Even if he is found guilty, PAP government are clean and incorruptible?
ST February 3, 2007
By Elena Chong
A former police officer was charged in court yesterday with 10 counts of corruption and two counts of cheating involving a total of about $12,000.
Ex-senior station inspector Ko Poh Koon, 48, whose services had been terminated in January 2005, allegedly accepted free dinner and entertainment from businessmen Joseph Teo Kee Lip and Albert Teo Teck Hee when he was with the Secret Societies Branch, Criminal Investigation Department.
This was allegedly in exchange for providing 'protection' to a Nigerian associate of the two Teos, and for help on police matters.
In September 2004, he allegedly lent Mr Albert Teo $20,000, but said it came from a friend. He told Mr Teo, 38, that the friend wanted $10,000 in interest and convinced him to hand over $5,000 as part payment. The following month, Ko is said to have lent Mr Albert Teo $5,000, but wanted $2,000 as interest.
Ko has applied for time to make representations to the Attorney-General's Chambers. He faces a fine of $100,000 or five years in jail or both for corruption. The penalty for cheating is up to seven years in jail and a fine.
Some people have connections. These people work within another law. They are privy to invisible dealings with the AG's.
TodayOnLine
14 April 2007
Leong Wee Keat
[email protected]
A FORMER senior station inspector was fined $1,500 on Friday after he pleaded guilty to conducting himself in ways prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the police force.
Ko Poh Koon, a 27-year veteran of the force, accepted $2,000 worth of free dinner and entertainment from businessmen Albert Teo and Joseph Teo while he was attached to the Secret Societies Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department.
He was treated to dinner and nightclub entertainment between May and June 2004 for the "police protection" of the Teos' Nigerian business associates, and for help and information on police matters.
Originally charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Ko, 49, was given a reprieve when the charges were reduced, falling within the Police Force Act.
Under the latter, the maximum penalty he faced for each charge was a fine not exceeding $500 or three months' jail or both.
In Ko's mitigation plea on Friday, lawyer Shashi Nathan argued that Ko "never corruptly accepted any gratification" and never benefited financially. Ko also did not compromise his duties or position as a police officer, nor caused any harm or detriment to police investigators.
Ko had joined the police force in 1976 before he retired in 2003. He was later re-employed by the force, and his services were terminated in January 2005.
ST December 08, 2006
By KC Vijayan
Yet another lawyer has admitted to touting for business, this time by handing out shopping vouchers to property agents in exchange for conveyancing work.
But lawyer Yap Kok Kiong, 42, was spared a fine or disciplinary action. A disciplinary committee appointed by the Chief Justice to look into the case found there was "no cause of sufficient gravity" for Mr Yap's case to be referred to a court of three judges for further action.
It is understood that the committee's report is being considered by the Law Society, which will decide whether to accept its recommendation and close the case, or refer it for further action to a court of three judges specially convened to hear matters against lawyers.
The committee said it had reached its decision after taking into account Mr Yap's various contributions to the community, the circumstances of the offence and his agreement to pay the $18,000 for the hearing costs.
The lawyer of 16 years' standing and managing partner of KK Yap & Partners gave shopping vouchers valued at between $10 and $50 over a 15 month period from December 2001 to several estate agents who recommended conveyancing clients to him.
He said they were meant as gestures of appreciation in lieu of small gifts or hampers, which other businesses were known to give to clients.
It was pointed out that the number of such vouchers given out were small compared to the 1,729 files opened by the firm during that period.
He said he stopped the practice in March 2003 after learning from an estate agent that several of them had misconstrued the practice as an entitlement for referring work to the firm.
But a year later, the Law Society received an anonymous complaint about Mr Yap's handouts, sparking an investigation.
A check by the Straits Times revealed Mr Yap had been reprimanded by the Law Society on a previous occasion.
According to the January 2003 issue of the Law Gazette, he was then probed by a disciplinary committee for offering to refund half the cost of legal services to some owners of a private estate earmarked for collective sale, if he was retained by any of them in the purchase of new property. He also paid $7,000 in hearing costs.
At least three other lawyers from different firms have been investigated in relation to the recent spate of alleged misconduct involving property deals.