2 ex-Certis officers jailed after one tipped off the other about CPIB investigation on vapes

SINGAPORE: After being interviewed by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) over matters related to the handling of e-vaporisers and contraband cigarettes, a Certis CISCO auxiliary police officer told his former colleague to throw his vape away.

The ex-colleague later threw away at least one e-vaporiser and three packs of e-vaporiser pods.

Tan Wee Keong, 38, was jailed for one week on Friday (Jul 17) after pleading guilty to one count of obstructing justice by revealing information about a CPIB investigation and advising his ex-colleague to throw the implicated items away.

The former colleague, Reggie Choo Beng Kwang, 33, was also jailed for one week on Friday after pleading guilty to a charge of the same nature. Choo had an additional charge of obstructing the course of justice by deleting a WhatsApp conversation with Tan taken into consideration for sentencing.

Tan was an assistant enforcement supervisor with the Certis CISCO Auxiliary Police Force deployed to the Health Sciences Authority's (HSA) Tobacco Regulation Branch (TRB) at the time of the offences. He is no longer with Certis CISCO.

Choo was also an officer with the Tobacco Regulation Branch until he resigned before May 2022.

Both of them became friends in 2018.

Around May 2022, Tan learnt that Choo used e-vaporisers and e-vaporiser pods.

On Jul 26, 2022, Tan was interviewed by CPIB over investigations involving Certis officers attached to HSA's Tobacco Regulation Branch and their handling of e-vaporisers and contraband cigarettes.

Investigators instructed him not to discuss the investigation with anyone, and Tan agreed.

However, a few days later, Tan called Choo and disclosed that he had been interviewed by CPIB.

According to court documents, he told Choo that many people had been caught for possessing "vape", that Choo's name had surfaced during the interview, and advised him not to continue using e-vaporisers as it was "bad for his health". He told Choo it would be best to throw them away.

Realising he could also be under investigation and fearing the items would be discovered, Choo disposed of at least one e-vaporiser and three packs of e-vaporiser pods between July and August 2022.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Xavier Tan urged the court to jail both men.

While the offence was of low severity, a jail term was warranted for Tan given that he was a law enforcement officer who sought to cover up an offence by another officer, the prosecutor said.

"The accused knew that he was not supposed to discuss the details of the investigations, both as a law enforcement officer himself and because he was told directly by CPIB and had agreed not to do so.

"However, he proceeded to do so – this cannot be spontaneous and evinces a degree of premeditation," the prosecutor added.

On Choo, he argued that the accused knew that CPIB was investigating him and his former colleagues, but proceeded to dispose of potential evidence anyway, showing a degree of premeditation.

The prosecution sought jail terms of between two and four weeks for each man.

Tan's lawyer Riko Isaac argued against a jail term, seeking a fine of between S$5,000 (US$3,900) and S$7,000, or alternatively, a jail term of no more than a week.

Mr Isaac argued in court that his client had not abused his position as a Certis CISCO officer to commit the offence.

The fact that he was a law enforcement officer at the time of the offence did not mean he deserved a jail sentence by default, Mr Isaac said.

"This is especially so when the ultimate effect of our client’s actions as set out in the charge were minimal or negligible," he added.

Choo, who represented himself, told the court he had chosen e-vaporisers over cigarettes because he was trying to "cut down everything" for his children's health.

"I'm the only guy in the house right now so I have great responsibility now for my two kids and my mum," said Choo, pleading for a fine instead of a jail term.

For intentionally obstructing justice, they could have each been jailed up to seven years, fined, or both.