|
* * * * * * * * * *
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* *
* * * * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In year 2009 | |
| 1 |
Date of
Inquiry:
25 Jun 2009
Charges:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 31G
of the Professional Engineers Act for he had contravened
Rule 12 of the Professional Engineers (Code of Professional
Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that he had offered to supply
professional engineering services without having in force a
practicing certificate authorizing him to engage in
professional engineering work to which those services
relate;
The PE
was charged pursuant to section 31G of the Professional
Engineers Act for he had contravened Rule 12 of the
Professional Engineers (Code of Professional Conduct and
Ethics) Rules, in that he had abetted a builder in relation
to a building project, by intentionally aiding the builder
in carrying out building work without there being in force a
permit granted by the Commission of Building Control and was
subsequently charged under section 5(1) of the Building
Control Act;
The PE
was charged pursuant to section 31G of the Professional
Engineers Act for he had contravened Rule 12 of the
Professional Engineers (Code of Professional Conduct and
Ethics) Rules, in that he had abetted a builder in relation
to a building project, by intentionally aiding the builder
in commission of an offence of carrying out building work
based on a plan of the building work that has not been
approved by the Commissioner of Building Control as required
under Section 5 of the BC Act and was subsequently charged
under section 5(1) of the BC Act for which he was fined
$6,000 by BCA.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under the PE
Act. He was suspended from practice for a period of 1 year
from the day he would be eligible to apply for the renewal
of his practicing certificate and fined a sum of $6997.80
being costs and expenses of the proceedings. | |
| 2 |
Date of Inquiry:
27 Jul 2009
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant
to section 31G of the Professional Engineers Act for he had
contravened Rule 2, Part II of the Professional Engineers
(Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that he
has, for the purposes of obtaining approval of Building
Construction Authority, signed plans and/or calculations,
which neither he nor any member of his staff under his
supervision had verified, checked or prepared, and thereby
guilty of an offence under the provisions of s 31 G(1)(c) of
the Professional Engineers Act
Verdict:
The Board found
the PE guilty under the PE Act. He was fined a sum of
$3,000.00 under the charge and $2,727.22 for being costs and
expenses of the proceedings. | |
| |
| | |
In year 2008 | | | 1 | Date of Inquiry:
22 May 2008
Charge:
The
PE was charged pursuant to section 31G of the Professional Engineers
Act for he had contravened Rule 12 of the Professional Engineers (Code of
Professional Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that whilst being the
Qualified Person for structural works in relation to a building
project, he had permitted structural works to be carried out up to the
12th storey at the project without obtaining approval for the shelter
structural plans, which was a Condition of Permit to Carry Out
Structural Works by the Building and Construction Authority in respect
of the project and was subsequently charged under section 19(1) of the
Building Control Act for which he was fined $3,000 by BCA.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under the PE Act. He was
fined a sum of S$4,000.00.
|
| | 2 | Date of Inquiry:
16 Dec 2008
Charge:
The
PE was charged pursuant to section 31G of the Professional Engineers
Act for he had contravened Rule 12 of the Professional Engineers (Code
of Professional Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that whilst being the
Qualified Person for structural works for a building project, he had
failed to exercise due diligence to ensure that there is no
contravention of a written law, namely, section 9(3C) of the Building
Control Act, in failing to ensure that proposed superstructure were not
carried out without prior structural plan approval from the
Commissioner of Building Control, for which he was fined $5,000 by BCA.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under the PE Act. He was
fined a sum of $2,000.00. | | 3 | Date of Inquiry:
23 December 2008
Charges:
The
PE was charged pursuant to section 31G of the Professional Engineers
Act in that he had acted so improperly as to bring disrepute to the PE
profession. Whilst being the professional engineer supervising
structural works for a building project, he had failed to act
accordingly upon discovery of a contravention of a written law, namely,
section 9 of the Building Control Act, and he had,
(i)
failed to report to the qualified person of the project and/or the
relevant authorities that proposed superstructure works had been and
were being carried out without prior structural plan approval from the
Commissioner of Building Control, and
(ii)
submitted for approval the said plans without disclosure of the
contravention(s) to the relevant authority.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under the PE Act. He was
fined a sum of $3,000.00. |
In year 2007
| | 1 | Date of Inquiry:
14 Sep 2007
Charge:
The
PE was charged pursuant to section 31G of the Professional Engineers
Act for he had contravened Rule 12 of the Professional Engineers
(Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that whilst being the
professional engineer appointed as Project Co-ordinator/Temporary works
Co-ordinator for a construction project, he had failed to
exercise due diligence to ensure that there was no contravention of a
written law by the occupier of the worksite namely, contravention of
section 33(1) of the Factories Act in that the occupier has failed to
ensure that the place of work was of sound construction and properly
maintained, which offence was facilitated by the PE who,
(i) failed to ensure that the design of the diaphragm wall was adequate before endorsing on it;
(ii) failed to ensure that the design calculations in the were in accordance and consistent with BS5950;
(iii)
failed to sufficiently check that the design calculations in the
Drawing Change Notification were in accordance and consistent with
BS5950 before approving it;
(iv) failed to ensure that splays were installed for double struts as per the design.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 31 of the PE Act. He was
suspended from practise for a period of 24 months.
| | 2 | Date of Inquiry:
7 Dec 2007
Charges:
1.
The PE was charged pursuant to section 31G of the Professional
Engineers Act for he had contravened Rule 12 of the Professional
Engineers (Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that he
had failed to exercise due diligence to ensure that there was no
contravention of or failure to comply with a written law by the PE and
the Builder, whilst being the professional engineer appointed as the
Qualified Person for structural works in relation to a building
project, in permitting the Builder to carry out construction works, in
contravention of section 5 of the Building Control Act in that the PE failed to and also failed to ensure that the Builder,
(i) obtain approval of the plans of the building works from the Commissioner of Building Control; and
(ii)
obtain a permit from the Commissioner of Building Control to carry out
the building works shown in the approved plans of the building works.
2
The PE was charged pursuant to section 31G of the Professional
Engineers Act for he had contravened Rule 12 of the Professional Engineers
(Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that he had failed
to exercise due diligence to ensure that there was no contravention of
a written law or failure to comply with a written law by the PE and the
Builder, in failing to comply with condition of the permit to carry out
building works, in contravention of section 19(1) of the Building
Control Act in that when the allowable limits of ground movements had
been exceeded, the PE failed to ensure that the Builder,
(i) notify the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) when this occurred; and
(ii) take immediate corrective action to prevent damage to the adjacent properties.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 31 of the PE Act. He was
fined a sum of S$2,000.00 | |
In
year 2006 |
| 1 |
Date of Inquiry:
28 Sep 2006
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(f) of the PE Act in that he had
contravened Rule 12 (a) of the Professional Engineers (Code of Professional
Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that he had as Qualified Person for the
structural design for a building project,
i)
contravened Regulation 26 of Building Control Regulations and
committed an offence punishable under Regulation 116 of the said Regulations,
for failing to provide an analysis of the diaphragm walls and their effects on
the force distribution within the structure as stipulated in BS (British
Standards) 8110 in the plan he submitted, for which offence he was fined
S$5,000.00; and
ii)
contravened section 18(3)(a) of the Building Control Act and committed
an offence punishable under section 18(3) of the said Act in that he had
falsely certified that there were no departures or deviations from the approved
plans in the Submission Certificate of As-Built Structural Plans/Calculations
submitted for the purposes of obtaining the Certificate of Statutory
Completion, for which offence he was fined S$10,000.00.
Verdict:
The Board
found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(f) of the PE Act. He was fined a total sum of $5,000.00. |
| 2 |
Date of Inquiry:
5 Oct 2006
Charge:
The PE was charged
pursuant to section 28(a) of the PE Act for an offence under section 97(1) and
punishable under section 104(1)(a) of the Securities Industry Act (Cap 289)
read with section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), in that he was charged for
abetment to cause to be created a misleading appearance with respect to the
price of securities in a certain company whose shares are traded on the
Singapore Exchange Dealing and Automated Quotation System (SESDAQ) of the
Singapore Stock Exchange Securities Trading Limited, with the intention of
deflating the closing price, for which offence he was convicted
and fined $150,000 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty of being
convicted of an offence which implied a defect in character which makes him
unfit for the profession within the meaning of section 28(a) of The P E Act. He
was suspended from practice for a period of one year
and ordered to pay full costs including disbursements. |
|
In
year 2005 |
| 1 |
Date of Inquiry:
25 Jan 2005
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241),
in that he was charged for corruptly accepting gratifications and
rewards, for which offences he was jailed for 12 months and fined
$320,000 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act. His registration was cancelled with
effect from 25 Apr 2005. |
|
2
|
Date of Inquiry:
17 Nov 2005
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(f) of the PE
Act, that being the PE for the construction of a residential development comprising
a 12-storey condominium, he had failed to exercise due diligence by failing to
provide to the Commissioner of Building Control details of instrumentation for
the monitoring of any ground movement and the results thereof, by reason whereof, he was guilty
of an offence under Regulation 33 of the Building Control
Regulations, for which offence
he was convicted and fined $2,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(f) of the
PE Act. He was fined a sum of $1,000. |
|
3
|
Date of Inquiry:
30 Nov 2005
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(f) of the PE
Act that he had contravened Rule 12 of the Professional Engineers
(Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that he had
failed to exercise due diligence to ensure compliance with
Regulation 7(3) of the Building Control (Temporary Buildings)
Regulations whilst being the professional engineer to design and
supervise the erection of a 3-storey temporary workers' quarters,
to wit, by failing to furnish to the builder with all plans
(including structural plans), designs and calculations of the
timber corridor and staircase of the workers' quarters, by reason
whereof, he was guilty of an offence under Regulation 7(6) of the
Building Control (Temporary Buildings) Regulations, for which offence
he was convicted and fined $3,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(f) of the
PE Act. He was censured. |
|
In
year 2004 |
| 1 |
Date of Inquiry:
23 Apr 2004
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(e) of the PE
Act, that being the PE for the structural design and drawings for
a residential development comprising an 18-storey block of flats
with basement carpark, he had permitted the carrying out of the
basement works without approved structural plans and calculations
and a permit to carry out building works issued by the
Commissioner of Building Control. by reason whereof, he was guilty
of an offence under Section 5(1) of the Building Control Act
punishable under Section 5(3) of the said Act, for which offence
he was convicted and fined $15,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was fined a sum of
$5,000. |
|
2 |
Date of Inquiry:
7 May 2004
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to
section 27(1)(e) of the PE Act, that being the PE for the erection
of 2-storey detached dwelling houses each with a basement, he had:
|
(i) |
permitted the aforesaid building works to deviate in a
material way from the plans of the same as approved by the
Commissioner of Building Control, namely, in that the size of
the constructed basement was increased by 30% from the
approved plans, by reason whereof, he was guilty of an offence
under Section 18(2) of the Building Control Act, for which
offence he was convicted and fined $7,000.00 in court; and
|
|
(ii) |
for the purposes of obtaining approval for a Certificate
of Statutory Compliance, made a declaration which was false in
a material particular, namely, by falsely certifying in his
submission certificate of as-built structural
plans/calculations that there were no departures or deviations
from the approved plans when in fact the building works were
and had not been carried out and completed in accordance with
the approved plans, an offence under Section 18(3)(a) of the
Building Control Act (Cap 29), for which offence he was
charged in court for the purposes of sentencing. |
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was fined a sum of
$5,000. |
| 3 |
Date of Inquiry:
4 Jun 2004
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to
section 27(1)(f) of the PE Act for contravening
Rule 7 of the Professional Engineers (Code of Professional Conduct
and Ethics) Rules, in that he had knowingly undertaken a
commission from a client while a claim for compensation or damages
or both by another professional engineer who was previously
employed by the said client, remained unsatisfied, by reason
whereof, he was guilty of an offence under the provisions of
section 27(1)(f) of the Professional Engineers Act (Cap 253)
punishable under section 27(1) and (2) of the said Act.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(f) of the
PE Act. He was fined a sum of
$5,000. |
|
4
|
Date of Inquiry:
16 Nov 2004
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to
section 27(1)(f) of the PE Act for contravening
paragraph 12(a) of Part I in the Schedule to the Professional
Engineers (Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics) Rules, in that he
being the PE for structural works in relation to a linkway and bus
shelter project, failed to exercise due diligence to ensure that
the builder had used full penetration butt welds for all the
splicing joints between the steel hollow section members, by reason whereof, he was guilty
of an offence under section 11(4)(a) of the Building Control Act, for which offence
he was convicted and fined $8,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(f) of the
PE Act. He was fined a sum of $4,000. |
|
In
year 2002 |
| 1 |
Date of Inquiry:
2 Aug 2002
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section
27(1)(e) of the PE Act, that being convicted of an offence under
section 378/379A Penal Code involving fraud, dishonesty and/or
moral turpitude for the theft of a motor car, he was guilty of
an offence under section 27(1)(a) of the PE Act.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act. His registration was cancelled with
effect from 19 Aug 2002.
|
| 2 |
Date of Inquiry:
17 May 2002
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section
27(1)(e) of the PE Act, that being the PE for
the structural design and drawings for a tower crane foundation
for a building project, he had certified that he had supervised
the erection of the said crane and had inspected and had found
the same to have been completed in accordance with the plans and
design prepared by him, when in fact he did not do so
adequately, with due care and diligence:
- by failing to check the
welding electrodes and the surface preparation prior to the
welding of the "I" beams which when welded did not penetrate into
the parent metal of the beam;
- by failing to check the
qualifications of the welders, who were in fact not
qualified or competent to carry out the job;
resulting in the failure of the
tower crane foundation and tilting of the tower crane.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the PE
Act. He was fined a sum of
$10,000. |
|
In
year 2001 |
| 1 |
Date of Inquiry:
27 Nov 2001
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to Section
27(1)(e) of the PE Act, that being the
accredited checker for the design of addition and alteration to
an existing industrial building, he had submitted to the
Commissioner of Building Control an application for structural
approval for building works in respect of the said building
project without carrying out the evaluation, analysis and review
of the structural design of the plan of the project and without
performing such original calculations in accordance with the
plan as required by Regulation 6 of the Building Control
(Accredited Checkers) Regulations read with Section 17(2) of the
Building Control Act, thereby committing an offence under
Section 17(3) of the Building Control Act for which offence he
was convicted and fined $5,500.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from practice for 12 months
with effect from 2 Jan 2002.
|
| 2 |
Date of Inquiry:
15 Jun 2001
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to Section
27(1)(f) of the PE Act read with Rule 12(a) of Part I of the
Schedule to the PE (Code of Professional
Conduct and Ethics) Rules, that as qualified person for the
design of a building project he had failed to exercise due
diligence by not notifying the Commissioner of Building Control
that works which were being carried out at the site were done in
contravention of the Building Control Act (in respect of
construction works being carried out without approved plans and
permit granted by the Commissioner of Building Control), thereby
contravening section 9(3)(c) of the Building Control Act, for
which offence he was convicted and fined $2,000 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(f) of the PE
Act. He was fined a sum of
$4,000.
|
| 3 |
Date of
Inquiry:
8 Jun 2001
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to
section 27(1)(e) of the PE Act that being the accredited checker of
a building project,
he had submitted to the Commissioner of
Building Control an application for approval of structural plans of
building works when he had professional interest in the project
(by engaging nominees who were employees of the qualified person
for the project), thereby
contravening section 18(1) of the Building Control Act, for which offence he was convicted and fined
$4,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from practice for 12 months
with effect from 1 Aug 2001.
|
| 4 |
Date of
Inquiry:
8 Jun 2001
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(e)
of the PE Act that being the qualified person of a building
project, he had,
by allowing his staff members to perform calculations for
the accredited checker (AC) of the same project, abetted the
AC by intentionally aiding the AC in the commission of an offence of submitting to the
Commissioner of Building Control an application for
approval of structural plans of building works when the AC had a
professional interest in the project, for which
offence he was convicted and fined $4,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from practice for 12 months
with effect from 1 Aug 2001.
|
| 5 |
Date of Inquiry:
31 May 2001
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to
Section 27(1)(f) of the PE Act read with Rule 12(a) of Part I of
the Schedule to the PE (Code of Professional
Conduct and Ethics) Rules, that as qualified person for the
design of a building
project
he had failed to exercise due diligence by not notifying the
Commissioner of Building Control that works which were being
carried out at the site were done in contravention of the
Building Control Act (in respect of the construction of an
additional block of building without having plans of the said
additional block of building approved by the Commissioner of Building Control), thereby
contravening section 9(3)(c) of the Building Control Act, for which offence he was convicted and fined
$2,000 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(f) of the PE
Act. He was fined a sum of
$1,000.
|
| 6 |
Date of
Inquiry:
23 May 2001
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to
section 27(1)(e) of the PE Act that being the accredited checker of
two building projects,
he had submitted to the Commissioner of
Building Control applications for approval of structural plans of
building works when he had professional interest in those
projects (by engaging a nominee who was an employee of the
qualified person for the project), thereby
contravening section 18(1) of the Building Control Act, for which offence he was convicted and fined
$8,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from practice for 12 months
with effect from 1 Aug 2001.
|
| 7 |
Date of
Inquiry:
23 May 2001
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(e)
of the PE Act that being the qualified person of two building
projects, he had,
by allowing his staff member to perform calculations for the accredited checker (AC)
of the same project, abetted the
AC by intentionally aiding the AC in the commission of an offence of submitting to the
Commissioner of Building Control applications for
approval of structural plans of building works when the AC had a
professional interest in the projects, for which
offence he was convicted and fined $8,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from practice for 12 months
with effect from 1 Aug 2001.
|
| 8 |
Date of Inquiry:
2 Mar 2001
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to
Section 27(1)(f) of the PE Act read with Rule 12(a) of Part I of
the Schedule to the PE (Code of Professional
Conduct and Ethics) Rules, that as qualified person for the
design of a building
project
he had:
- failed to ensure that the
builder obtained a permit from the Commissioner of Building
Control prior to commencement of demolition of the existing
building as required under sections 6 & 7 of the Building Control
Act; and
- failed to notify the
Commissioner of Building Control that the builder had
completely demolished the existing building without having
in force a permit for the said building works, thereby
contravening section 9(4)(c) of the Building Control Act, for which offence he was convicted and fined
$3,000 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(f) of the PE
Act. He was fined a sum of
$5,000.
|
|
In
year 2000 |
| 1 |
Date of Inquiry:
7 Dec 2000
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to Section
27(1)(f) of the PE Act read with Rule 12(a) of Part I of the
Schedule to the PE (Code of Professional
Conduct and Ethics) Rules, that as site supervisor of a building
project he had failed to be present on site to carry out the
necessary immediate supervision to the piling works for 2-storey
detached dwelling houses, thereby contravening Section 10(6) of
the Building Control Act, for which offence he had been fined
$5,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(f) of the PE
Act. He was fined a sum of
$6,000.
|
| 2 |
Dates of Inquiry:
14 Sep 2000, 3 Nov 2000 and 29 Nov 2000
Charges:
The PE was charged
pursuant to section 27(1)(e) of the PE Act that being the
qualified person for the structural
design of a secondary school, he failed to conform to the
engineering standards and codes of practice specified in the
fifth schedule of the Building Control Regulations, thereby
contravening section 26 of the said Regulations, for which
offence he was convicted and fined
$5,000.00 in court.
He was also charged pursuant to section 27(1)(e) of the PE Act that
being the qualified person for the structural design of another
secondary school, he made a statement to the Commissioner of Building
Control in the submission of certificate of as-built structural
plans/calculations which is false in a material particular (namely, by
stating that the as-built structural plans/calculations show the
departures and deviations from the approved plans and that a list of
all amendments and their reference drawing numbers and approved date
was attached to the said certificate when that was not the case), which
was an offence punishable under section 18(3)(a) of the Building
Control Act and for which offence he was convicted and fined $6,000 in
court, and, that he had failed to submit the amendment plans for the
deviations to the Commissioner of Building Control for clearance as
specified in the Building Control Act and for which offence he was
convicted and fined $8,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from practice for 12 months
with effect from 1 May 2001 on the 1st charge and censured
on the 2nd charge.
|
| 3 |
Date of
Inquiry:
6 July 2000
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act that being the accredited checker for a proposed primary school, he
had failed to check the structural plans and design calculations
of the building works submitted by the qualified person and also
had failed to perform an independent design
calculation to determine the adequacy of the structure in accordance with Regulation 6 of the
Building Control (Accredited Checkers) Regulations, for which
offence he was convicted and fined $50,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. His registration was cancelled with effect from
11 July 2000.
|
| 4 |
Date of
Inquiry:
30 June 2000
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act that being the qualified person for the structural design of a proposed primary school,
he had:
- failed to conform
to the standards and codes of practice specified in the
Fifth Schedule of the Building Control Regulations thereby contravening Regulation 26 of the
Building Control Act (Chapter 29), for which offence he was
convicted and fined $5,000 in court;
- failed to keep a Record of Attendance Book of
Qualified Person at the work site which is required under
Regulation 22(b) of the Building Control Act (Chapter 29),
for which offence he was convicted and fined $10,000 in
court; and
- failed to attend any of the 33 site meetings or
visit the school building site during the construction phase
up to the collapse of the steel roof truss, and failed to take all reasonable steps and
exercise due diligence in supervising and inspecting the
building works to ensure that the thickness of the weld at
the joints of the steel roof truss, for which offence he was
convicted and fined $10,000 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. His registration was cancelled with effect from 6
July 2000.
|
| 5 |
Date of
Inquiry:
20 April 2000
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(e)
of the PE Act that being the qualified person of a building
project, he had,
by instructing one of his staff members to perform calculations on behalf of
the accredited checker (AC) of the same project, had abetted the
AC by intentionally aiding the AC in the commission of an offence of submitting to the
Commissioner of Building Control an application for structural
approval for building works without the said AC performing such
calculations as required of him by Regulation 6(1)(a) of the
Building Control (Accredited Checkers) Regulations, for which
offence he was convicted and fined $6,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from practice for 12 months
with effect from 1 June 2000.
|
| 6 |
Date of
Inquiry:
17 February 2000
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to
section 27(1)(e) of the PE Act that being the accredited checker of a building project,
he had submitted to the Commissioner of
Building Control an application for structural approval of
building works without
performing such original calculations as required by Regulation
6(1)(a) of the Building Control (Accredited Checkers)
Regulations, for which offence he was convicted and fined
$6,000.00 in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(e) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from practice for 6 months
with effect from 20 March 2000.
|
|
In
year 1998 |
| 1 |
Date of
Inquiry:
20 October 1998
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act for offences under section
6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241), for which offence
he was convicted
and fined $110,000 (with imposition of a penalty of $54,932) in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act. His registration was cancelled
with effect from 23 December 1998.
|
| 2 |
Date of Inquiry:
23 June 1998
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act for offences under section 6(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (Cap 241), for which offence he was convicted and fined
$50,000 (with imposition of a penalty of $15,000)
in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from
practice for 6 months with effect from 24 July 1998.
|
|
In
year 1997 |
| 1 |
Date of
Inquiry:
18 November 1997
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act for offences under section 6(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (Cap 241), for which offence he was convicted and fined
$50,000 (with imposition of a penalty of $30,000)
in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act. He was suspended from
practice for 6 months with effect from 13 March 1998.
|
| 2 |
Date of
Inquiry:
16 September 1997
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act for offences under section 6(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (Cap 241), for which offence he was convicted and sentenced
to 14 years' imprisonment (with imposition of a penalty of
$13,854,469.56) in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act. His registration was cancelled
with effect from 14 November 1997.
|
|
In
year 1996 |
| 1 |
Date of
Inquiry:
14 February 1996
Charge:
The PE was charged pursuant to section
27(1)(a) of the PE Act for offences under section 6(a) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241), for which offence he was
convicted and sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment and fined
$72,000 (with imposition of a penalty of $31,800) in court.
Verdict:
The Board found the PE guilty under section 27(1)(a) of the
PE Act. His registration was cancelled
with effect from 8 May 1996.
|
|
© 2002 Professional Engineers Board Singapore. All Rights
Reserved.
|
|
|
 |
