Cybercrime suspect fails in appeal to challenge police’s seizure of his belongings

These comprised bank cards, mobile phones, flash drives, a laptop and a computer processing unit.

Wang argued that the request from the US was too general and vague for the local authorities to identify and seize the 12 items.

He also argued that there was no evidence to show that Singapore officers had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the seized items were either evidence or fruits of the crimes.

The application was heard, and dismissed, by a magistrate in proceedings under the Extradition Act.

Wang then applied for permission to begin judicial review proceedings to quash the magistrate’s decision, but this was dismissed by a High Court judge.

He next appealed against the judge’s decision.

No jurisdiction

The Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal on July 9, issued detailed reasons for its decision on Aug 4.

The three-judge court said the initial application should not have been made to the magistrate to begin with.

The judges noted that the Extradition Act does not include a mechanism by which a fugitive may challenge the police’s seizure of his belongings before a magistrate.

“In our view, the magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the application because it was in substance a judicial review application to set aside the police’s seizure of the seized Items.”

The judges said only the High Court has the jurisdiction to scrutinise the legality of the police’s conduct.

If Wang truly believed that the police had seized the items unlawfully, he should have filed a judicial review application to the High Court against the police, said the court.

This process required Wang to apply for permission to start proceedings within three months of the seizure.

The judges noted that Wang’s application to the magistrate was filed close to nine months after the seizure took place, which meant he was out of time to bring a judicial review application.

“By applying to the magistrate, Mr Wang effectively circumvented this requirement,” said the court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Hri Kumar Nair and Justice Debbie Ong.

The court said the parties may have overlooked the magistrate’s lack of jurisdiction because the application was bundled together with other applications related to the extradition process, which were within the magistrate’s jurisdiction to hear.

The judges added that even assuming the initial application was correctly made, Wang was wrong to have invoked the judicial review process as a first resort to challenge the magistrate’s decision.

The court said Wang should have first filed an application for criminal revision.

In addition, Wang failed to establish an arguable case of reasonable suspicion to quash the magistrate’s decision, said the court.

The judges said under the Extradition Act, the role of the Singapore authorities is primarily to facilitate the extradition request, not to investigate the alleged offences.

Therefore, officers are entitled to rely on information provided by the requesting state in relation to the items to be seized, unless there is clear material to show that the information is wrong or that the items bear no connection with the alleged offences.