Jail for project manager who sought confidential information from then-DSTA employee on S$3 million project

However, he did not, claiming that he attended these sessions as Tan’s friend to celebrate staff birthdays or just to catch up.

STAGMONT CAMP PROJECT

One of the projects concerned power upgrading and renovations for an office building at Stagmont Camp.

Hsu had confidential information that DSTA’s budget for the project was S$3 million (US$2.3 million). 

At around Mar 12, 2019, Tan initiated a discussion with Hsu over text on the project requirements. He sought advice on the tender requirements.

Hsu told Tan not to quote more than S$3 million. As a result, JHES was able to decide if it should bid for this project based on the estimated profit margin.

JHES eventually tendered for the project and submitted a quotation for S$2,615,000.

After the close of the tender submission, Tan asked Hsu for updates.

Hsu, as part of DSTA’s tender evaluation team, came to know that DSTA had found JHES’ tender price too low, and that JHES’ tendered cable size was smaller than what was normally used by other contractors.

Hsu conveyed this information to Tan, who could have used the information to improve his company’s prospects of securing the project.

However, JHES did not advance to the next stage of the tender and the project was not awarded to JHES.

Around Nov 21, 2022, a whistleblower informed DSTA that Hsu had a close relationship with JHES staff, including Tan; and that he had frequent drinking sessions with JHES employees and had been treated to dinner.

The whistleblower added that Hsu had helped JHES secure projects with DSTA.

The complaint was referred to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau on Dec 14, 2022.

Tan was arrested on Jan 18, 2023.

DEFENCE SEEKS FINE

The prosecution sought four to six weeks’ jail for Tan, citing general deterrence as the dominant sentencing consideration.

Hsu and Tan’s conduct “undermined fair and open competition for DSTA government projects” and also exposed DSTA to the risk of “not getting the best value for its projects in terms of price and quality”, Mr Ang said.

Both also stood to gain from their offending conduct, added Mr Ang.

“Hsu gained the companionship of JHES staff (in particular Tan) through the drinking sessions, and also obtained at least five free meals paid by JHES between February 2020 and January 2022 which were not declared to DSTA.

“These drinking sessions and undeclared free meals were inappropriate and part of the quid pro quo (whether spoken or unspoken), cultivating the relationship between Hsu and Tan,” Mr Ang said.

In mitigation, Tan’s lawyers Devlin Mohyong, Cory Wong and Josephus Tan of Invictus Law Corporation, argued that a jail term was not warranted.

They sought a S$4,000 fine for their client instead.

If the court found a jail term should be imposed, Tan should be jailed no more than two to three weeks, the lawyers said.

In court, Mr Mohyong argued that the information Tan received was not highly sensitive in nature. He added that any potential gain on Tan’s part was hypothetical because JHES did not win the tender bids.

In that vein, any harm or potential harm that might have been caused was “purely speculative”, Mr Mohyong said.

Mr Mohyong told the court that there was no abuse of trust on his client’s part, as he obtained his information as a private citizen and did not disseminate it.

Following the defence’s mitigation, Mr Ang objected to a fine, arguing that the threshold for incarceration had been crossed.

Mr Ang said a fine would send a wrong message to the public.

District Judge Victor Yeo said that a jail term was warranted in Tan’s case, adding that the predominant sentencing consideration was general and specific deterrence.

He found that the information communicated was of sufficiently high sensitivity as it was to do with budget and evaluation information relating to the tender process.

More importantly, the communication between Hsu and Tan had undermined fair and open competition for DSTA government projects, which puts projects at risk of not getting the best value, Judge Yeo said.

He noted that the offence was not “one-off”, taking into account the other charges which had been taken into consideration.