Corruption cases nowadays are not always as clear cut as Teh Cheang Wan caught counting the illicit cash from contractors in his Ministry of National Development office.
In September last year, on his appeal, a former Ikea food services manager was cleared by High Court Justice Choo Han Teck who said that his actions did not amount to corruption because there was no third party to induce him to come up with the idea to rip off Ikano, the company that runs the Ikea stores here. Which led the prosecution to ask the Court of Appeal to rule on whether someone could be considered to have been "induced" in cases where the idea of receiving a bribe came from himself and not a third party. The Court of Appeal finally ruled that in order to prove corruption, it was not necessary for the transaction to be initiated by a third party.
The convolution takes another turn in the complaint against Alvin Yeo in relation to the overcharging of legal fees while acting for the Singapore Medical Council (SMC). A Law Society review committee ruled that there was no professional misconduct on the part of Alvin Yeo as he was not the one involved in the preparation of the bills. The same Law Society also wrote: "The winning party’s lawyers have a duty to seek the highest quantum reasonably arguable."
Naturally, the Law Society would not deign to induce anyone to overcharge, and lead him down the slippery slope of greed, avarice, and inevitable stain of perceived corruption. But what do we know, the interpretation of law is often in the hands of devious minds. Which could explain why Yang Yin is emboldened to file court papers demanding access to $1.13 million cash while facing criminal breach of trust (CBT) charges for misappropriating $1.1 million – $500,000 in 2010 and another $600,000 in 2012.