2 ex-Certis officers jailed after one tipped off the other about CPIB investigation on vapes

Investigators instructed him not to discuss the investigation with anyone, and Tan agreed.

However, a few days later, Tan called Choo and disclosed that he had been interviewed by CPIB.

According to court documents, he told Choo that many people had been caught for possessing “vape”, that Choo’s name had surfaced during the interview, and advised him not to continue using e-vaporisers as it was “bad for his health”. He told Choo it would be best to throw them away.

Realising he could also be under investigation and fearing the items would be discovered, Choo disposed of at least one e-vaporiser and three packs of e-vaporiser pods between July and August 2022.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Xavier Tan urged the court to jail both men.

While the offence was of low severity, a jail term was warranted for Tan given that he was a law enforcement officer who sought to cover up an offence by another officer, the prosecutor said.

“The accused knew that he was not supposed to discuss the details of the investigations, both as a law enforcement officer himself and because he was told directly by CPIB and had agreed not to do so.

“However, he proceeded to do so – this cannot be spontaneous and evinces a degree of premeditation,” the prosecutor added.

On Choo, he argued that the accused knew that CPIB was investigating him and his former colleagues, but proceeded to dispose of potential evidence anyway, showing a degree of premeditation.

The prosecution sought jail terms of between two and four weeks for each man.

Tan’s lawyer Riko Isaac argued against a jail term, seeking a fine of between S$5,000 (US$3,900) and S$7,000, or alternatively, a jail term of no more than a week.

Mr Isaac argued in court that his client had not abused his position as a Certis CISCO officer to commit the offence.

The fact that he was a law enforcement officer at the time of the offence did not mean he deserved a jail sentence by default, Mr Isaac said.

“This is especially so when the ultimate effect of our client’s actions as set out in the charge were minimal or negligible,” he added.

Choo, who represented himself, told the court he had chosen e-vaporisers over cigarettes because he was trying to “cut down everything” for his children’s health.

“I’m the only guy in the house right now so I have great responsibility now for my two kids and my mum,” said Choo, pleading for a fine instead of a jail term.

For intentionally obstructing justice, they could have each been jailed up to seven years, fined, or both.