The courts should be given discretionary power to forfeit a vehicle involved in crime
I refer to the article “Owner innocent? Car used for crime will still be forfeited” (ST, March 30).
I was in court urging the judge not to order the forfeiture of a vehicle seized under the Customs Act. My clients were an innocent hire-purchase company which had no control over how the vehicle was used by the hirer.
The court however felt bound to order the vehicle to be forfeited once the prosecution made an application for forfeiture.
I write to highlight the plight of the finance and rental companies in the hope that legislative intervention comes quickly.
A typical case runs like this: The company hires out a vehicle to an individual. Unknown to the company, the hirer attempts to smuggle cigarettes into Singapore without paying duty.
He is caught and charged under the Customs Act and the GST Act. The vehicle used in the commission of the offence is also seized. The company is notified by the Customs of the seizure and informed of the forfeiture hearing in court.
If the prosecution decides not to forfeit the vehicle, it will ask for the vehicle to be released to the owner. However if the representations are not acceded to, the prosecution will ask the court to order the vehicle to be forfeited.
The current legislations have been interpreted to mean that once the prosecution makes an application to forfeit a vehicle, the court is duty bound to order the forfeiture. It has no discretion to consider the relevant circumstances of the case to decide whether forfeiture is appropriate.
This current state of forfeiture proceedings is wanting because it does not give the courts any flexibility to consider the merits of each individual case. This power rests with the prosecution and it should not be so in our system of justice.
In my case, the prosecution highlighted that there were cases where it had asked for the vehicle to be released to the owner. Unfortunately no reasons were offered as to how the circumstances of that particular case were different from mine.
That is another reason why the courts should be empowered with the discretion to decide whether to order forfeiture. Under the current scheme, the prosecution will not tell you why your representation is rejected.
If the reasons are transparent, at least the rental companies can take the appropriate steps to protect themselves.
Supporters of the current system cite deterrence as a prime motivator to let things be. But how can deterrence be effective when the companies are not the ones involved in the crime?
Vijai Parwani
