A Singapore-based private investigation firm, CDiC Consultants, and its managing partner, Tan Kok Boon, were fined a total of $45,000 on July 14 for conducting unauthorized surveillance on a police officer. The operation, which targeted a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) identified as DSP Lee, was initiated by a client dissatisfied with a police investigation involving his father. According to court documents, the surveillance lasted from December 16, 2021, to January 9, 2022, and ended only after the officer detected he was being followed.
The Scope of the Unauthorized Surveillance
The assignment began in November 2021 when Pai Hong Yao contacted CDiC Consultants. Pai, who was unhappy with the handling of his father’s case, sought to determine if DSP Lee was a “good or bad policeman.” During a meeting on November 29, 2021, Tan Kok Boon and his partner, Tan Hui Ting, agreed to the request. Pai provided the firm with the officer’s photograph, mobile number, and workplace location at the Police Cantonment Complex.
The investigation escalated significantly by December 10, 2021, when Pai provided the firm with information regarding other individuals the officer interacted with, including the lead deputy public prosecutor assigned to his father’s case. Over the following weeks, investigators tracked DSP Lee at his home and office, sometimes surveilling him from 7 a.m. until midnight. Court records note that the firm captured photographs of the officer, including an image of him topless inside his residence.
Did You Know? The private investigation firm received a total of $25,100 from the client for the assignment, an amount the company later voluntarily disgorged on July 9, though prosecutors argued this return of funds held no mitigating value in the sentencing process.
Legal Consequences and Court Findings
In sentencing, District Judge Lim Tse Haw described the surveillance as “rather extensive.” Tan Kok Boon, 58, received a $25,000 fine, while the firm, CDiC Consultants, was fined $20,000 for providing private investigation services without proper approval.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Hairul Hakkim emphasized the gravity of the offense, stating that the firm’s actions were a “calculated, sustained” choice rather than a mistake. The prosecution highlighted that the surveillance targeted an individual involved in sensitive work that carries implications for public safety and security. The operation only ceased on January 9, 2022, when DSP Lee noticed he was being followed and subsequently filed a police report the following day.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was the police officer under surveillance?
The officer, DSP Lee, was involved in an investigation concerning the father of the client, Pai Hong Yao. Pai hired the firm because he was dissatisfied with how his father was being treated.
What information did the client provide to the investigators?
Pai provided a photograph of the officer, his mobile number, his workplace, and the identities of other people the officer interacted with, including the lead deputy public prosecutor on the case.
When did the surveillance stop?
The surveillance continued until January 9, 2022, when the officer realized he was being followed. He filed a police report the next day.
How should the public expect private investigation firms to be regulated to ensure they do not interfere with active police work?