, not withdrawn, and reiterated that there was a good basis for them originally being brought in.

This prompted Singh to retort: "That is unacceptable... completely out of order. The charges have been amended. To say now that there is good basis [for them] is completely wrong."

The heated exchange between the defence and the prosecution went on for over 20 minutes before Justice Vincent Hoong called for a recess.

It was "pointless" to argue over what prompted the amended charges which will not be relevant in the sentencing, said Justice Hoong in response to the disagreement.

Closing the hearing, he thanked both prosecution and defence for the submissions and said that he needed time to consider Iswaran's sentence.

The sentencing was adjourned to Oct 3, 10am.

ALSO READ: Iswaran pleads guilty to amended charges at start of trial

bhavya.rawat@asiaone.com

For more original AsiaOne articles, visit here.