Accomplices of alleged match-fixing kingpin Dan Tan freed from detention
Tan Seet Eng, also known by the nickname of Dan Tan, leaves the supreme court in Singapore on Nov 25, 2015. Photo: Ernest Chua
SINGAPORE — Three individuals who were part of alleged match-fixing kingpin Dan Tan Seet Eng’s syndicate have been placed under the less restrictive Police Supervision Order regime, said the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in a statement today (Jan 18).
The decision to revoke their Detention Orders follows a review of the evidence against them and their roles in the syndicate in light of the apex court ruling in November last year that Tan’s detention was unlawful.
“On the evidence as it stands now, the Minister is satisfied that detention orders in respect of the three persons should be revoked. The Minister has decided to, instead, place them on police supervision orders, for a duration of three years,” said the MHA.
The MHA did not name the trio, but said they were involved in a syndicate that conducted “major, illegal global soccer match-fixing activities from and within Singapore”. This syndicate was allegedly headed by Tan, who was issued a new Detention Order, said the MHA today.
Like Detention Orders, Police Supervision Orders fall under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) but does not involve being locked behind bars. Rather, individuals issued this order — which cannot exceed three years — have their movements in public restricted through electronic tagging, regular reporting to the Police, curfew hours and travel restrictions, an MHA spokesperson said, in response to queries.
For instance, they must personally report at a stipulated time to an appointed police officer. They must also observe curfews and are forbidden from consorting with others under supervision orders. Flouting these restrictions is tantamount to committing an offence and could result in a jail term.
The CLTPA allows for detention without trial against persons engaged in criminal activities, such as secret societies, unlicensed moneylending, and drug trafficking syndicates.
In justifying the need for the statute, the MHA had said these individuals must be kept off the streets in the interests of public safety, peace and good order but accomplices and witnesses may be unwilling to testify against them for fear of reprisals.
In a match-fixing swoop in September 2013, the police arrested 14 individuals, including Tan, 51. It is not clear if the trio issued with Police Supervision Orders today were among them. The Home Affairs Minister issued Detention Orders against four of those arrested, including Tan, the following month.
Last November, the Court of Appeal ruled that Tan’s detention was “unlawful” because the grounds for locking him up set out few connections with Singapore and ordered his release. But about a week after Tan’s release, the police nabbed him again under the CLTPA.
Responding to the latest development, Tan’s lawyer Thong Chee Kun said: “We see (the trio’s) release as a positive development and we’re still exploring all options with our client.”
Lawyers told TODAY that the decision to issue Police Supervision Orders hinges on factors such as the threat posed by an individual and the gravity of the alleged offence.
“For detention orders, you’re incarcerated and put behind bars. Police Supervision Orders restrict your movements,” said Mr Ravinderpal Singh of Kalco Law.
“Normally after a detention order, you’re placed on police supervision,” said Trident Law Corporation’s Kalidass Murugaiyan.
Asked if a lack of evidence could have led to an individual being slapped with police supervision, instead of being charged in court, he said there could be other reasons, like the inability to produce a witness in court. “For example, there are intelligence officers that you don’t want to compromise.”
