Corruption (Prevention of Corruption Act): what sentences Singapore courts imposed
6 reported judgments · 2 courts · criminal sentencing outcomes
Across 6 reported Singapore judgments we analysed
Across 6 reported Singapore judgments we analysed, the imprisonment terms Singapore courts imposed for corruption (prevention of corruption act) ranged from 1 week to 6 years 7 months (median 2 years 1 month). Each figure is the sentence a Singapore court actually imposed in that case, on its own facts — these are past outcomes, not a prediction of any future sentence or legal advice.
What sentences do Singapore courts impose for corruption (prevention of corruption act)?
Across the 6 reported Singapore judgments on corruption (prevention of corruption act) in this corpus, the imprisonment terms Singapore courts imposed ranged from 1 week to 6 years 7 months (median 2 years 1 month) across the 6 cases that carried a custodial term. Of the 6 judgments, 6 carried a custodial term. Each figure is the sentence a Singapore court actually imposed in that case, on its own facts. In [2024] SGCA 58, for instance, the court imposed Aggregate sentence increased to 80 months' imprisonment (appeal allowed). The 6 judgments below report what the courts actually decided in specific reported cases — across SGCA and SGHC — with the sentence imposed and a verbatim line from each judgment tied to its source case. These are records of past decisions on their own facts, not a prediction of any future sentence and not a statement of what penalty a particular charge will attract; this page is reference information, not legal advice.
These are sentences imposed in specific past cases on their own facts — not a prediction of any future sentence, and not a statement of what penalty any particular charge will attract. Sentences turn on the harm, culpability, antecedents and circumstances of each case. For an assessment of a specific situation, consult a qualified Singapore Advocate & Solicitor.
This reports the sentences Singapore courts actually imposed in 6 reported corruption judgments in this corpus, read directly from each judgment. These are records of past decisions on their own facts, not a prediction of any future sentence or legal advice.
What Singapore courts imposed for corruption (prevention of corruption act). The top row is the range and median of the imprisonment terms across the grounded judgments; each judgment row is the sentence that court imposed, with the verbatim quote in the cards below.
| Offending conduct | Sentence the court imposed | Judgments | Source cases |
|---|---|---|---|
Imprisonment imposed (range across 6 judgments) The custodial terms the courts imposed for this offence. Fine-only and disqualification-only outcomes are listed below but excluded from this imprisonment range. | 1 week – 6 years 7 months · median 2 years 1 month | 6 | |
Corruption; aggregate sentence increased on the Prosecution's appeal. [2024] SGCA 58 · SGCA | Aggregate sentence increased to 80 months' imprisonment (appeal allowed). | — | |
Corruption; global sentence reduced on appeal taking stood-down charges into account. [2026] SGHC 89 · SGHC | Global sentence reduced from 28 to 15 months' imprisonment (appeal allowed in part). | — | |
Corruption after trial; aggregate sentence imposed. [2025] SGHC 134 · SGHC | 18 months' imprisonment (aggregate). | — | |
Corruption; sentence and a penalty order imposed by the District Judge. [2025] SGHC 90 · SGHC | 43 months' imprisonment and a $191,115.89 penalty order (in default 6 months' imprisonment). | — | |
Corruption; aggregate sentence and a penalty order imposed. [2025] SGHC 69 · SGHC | 33 months' imprisonment and a $2,634.57 penalty (in default 5 weeks' imprisonment). | — | |
Corruption; reformative training substituted with a short imprisonment term on appeal. [2024] SGHC 66 · SGHC | 7 days' imprisonment substituted for reformative training (appeal allowed). | — |
What did the courts impose, case by case?
Each judgment below imposed a sentence for this offence. The sentence is stated as the court put it; the quoted line is taken verbatim from the judgment.
Sentence imposed
Aggregate sentence increased to 80 months' imprisonment (appeal allowed).
“The Judge allowed the Prosecution’s appeal against sentence and increased Mr Chang’s aggregate sentence to 80 months’ imprisonment”
Read the full judgment: [2024] SGCA 58 · primary source
Sentence imposed
Global sentence reduced from 28 to 15 months' imprisonment (appeal allowed in part).
“we reduce the global sentence from 28 to 15 months’ imprisonment.”
Read the full judgment: [2026] SGHC 89 · primary source
Sentence imposed
18 months' imprisonment (aggregate).
“He was convicted after trial and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.”
Read the full judgment: [2025] SGHC 134 · primary source
Sentence imposed
43 months' imprisonment and a $191,115.89 penalty order (in default 6 months' imprisonment).
“Thereafter, the DJ sentenced Mr Rajavikraman to 43 months’ imprisonment and imposed a penalty order for $191,115.89 (in default six months’ imprisonment)”
Read the full judgment: [2025] SGHC 90 · primary source
Sentence imposed
33 months' imprisonment and a $2,634.57 penalty (in default 5 weeks' imprisonment).
“Teo was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay a penalty for a sum of $2,634.57, in default five weeks’ imprisonment.”
Read the full judgment: [2025] SGHC 69 · primary source
Sentence imposed
7 days' imprisonment substituted for reformative training (appeal allowed).
“I therefore allowed the appeal and substituted the sentence of RT with an imprisonment term of seven days.”
Read the full judgment: [2024] SGHC 66 · primary source
Who acted in these cases?
Law firms that appeared as counsel in the 6 reported corruption (prevention of corruption act) judgments above. This is a record of which firms acted in these reported decisions, not an endorsement or recommendation.
See the most active criminal law firms and lawyers by reported case count.
Key questions about corruption (prevention of corruption act)
What sentences do Singapore courts impose for corruption (prevention of corruption act)?
In the 6 reported Singapore judgments on corruption (prevention of corruption act) in this corpus, the imprisonment terms Singapore courts imposed ranged from 1 week to 6 years 7 months (median 2 years 1 month) across the 6 cases carrying a custodial term, with 0 cases sentenced to a fine instead. The sentence turns on the harm, culpability and circumstances of each case. In [2024] SGCA 58, for example, the court recorded: “The Judge allowed the Prosecution’s appeal against sentence and increased Mr Chang’s aggregate sentence to 80 months’ imprisonment” Each figure is the sentence the court actually imposed in that case, not a prediction of any future sentence.
Which Singapore cases decided sentences for corruption (prevention of corruption act)?
Reported Singapore judgments in this corpus that imposed a sentence for corruption (prevention of corruption act) include [2024] SGCA 58, [2026] SGHC 89, [2025] SGHC 134, [2025] SGHC 90, and [2025] SGHC 69, among 6 judgments in total. Each links to the full decision, and the table on this page sets out the sentence the court imposed alongside a verbatim line from the judgment. For the wider body of law these sit within, see the criminal law practice area.
How many Singapore corruption (prevention of corruption act) cases is this based on?
This page reports 6 reported Singapore judgments on corruption (prevention of corruption act) read directly from the judgments — there is no structured sentencing field in the corpus, so each sentence is the figure the court stated in its operative disposition. Sentence extraction from reported judgments is narrower than the full body of cases sentenced in the lower courts, so each row reports a specific decided outcome rather than a settled statistical range. The figures are records of past decisions on their own facts.
Related
Source judgments
Every figure on this page is drawn from a reported Singapore judgment. The cases below are the primary sources; each links to its full judgment.
- [2024] SGCA 58 — Chang Peng Hong Clarence v Public Prosecutor · primary source
- [2026] SGHC 89 — Kenneth Lum Hsien Loong v Public Prosecutor · primary source
- [2025] SGHC 134 — Poo Tze Chiang v Public Prosecutor · primary source
- [2025] SGHC 90 — Rajavikraman s/o Jayapandian v Public Prosecutor · primary source
- [2025] SGHC 69 — Public Prosecutor v Teo Hwee Peng · primary source
- [2024] SGHC 66 — Fahd Siddiqui v Public Prosecutor · primary source
Compiled by the SG Case Law editorial team from primary sources — the judgments themselves and Singapore Statutes Online (sso.agc.gov.sg). · Updated 25 June 2026 · How we compile this
Last updated .