Forfeiture of a bail bond and a surety’s duties (Cher Ting Ting v Public Prosecutor)

Educational summary of named public judgments and guidelines. Not legal advice.

Cher Ting Ting v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 13 is the leading modern authority on what happens to a bail bond when an accused absconds — and on the duties a surety takes on. It sets out a two-stage framework for forfeiture that the courts continue to apply.

Key points at a glance

• A surety who stands bail promises to ensure the accused attends court and takes on real duties under the Criminal Procedure Code.
• If the accused absconds, the court can forfeit the whole or part of the bond.
• The starting position is full forfeiture; a lesser sum applies only where it is fair and just.

Why this case matters

Standing as a surety is often treated casually — a favour for a friend or relative — but it is a serious financial and practical commitment. Cher Ting Ting explains what a surety must do, and what happens if the accused disappears, which is essential for anyone asked to be a surety.

A surety’s duties

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, a surety must ensure the accused attends court, keep in daily communication with the accused, lodge a police report within 24 hours of losing contact, and ensure the accused remains in Singapore. These are active duties — a surety cannot simply put up the money and do nothing.

The two-stage forfeiture framework

The court set out a two-stage approach. At the first stage, the surety must show sufficient cause why the bond should not be forfeited — essentially, that they exercised reasonable diligence in performing their duties; the burden is on the surety. If sufficient cause is not shown, the second stage decides the extent of forfeiture, and the prima facie position is full forfeiture, with a lesser sum only where fair and just. The main factor is the surety’s culpability — conniving in or aiding the accused’s disappearance points to full forfeiture — while genuine efforts to locate the accused after the event can mitigate; financial hardship rarely suffices on its own.

The facts and outcome

A surety stood a substantial sum for a relative facing charges. The accused failed to attend court and absconded. The surety had not communicated directly with the accused, relying on another family member, and did not know where he was living. The court affirmed full forfeiture of the bond: the surety had shown a complete lack of personal diligence, and claimed financial hardship did not meet the high threshold to reduce the sum.

What this means in practice

Anyone asked to be a surety should understand the commitment: real duties to supervise and stay in contact with the accused, and the risk of losing the entire bond if the accused absconds and the surety cannot show diligence. It is not a formality, and the money genuinely stands at risk.

How to reduce the risk as a surety

Because the starting position on an accused absconding is full forfeiture, the practical protection for a surety lies in performing the statutory duties diligently and in being able to prove it. That means staying in genuine, regular contact with the accused rather than delegating the task to someone else, knowing where the accused lives and works, keeping the accused’s travel documents where the court has directed, and acting immediately — including lodging a police report within the required time — at the first sign that contact has been lost. A surety who can show a consistent, documented pattern of supervision is in a far stronger position at the first stage of the framework, where the question is whether reasonable diligence was exercised.

The decision also serves as a caution against standing surety casually. The obligation is personal: it cannot be discharged by handing the money over and trusting that a relative will keep watch, nor by assuming that the accused will simply turn up. Anyone asked to be a surety should understand the size of the sum at risk, their own capacity to supervise the accused in practice, and the reality that the court will look first and foremost at their own conduct — not at the accused’s — when deciding how much of the bond to forfeit.

The wider context

The surety system is central to how bail works in Singapore. Rather than requiring cash to be deposited in every case, the court often releases an accused on a bond backed by one or more sureties who pledge a sum and undertake to secure the accused’s attendance. The system depends on sureties taking their role seriously, which is why the consequences of an accused absconding fall on the surety and why the courts treat full forfeiture as the starting point. A regime that routinely reduced forfeiture would weaken the incentive that makes surety-backed bail workable.

For that reason, the decision is often cited whenever a surety seeks to avoid or reduce forfeiture after an accused fails to appear. Its two-stage framework gives structure to those applications: the surety must first show diligence to escape forfeiture altogether, and, failing that, must persuade the court that something short of full forfeiture is fair and just in the particular circumstances. The message for prospective sureties is consistent — the role is a genuine legal responsibility, and the money pledged is genuinely at stake.

Frequently asked questions

What does a surety actually have to do? Ensure attendance at court, keep in daily contact, report loss of contact within 24 hours, and ensure the accused stays in Singapore.

Will I lose all the money if the accused absconds? The starting position is full forfeiture; a reduction applies only where it is fair and just, typically turning on the surety’s diligence.

Does financial hardship reduce forfeiture? Rarely on its own — it must reach an exceptional threshold. See our overview of bail in Singapore.

Can I be released as a surety before the case ends? A surety can apply to the court to be discharged from the bond, for example by producing the accused; until discharged, the obligations continue.

Does it matter that I did not know the accused would run? What matters is whether you exercised reasonable diligence in your duties; a lack of any supervision points strongly to full forfeiture regardless of intention.

This page is an educational summary of themes from named, publicly available Singapore judgments, guidelines and statutes. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create a solicitor–client relationship. Frameworks and figures are applied to each case’s facts and may change. Speak with a qualified criminal lawyer about your own situation.