Lee later realised during a stocktake that there were in fact 5,000 unused hats. He did not highlight the matter to NParks as per protocol, but instead told Mr Tan to order just 5,000 pieces from SBM’s supplier.
According to court documents, Mr Tan believed at that time that the accused was requesting for the delivery of the 10,000 hats to be staggered into two batches of 5,000.
Lee later met Mr Tan in person to inform him to just deliver 5,000 hats to NParks and to give a refund for the remaining 5,000 hats into the accused’s personal account.
At the same meeting, Lee then told Mr Tan he wanted the S$10,000 to be paid to him personally in S$1,000 notes.
Mr Tan eventually declined Lee’s request and made no payment to him, telling him that he wished to fulfill the full purchase contract.
On Mar 9 2020, Mr Tan informed Lee that SBM faced difficulties delivering the hats by NPark’s Mar 13 deadline due to supply delays. Mr Tan was prepared to pay the penalty for delayed delivery.
Two days later, Lee offered to help Mr Tan, saying that the penalty would not benefit NParks regardless and would result in a delayed payment to SMB. He then instructed Mr Tan to issue a delivery order in advance of the actual delivery date.
He had earlier in February asked Mr Tan to send him a similar delivery order indicating that half the hats had been delivered, when in fact no hats were delivered at all.
Lee signed the documents and sent them to CIB’s senior manager together with photos of leftover hats from 2016, which led the senior manager to believe that the delivery was completed.
As a result, the senior manager gave the go-ahead for NParks to pay the supplier on Mar 13, even though the 5,000 hats were only delivered two weeks later, on Mar 26.
On April 16 2020, Lee contacted Mr Tan again, asking him for the money for the remaining 5,000 hats.
After further discussion, Mr Tan again rejected Lee’s request for the S$10,000 and offered to give him a personal loan of S$3,000 instead, informing him that he wanted to fully supply NParks with the 10,000 hats per the terms of the contract.
Court documents did not indicate why Mr Tan had offered Lee a loan.
Lee rejected the loan offer, and told him that if he did not pay him a lower amount of S$8,000, Lee would reject the 5,000 hats that were delivered earlier.
Mr Tan again declined and offered to return 50 per cent of the contract sum to NParks, to which Lee replied that Mr Tan would go to jail if he did so, according to court documents.
On Apr 30 2020, Mr Tan sent Lee a credit note payable to NParks worth half of the original purchase contract, but the accused did not take any action on this.
UPSKIRT PHOTOS OF STUDENTS
Court documents stated that up-skirt photographs were found when the authorities seized Lee’s hard disk during investigations.
Investigators later found that Lee had attended an open house event with his daughter on Mar 7, 2019. Upon spotting two female students wearing skirts, he discretely took three upskirt photographs with his phone.
About a month later, Lee came across a female stranger whom he found attractive and was wearing a short skirt and secretly took an upskirt photo of her.
Court documents showed that of the charges taken into consideration, five were committed against Lee’s colleagues at NParks’ office, while one was against another female MRT commuter.
Seeking at least 10 months and eight weeks’ imprisonment in total for all proceeded charges, Deputy Public Prosecutor Victoria Ting noted that Lee was the one who initiated the bribe request, and was persistent despite Mr Tan rejecting his overtures.
Lee had also abused the trust given to him by NParks by requesting more hats than required, using existing hats to deceive his senior manager into believing that the goods were delivered on time, and created an opportunity for him to profit by asking the supplier to underdeliver the hats.
Seeking a lower sentence of six months’ imprisonment, with additional six to seven weeks’ jail and a S$20,00 fine, defence lawyers Sunil Sudheesan and Joyce Khoo described their clients’ wrongdoings as “unfortunate aberration”, given his clean record before this.
They argued that no actual losses were suffered by NParks as refunds were made.
In delivering his decision, District Judge Kenneth Chin said that he agreed with the prosecution’s sentencing position, noting how the accused had sought out the illegal gratification from the supplier on multiple occasions.
Lee had used his position to threaten Mr Tan, which was a significant culpability enhancing factor, said the judge.
The accused’s actions in cheating NParks was also premeditated, given that he took photos of the old stock of hats to deceive the senior manager to begin processing payment for what were undelivered goods.
For committing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Lee could have been jailed up to seven years, fined up to S$100,000, or both.
For cheating, Lee could have been jailed for another 10 years and fined.
For each count of insulting modesty of a woman, Lee could be sentenced to jail for up to a year, fined, or both.
This story was originally published in TODAY.