Two men were sentenced to seven months’ and five months’ imprisonment respectively for corruptly giving a Certis Cisco Protection Services Pte Ltd officer loans totalling SGD101,000 to advance the business interests of their security company, SCAR Services Pte Ltd.
In Public Prosecutor v Nazarisham bin Mohamed Isa and Abdul Razeez bin Rasit (2026) SGDC 356, District Judge Jill Tan found that the loans were not genuine friendly loans but were intended to cultivate Alvin Lee May Sim, then Certis’ Head of Strategy and Resource Management, and induce him to help SCAR secure business.
Nazarisham bin Mohamed Isa, known as Naza, received seven months’ imprisonment, while Abdul Razeez bin Rasit was sentenced to five months following a joint trial in the District Court.
The case involved seven loans extended to Lee between November 2017 and November 2018. Naza’s charges involved SGD58,000, while Razeez’s six charges involved SGD43,000. The loans ranged from SGD3,000 to SGD15,000.
The prosecution’s case was that the payments were corrupt gratifications intended to influence Lee to advance SCAR’s business interests with Certis. The defence maintained that the money was lent to help Lee with his financial difficulties, with Razeez arguing that he had merely facilitated the transfers after obtaining Naza’s approval.
Judge Tan rejected the friendly-loan explanation, finding that Naza and Lee had not been close enough to justify the repeated and substantial loans. Their relationship had begun through business dealings, and Naza had offered Lee other business and investment opportunities before the first loan was made.
The court also noted that Naza continued extending loans despite Lee failing to make meaningful repayments or provide a reliable repayment plan. Naza only commenced civil proceedings to recover the money in March 2021, after investigations by Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had begun.
The judge found that Razeez was more than a financial officer or an innocent intermediary. Messages between him, Naza and Lee showed his involvement in SCAR’s management and efforts to increase the company’s business with Certis.
Lee, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges and testified for the prosecution, admitted that he believed Naza and Razeez would help him partly because of his position at Certis and his ability to recommend work for SCAR.
In return for the loans, Lee shared Certis’ reports listing security officers who had resigned, despite not being authorised to provide the information. He also agreed to guide SCAR’s management, help the company recruit more officers and support its business growth, although these activities fell outside his job responsibilities.
The court found that these acts demonstrated a reciprocal arrangement in which the loans were given to cultivate Lee and secure his assistance. The fact that Lee was not the final decision-maker in awarding assignments did not prevent the offences from being established, as he played a role in recommending resource partners for work.
Judge Tan also found that both men knew the loans presented a conflict of interest. Their conduct, the amounts involved and the repeated requests for Lee’s assistance supported the finding that they knew the transactions were corrupt.
The court further found that Naza and Razeez had conspired to provide the second to seventh loans. Although there was no direct evidence of an agreement, their messages, coordinated actions and respective roles in approving and disbursing the money showed they were acting towards a common purpose.
In assessing sentence, the court found that the offences involved slight harm and low culpability under Singapore’s sentencing framework for corruption offences. However, the substantial total amounts and the offending over approximately one year placed the men’s culpability at the higher end of the low range, warranting imprisonment.
Naza was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment for the SGD15,000 loan, four months for a SGD12,000 loan, three months for each of two SGD10,000 loans, two months for a SGD5,000 loan and one month for each of two SGD3,000 loans. Two terms were ordered to run consecutively, producing a total sentence of seven months.
Razeez received three months’ imprisonment for a SGD12,000 loan, two months for each of two SGD10,000 loans, five weeks for a SGD5,000 loan, and three weeks for each of two SGD3,000 loans. Two terms were ordered to run consecutively, producing a total sentence of five months.
Lee had earlier pleaded guilty to six charges, with another 16 taken into consideration for sentencing. He received a total of 12 months’ imprisonment and was ordered to pay a penalty of SGD79,676.93.
Both Naza and Razeez were granted bail pending their appeals, and execution of their prison sentences was stayed.
The grounds of decision were issued on October 28 by District Judge Jill Tan.
Prosecutors Thiagesh Sukumaran and Daniel Ong appeared for the Public Prosecutor. Peter Fernando of Leo Fernando LLC represented Nazarisham, while Lim Tean and A Revi Shanker s/o K Annamalai of Arshanker Law Chambers represented Razeez.
This is an unofficial case summary prepared by LexBru for informational and educational purposes only. It has not been reviewed, approved or endorsed by the Singapore Courts. Please refer to the full judgment https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGDC_356 published on the Singapore Courts website for the Court’s full grounds of decision.