Goldring, Timothy Nicholas v Public Prosecutor and other appeals

Goldring, Timothy Nicholas v Public Prosecutor and other appeals

The High Court held the Representations were false and the Appellants authorised and furthered their communication to investors with knowledge of their falsity; inducement was established because investors relied on those representations when delivering property; non-reliance and exclusion clauses in the PRF and TB1...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] SGHC 158
Parties
Appellant / Accused: Timothy Nicholas Goldring; Appellant / Accused: John Andrew Nordmann; Co Accused (acquitted): Geraldine Anthony Thomas; Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
11 June 2015
Case Number
Magistrate's Appeals No 121-122 of 2014/01-02
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (conspiracy to Cheat Under S420 Read With S109 Penal Code) / High Court Appeal From District Judge Conviction and Sentence (cross Appeal by Prosecution on Sentence)
Outcome
All appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed
Legal Topics
Cheating (s420 Penal Code), Conspiracy (s109 Penal Code), Non Reliance / Exclusion Clauses, Inducement, Delivery of Property, Sentencing Principles, Adverse Inference From Silence, Money Circulation Schemes
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Contract Law Company Law Evidence Law Cheating (s420 Penal Code) Conspiracy (s109 Penal Code) Non Reliance / Exclusion Clauses Inducement +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Nicholas Goldring

Appellant / Accused

John Andrew Nordmann

Appellant / Accused

Geraldine Anthony Thomas

Co Accused (acquitted)

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (conspiracy to Cheat Under S420 Read With S109 Penal Code) / High Court Appeal From District Judge Conviction and Sentence (cross Appeal by Prosecution on Sentence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Representations were false and amounted to deception for cheating
  2. 2 Whether the Appellants acted dishonestly and conspired to cheat
  3. 3 Whether non-reliance / exclusion clauses (PRF Clause 4 and TB1 Clause 10.1) negate inducement or exclude liability for fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Representations were false and the Appellants authorised and furthered their communication to investors with knowledge of their falsity; inducement was established because investors relied on those representations when delivering property; non-reliance and exclusion clauses in the PRF and TB1 cannot be interpreted to exclude liability for the Appellants' own fraud and are void as against public policy and UCTA reasonableness; delivery of property was completed and delivery in another name does not negate the offence; accordingly convictions for conspiring to cheat were upheld and sentences affirmed.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals by Timothy Nicholas Goldring and John Andrew Nordmann against conviction and sentence dismissed
  • Prosecution's cross-appeal against sentence dismissed