Manager convicted over selling building cladding without fire-safety approval; prosecution seeks 3 years’ jail

SINGAPORE — A manager has been convicted of cheating over a type of unsafe building cladding that was later involved in a fatal fire in Singapore as well as London’s Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 that killed over 70 people.
Despite knowing that the fire safety certification of the aluminium composite panels sold by his family-run firm had been terminated, Phua Chia Ping Benny kept selling the panels to subcontractors in three building projects.
Phua, 45, did not inform the subcontractors that the panels’ certificates of conformity – a fire-safety requirement – had been terminated on April 5, 2013, four years before the Singapore and London fires.
Instead, Chip Soon Aluminium, of which he was sales and marketing manager, continued to sell the panels between April 24 and June 20 that year.
As a result, Chip Soon pulled in S$200,656 from the sale of the panels to three companies: HB Glass and Aluminium, Mantec Holdings, and Nam Lee Pressed Metal.
Phua faced five charges of cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing a person to deliver property.
These offences first came to light following investigations into Chip Soon Aluminium, after a fire broke out at CIT Building at 30 Toh Guan Road in May 2017.
The fire claimed the life of a 54-year-old woman. Chip Soon Aluminium had supplied 259 composite panels to the building in 2014.
In submissions for Phua’s trial, the prosecution noted that the Singapore fire came one month before London’s Grenfell Tower fire which killed more than 70 people. The cladding in the London fire was of the same type, it added.
On Tuesday (Sept 10), Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Shamini Joseph sought a jail term of between 36 and 40 months for Phua.
District Judge Christopher Goh had earlier convicted Phua of five counts of cheating, after a trial.
Phua will return to court for sentencing on Sept 30.
Court documents stated that a separate charge against Phua relating to the Singapore fire had been stood down for trial at a later date.
At the time of the offences, Phua worked at Chip Soon Aluminium, which supplied materials used in building construction projects.
Among its offerings, the firm sold aluminium composite panels, which were a popular material used for cladding external walls in building projects.
The panels are a fire safety product regulated by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) under its product listing scheme, to ensure they comply with safety, reliability, and performance standards.
Under the scheme, suppliers of such aluminium composite panels must obtain a fire-safety certification before they can supply the panels to a building project for use as cladding in Singapore.
The certification – known as a certificate of conformity – was issued by PSB Corporation, a former statutory board which has since become privatised. 
The certificate of conformity would certify that the particular model of panels met the minimum fire safety requirements (Class ‘0’).
At the time, each certificate of conformity was valid for three years. The panels would also be subject to annual surveillance fire tests to ensure continued conformity of the project with the fire safety requirements.
Phua had obtained the certificates of conformity from PSB in 2011, which certified that the Alubond brand panels supplied by Chip Soon Aluminium were Class ‘0’.
However, the panels’ certificates of conformity were  terminated on April 5, 2013, after they failed both a surveillance fire test and a surveillance fire re-test.
Despite knowing this, Phua continued to sell the panels as exterior cladding to subcontractors in three different building projects. He did not tell them that the panels’ certificates of conformity had been terminated.
On May 4, 2017, a fire broke out at the CIT Building at 30 Toh Guan Road.
Following investigations into the fire, the SCDF lodged a police report indicating that its investigations had determined that the cladding on the external facade was not compliant with fire safety requirements.
SCDF identified Chip Soon Aluminium as the supplier of the aluminium composite panels which had been used for the building’s cladding.
Following investigations into the firm, the authorities found that it had supplied aluminium composite panels to three other projects. 
SCDF then sought the cooperation of the building owners to extract samples of their panels, which were sent to PSB for testing. The results thereafter indicated that the panel samples were not Class ‘0’.
The subcontractors of the three building projects were thus held responsible for taking down the panels supplied by Chip Soon from the respective buildings’ facades, and to replace them.
Addressing the court on Tuesday, DPP Shamini said it was “well established” that offences relating to public institutions and those affecting public safety warrant general deterrence.
“Although (Phua’s) deception was directed at the victim contractors and not directly to the SCDF, given the central role a certificate of conformity played in the fire safety regulatory framework, (Phua’s) deception subverted the Government’s intention to effectively regulate the fire safety standards of aluminium composite panels cladded to buildings in Singapore,” she said.
DPP Shamini said that Phua’s deception had “clear implications” for public safety. At the same time, the concealment of the termination of the certificate of conformity was difficult to detect.
She said it was only after the fire broke out at the Toh Guan Building in May 2017 – years after the sales – where a woman died, that investigations into Chip Soon Aluminium by SCDF and the Singapore Police Force commenced.
As the certificate-holder which had presented the certificate of conformity to the victims, the onus was on Chip Soon Aluminium to inform the victims if there was any change in the status of the panels’ certifications – “particularly a change as fundamental as the termination of the (certification) prior to the expiry date”, said DPP Shamini.
Referencing an expert report prepared by Associate Professor Aravind Babu Dasari of Nanyang Technological University’s school of material sciences and engineering, DPP Shamini highlighted that such non-compliant cladding could contribute to rapid vertical spread of fire and the intensity of the flaming.
The fire safety concerns with Chip Soon Aluminium’s panels could have either been avoided or detected earlier had Phua informed the victim contractors that the certificate of conformity had been terminated due to their failing the surveillance test and re-test, said DPP Shamini.
She also argued that Phua had committed the offences “out of greed” and that he was “clearly motivated by financial gain”, given he was the person overseeing the panels’ sales in his family-run company.
Finally, DPP Shamini submitted that there was a “lack of mitigating factors” as it was “evident” in the course of trial that Phua “lack(ed) remorse” for his conduct, as he had tried ot shift the blame to various parties including SCDF and PSB.
In mitigation, Phua’s lawyer, Mr Favian Kang of Adelphi Law Chambers, argued that Phua had not taken any of the specified sums in the charges that were gained from the sales of the panels to the three contractors.
Instead, the specified sums in the charges represented the sale price of the panels that Chip Soon had supplied to the three contractors.
The panels supplied to two of the contractors – HB Glass and Mantec — were subsequently installed and used. The panels that were supplied to Nam Lee, however, were not used and eventually sold back to Chip Soon Aluminium.
“Thus, it cannot be said that (Phua) took the sums specified in the charges, that (Phua) intended to benefit from the sale of the aluminium composite panels, or that (Phua) caused the three companies to suffer a total loss of the specified sums in the charges,” said Mr Kang.
The defence lawyer also referenced the prosecution’s expert evidence that aluminium composite panels that are rated Class ‘0’ “will still burn” and are “combustible” – which were also reinforced by the defence’s expert evidence.
To this, Mr Kang argued that the aluminium composite panels, as a product in and of itself, are fire hazards, and that there may be potential harm that arise in using such a product.
“In other words, there may be inherent potential risks involved in using aluminium composite panels. The nature of (the panels) and potential risks in using (them) should not be taken against (Phua).”
On the prosecution’s point that Phua’s sales were motivated by personal gain, Mr Kang argued that Phua was an employee, and not a director or shareholder of the firm.
In fact, Chip Soon Aluminium had themselves installed the panels on their own buildings, and Mr Kang said it “did not make sense” for Phua to want to put himself, his parents, family, and colleagues at risk.
Also, information on the validity of the panels’ certificates of conformity are publicly available and can be publicly accessed, said Mr Kang, adding that the evidence was not concealed.
Finally, according to the legislation that applied back then, it was arguably not an offence to supply non-compliant aluminium composite panels, short of their installation, said Mr Kang.
The SCDF subsequently tightened its safety regulations and certificate processes for building cladding, from 2019.
Mr Kang sought a jail term of not more than 20 months for Phua.
For each charge of cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing a person to delivery any property, Phua could be jailed for up to 10 years, and fined.