BSP 1702/BSP1004 Legal Environment of Business

Semester 2, 2017/2018
TUTORIAL 1 – Week 2

Students are advised that no model answer will be provided. You are
strongly encouraged to explore and suggest solutions on your own without
seeking to rely on model answers. Your Lecturer will be providing pointers
to some of the issues that are to be discussed in each tutorial.

#1. The focus is on how business conduct might lead to an infringement of

the law, in particular, cybercrime

Read the case of Tan Chye Guan Charles v Public Prosecutor [2009]
SGHC 128 and answer the following questions:
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-
law/high-court-judgments/13873-tan-chye-guan-charles-v-public-
prosecutor-2009-4-slr-5-2009-sghc-128

The project manager left his laptop computer when he went to answer a
telephone call. The appellant took the opportunity and looked at the laptop
screen. He recognised a file name displayed on the screen and realised it
might have info useful to him. He inserted his thumb drive into the laptop
and copied the file onto the thumb drive by the “drag-and-drop” method.
His action was eventually found out and he was charged under s 3(1) of the
Computer Misuse Act

a. Would you consider this to be unethical conduct on the part of the

offender?
 Yes, unauthorized access to other’s personal information which is an
infringement of privacy
b. Is this a civil or a criminal action? What are the distinguishing
features?
 Criminal action
 Against public interest as he might repeat the offence again
 Endangering public safety → confidential info about operations of the
MOD
 Distinguished by the terminology used eg offence and breach of Computer
Misuse Act (has a statute)
c. What wrong did the offender commit?
 Unauthorised access to personal information
 Quoted from case: Any person who knowingly causes a computer to
perform any function for the purpose of securing access without authority
to any program or data held in any computer should be guilty of an
offence (under Section 3)
d. Do you think such action should be criminalised? Give reasons
 Yes, especially if data stolen is militarily sensitive and jeopardises the
safety of Singapore if the data falls into the wrong hands
 To send a strong signal and deter others from committing the same crime
 Against public interest – gives him an unfair advantage against
competitors
e. Why is the offender appealing?
 On the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Mr Michael 
Khoo, SC argued very forcefully that the court below erred in taking into 
account matters that were not in the statement of facts. 
 Counsel also argued that the judge below was wrong to have treated this 
case as if it were a s 9(1) charge when it was not
 Imprisonment may lead to damages to the company he is working in and 
mar his own reputation 
f. What are the factors which a judge will take into account in
sentencing an offender?
 Offence, circumstances eg stressful situation, mitigating factors, case law
and statement of facts
 “Facts include, of course, the context of the case and the mitigating and
aggravating factors if any” (para 3)
g. What is the role of mitigating factors in sentencing an offender? What
were the mitigating factors pleaded by counsel?
 Reduces severity of the sentence by highlighting reasons why a lighter
punishment should be imposed then the prosecutor will consider
i. Mr Khoo reiterated the mitigating factors that the offence was not 
premeditated but committed “on the spur of the moment”; 
ii. Not an instance of computer “hacking”; 
iii. That the appellant was a respectable businessman whose position 
in the company would surely suffer from an imprisonment, and 
submitted that the maximum fine imposed was harsh enough. He 
submitted that it was excessive to impose a three week jail 
sentence in addition to the fine. (first time offender, no criminal 
record)
h. Do you think the punishment in this case is proportionate to the wrong
committed? Give reasons
  Yes. The information could have been classified as protected military data
which would lead to section 9 being imposed on the offender instead of
the lighter sentence of section 3
 The crime was a commercial nature as it is related to the purchase of the
product by the DSTA from the contractors but not entirely devoid of
military significance which needed to be taken into account
 Aside from the sensitivity of the info copied, the seriousness of the offence
was deepened by the context and circumstances → agency of the victim of
unauthorised access is a public agency tasked with defence-related matters
→ deterrent effect for others; consistency; ethics
i. What are the commercial implications, if any, of this case?
 Implications to the business/industry as a whole
 Anti-competitive behaviour that affects competitors as they are gaining
access to materials that others don’t have
 Impression and reputation of company, trust, obstacle to making new
contracts
 Businesses need to pay heed to this act → serves as a warning for
businessmen to avoid making such an offence

#2. Do each of the following sets of facts amount to unethical conduct, a

crime or civil wrong or both a crime and civil wrong? If it is a civil wrong,
how best can the dispute be resolved? This exercise is important as a
business should have a general understanding of what amounts to unethical
conduct, a crime or civil wrong and the methods of dispute resolution.

a. O Ltd gets C Pte Ltd to renovate its office for $200,000. There is
some dispute over payment and the renovations. The contract is silent
on dispute resolution.
 Civil matter as the dispute is regarding contractual issues and O Ltd is
seeking compensation from C Pte Ltd
 Dispute can be resolved by negotiation, mediation or litigation
 Negotiation if both companies want to continue their business r/s since O
Ltd is using C Pte Ltd’s services but no mediator → hard to reach a
common agreement to the right payment and renovation
 Mediation to create a win-win solution for both companies but both parties
need to agree to resolve their dispute through mediation
 If either party refuses to undergo negotiation/mediation, plaintiff can go
through litigation to sue defendant. However, this incurs high cost (maybe
more than $200,000) and strains ties
 Arbitration is least feasible as contract did not state that both parties wish
to arbitrate their disputes → unlikely that both parties agree to it
b. T breaks into a well known jewellery chain store and steals some
jewellery. T’s accomplice, U, keeps a look-out for him. The chain
store is owned by O.
 Criminal matter – T committed crime against public interest (theft) hence
to be punished to deter others from committing the same crime → public
prosecutor to prosecute him and final verdict as to whether he will be
fined/sentenced to prison
 U should be charged the same way as T as he is also involved in the
offense
 Unethical conduct

c. E is an employee of O Pte Ltd, which provides relocation

transportation services. On one occasion, E speeds in the company
vehicle on the way to delivering a client’s goods and knocks down V.
 Criminal matter as E was speeding on his own will and should bear the
consequences
 Would only be a civil case if client’s goods were not delivered on time or
suffered damages which would cause the client to sue O Pte Ltd
 Unlikely to have prosecution posed to the employer since the speeding
rules will apply to E

d. Pears is a well known computer brand. It has various retail outlets in

Singapore. B enters into a contract with one of the stores to buy a
computer for $2700. The computer turns out to have some defects.
 Civil matter – computer defects are unintentional and does not cause harm
to public interest/safety
 Even if intentional, defects are under consumer law → civil matter
 B can choose to resolve it at the Small Claims Tribunal since only a
small amt of money involved
 Not litigation → would cost more than $2700 due to lawyer’s fees + time-
consuming

e. O Pte Ltd runs a series of restaurants in Singapore called Think Luck.

On one occasion, V and his wife fall sick after consuming
contaminated food provided by one of those restaurants. As a result, V
and his wife incur medical expenses of $300. Suggest the best way of
resolving the dispute.
 Civil case if O Pte Ltd did not contaminate the food on purpose
 Mediation preferred to ask for compensation for physical/ mental
consequences
o O Pte Ltd would likely agree to mediation as it is of little to no cost
o Mediation offers privacy → O Pte Ltd wants to save their
company’s reputation esp since they have a series of restaurants
 and incident will not be reported in the press → cannot afford to
tarnish reputation in a competitive F&B industry
 Not litigation → costs more than $300 + time consuming

f. O Pte Ltd employs X, an illegal over-stayer, to work in his company.

 Criminal matter → illegal under the Employment of Foreign Manpower
Act(?) even though it saves on hiring costs
 State will punish his actions to deter others from committing the same
crime
 Strict liability offences – regardless of whether the mistake made was
intentional

g. O Pte Ltd which is in the oil industry, offers a bribe to a foreign

government official to secure a particular transaction.
 Criminal case → punishment to deter briberies especially when it involves
a government official (bribery laws in SG)
 Prevention of Corruption Act