The case of Public Prosecutor v Gumede Sthembiso Joel [2024] SGHC 23 involved the illegal transport of rhinoceros horns by the Respondent, for which he was charged with assisting another to retain the benefits from criminal conduct under section 51(1)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992. The main issue was the interpretation of “other person’s benefits from criminal conduct”, and whether the horns fulfilled this description.
The horns had been sold by one “Jaycee” to a person known as “Jimmy”. The Respondent’s role was in transporting the horns to Laos via Singapore, where he was arrested and charged with facilitating Jaycee in the control of Jaycee’s benefits from criminal conduct of illegal sale and export – here referring to the horns.
At first instance, the District Court acquitted the Respondent, finding that the horns themselves were not Jaycee’s “benefits from criminal conduct”. This acquittal was upheld by the High Court on appeal. The High Court held that the phrase “benefits from criminal conduct” requires the benefits to be gained, obtained or acquired by the primary offender as a result of their criminal conduct; there must be a causal link between the benefits gained and the identified criminal conduct.
On the facts, Jaycee had relinquished possession of the horns to Jimmy after the sale to Jimmy had been concluded, before collecting the horns from Jimmy to be exported out of South Africa. The only reason Jaycee came into possession and control of the horns once more was merely as a means of facilitating their export. Thus, the horns could not be regarded as Jaycee’s benefits from his criminal conduct of illegally exporting them, but merely the subject matter of his illegal export.
The Respondent was successfully represented by Stephania Wong from the Commercial Litigation Practice.
