Close | Public Prosecutor v Pang Kum Huat [2009] SGDC 508 |
| DAC 17776/2009 and others, MA 428/2009 | |
| 28 Dec 2009 | |
| District Court | |
| Toh Yung Cheong | |
| James Lee (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the prosecution, Zaminder Singh Gill (Alan Moh & Co) [19 November 2009], Accused in person [10 December 2009] |
Judgment
28 December 2009 District Judge Toh Yung Cheong 1. The accused pleaded guilty to ten charges: a) Three charges under s.44(1)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act Chapter 65A for being concerned in an arrangement that facilitated the receipt, transfer, and withdrawal of the benefits of criminal conduct relating to a “lottery scam.” b) Two charges under s.8(1)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act, Chapter 188 read with section 109 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, for intentionally aiding an unlicensed moneylender by issuing a loan of $500 to a debtor. c) Three charges under the Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276: One for dangerous driving under s.64(1), one for driving without a licence under s.35(1), and one for failing to stop when ordered by a police officer under s.127(5). d) One charge under s.489C read with section 109 of the Penal Code for abetting the offence of possessing Singapore currency with a face value of $23,000. e) One charge under s.474 read with s.466 and s.109 of the Penal Code for abetting the offence of the possession of a forged identity card. 2. In addition, twelve charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. As the accused has appealed against the sentence imposed, I will now set out the reasons for my decision. Facts Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act Chapter 65A charges (DAC 41784, 41787, 41789 of 2009) 3. Sometime in December 2007, one Ng Choon Peng approached the accused and asked him to open a bank account for Ng’s use. Although the accused suspected that Ng might be doing something illegal, he agreed to Ng’s request but chose not to ask him too much about the usage of the bank account. The accused was paid $50 for allowing Ng to use his account. 4. Subsequently, the accused approached two other persons, Lim and Kang, and asked them to open bank accounts for Ng’s use. For Kang’s case, the accused was also involved in collected the ATM card and paying Kang $100. 5. Subsequently, a police report was made by one Ng Sok Keng that she had been cheating into remitting a sum of $19,800 into the accused’s bank account. This was followed by reports from other victims who claimed that they were cheated as a result of a “lottery scam” whereby they were asked to remit money in order to claim their supposed lottery prize winnings. Moneylender’s Act charges 6. The accused worked for an unlicensed moneylender known as “Ah Moon” and was responsible for issuing loans to two debtors: a) Sometime in April 2008, at a coffeeshop at Geylang Lorong 16, the accused issued a loan to a debtor which was repayable with 20% interest. The accused collected the loans from the debtor except for one instalment which the accused directed the debtor to bank into a DBS bank account. b) Sometime in April 2008, at Newton Hawker Centre, the accused issued a loan of $500 to a debtor which was repayable with 20% interest. The accused also instructed the debtor to make repayments into a particular DBS bank account. Road Traffic Act charges 7. On 7 February 2008 at about 5.10am, traffic police officers had set up a road block along Tessensohn Road. The accused drove towards the road block in a car and was ordered by a traffic police to stop for a routine check. 8. The accused did not stop when ordered to but instead drove off at a fast speed. In his attempts to get away, he drove in a dangerous manner by driving at an excessive speed and by failing to conform to a red traffic light signal at two traffic light controlled junctions. While fleeing the police, the accused lost control of his vehicle while making a left turn into Kerbau Road which resulted in the vehicle colliding into a signboard. After the collision, the accused continued to flee on foot and was eventually detained by the police at the multi-storey carpark at Kerbau Road. Investigations revealed that the accused did not have a driving licence at the time. Counterfeit currency/NRIC charges 9. Sometime in March 2009, the accused had rented a car to his friend “Bo Gey.” When the car was returned the following day, the accused claimed that he discovered a stack of money in his car boot. Unable to believe his good fortune, he contacted “Bo Gey” who informed him that the money was actually counterfeit. “Bo Gey” asked the accused whether he was interested in dealing with counterfeit money and he agreed. 10. Subsequently, the accused met “Bo Gey” and “Ah Neow” at a coffeeshop at Geylang Lorong 12 and they discussed a plan to sell the counterfeit currency. “Ah Neow” informed the accused that he could sell counterfeit currency at 30-35% its face value and keep 10% as commission. “Ah Neow” also handed to the accused a counterfeit Singapore identity card and asked him to try and sell it as well. The accused then borrowed $2,000 from “Ah Neow” and left the premises. 11. On 7 April 2009, officers from the Commercial Affairs Department raided the accused’s company and found 208 pieces of counterfeit $100 currency notes all bearing the same serial number and 44 pieces of counterfeit $50 currency notes bearing the same serial number. During a follow-up raid, a counterfeit identity card was also seized. Sentencing Factors Considered Prosecution’s Submissions 12. The learned DPP submitted that a custodial sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment or a suitable period of Corrective Training would be an appropriate sentence. The DPP pointed out that the accused had committed serious offences and repeatedly returned to crime after being released from prison. In particular, the DPP pointed out that the accused re-offended shortly after he completed his last sentence of 7 years imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane, Mitigation 13. The accused tendered a letter asking for a lighter sentence. He pointed out that his mother was half-paralysed and his father had passed away. The accused claimed that he was the sole breadwinner. The accused claimed that because his business failed due to the poor economy, he had to work for a company owner who made use of him. The written mitigation tendered by Counsel made similar observations. Previous convictions 14. The accused, who is 29 years old, has a number of previous convictions: a) In 1995, he was dealt with by the juvenile court for being a member of an unlawful assembly and ordered to undergo probation which included a condition of residence at Bukit Batok Hostel. b) In February 1997, he breached his probation and was sent to Singapore Boys’ home for 3 months. c) Later the same year, in October 1997, he was convicted of two charges of theft of a motor vehicle under s.379A of the Penal Code and for driving without a licence or insurance. He was sentenced to a total of one year imprisonment and also fined and disqualified from driving. d) In June 1999, he was sentenced to a total of 37 months imprisonment for Housebreaking, possession of housebreaking implements, and attempting cheating. e) In October 2002, he was sentenced to a total of 7 years and 5 strokes of the cane for the offences of trafficking and possession of a controlled drug. Appropriateness of corrective training as the sentence 15. The accused was eligible for corrective training. He was convicted of offences that carried a prescribed punishment of a term of imprisonment of at least 2 years and the previous sentence he served was 7 years imprisonment and 5 strokes of the cane. The report from the Prison Service also stated that the accused was fit to undergo corrective training. 16. After reviewing the accused’s antecedents, I was of the view that a regular sentence of imprisonment was inappropriate in this case. Despite being only 28 years of age, the accused has a long string of convictions for a wide variety of offences. Each time he was released from prison, he would go on to commit a fresh offence after a short period of time. This suggests that previous efforts at reform and rehabilitation through probation and imprisonment had failed and that a more structured sentence was required to effect reform. If immediate action was not taken to nip this propensity to reoffend in the bud, he might end up as a life-long career criminal. Length of corrective training 17. In G Ravichander v PP More importantly, when sentencing a person to corrective training, normal sentencing principles such as the gravity of the offence, tariffs, mitigating and aggravating factors, while still relevant, do not take centre-stage. Rather, the critical factor to be considered is the amount of time that the court feels is required to enable real reform to be attempted. 18. I will adopt the above framework in evaluating the sentencing factors relevant to this case. Nature and Gravity of the Offence 19. While the nature and gravity of the offences do not take centre-stage when determining the length of corrective training, I will nevertheless make some observations about the more serious offences committed by the accused: 20. The offences under the CDSA were serious as it involved the use of Singapore bank accounts for the purpose of committing crime. Such actions affect the integrity of the financial system and could also affect public confidence in banks. In PP v Ong Tian Soon 21. The offences of abetting an unlicensed moneylender are also serious offences which poses a threat to public tranquility and order. The courts have repeatedly highlighted the deleterious impact the activities of illegal moneylenders have on our society and the need to deter persons from engaging in illegal moneylending activities: Lee Kuan Tat v PP 22. The offence involving the forged currency notes are arguably the most serious offences of the current set of offences. In Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts (2nd Edition), the learned authors observed at page 569 that: Counterfeiting currency is a very serious offence which undermines the economy and damages public confidence in the monetary system. The seriousness of the offences is reflected in the punishment prescribed which could be life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years. The usual range is between three years’ to five years’ imprisonment per charge. Sentences within this range are imposed even if the number of notes and the amounts involved are small and it is not a syndicated operation (PP v Goh Chee Kang (MA 218/97/01) and Mohanizam bin Mohd v PP (MA 237/2001/01). For the other offences, the sentence would usually be influenced by the amount involved, the role played by the offender, the level of sophistication of the scheme, and his previous record. 23. The accused’s attempt to sell a relatively large amount of counterfeit Singapore currency threatens the integrity of our financial system by eroding confidence in Singapore currency notes. In PP v Law Aik Meng The public interest vested in a secure and reliable financial system that facilitates convenient commercial transactions is extraordinary, especially in light of Singapore’s reputation as an internationally respected financial, commercial and investment hub. Yet another instance of such an offence surfaced in the recent case of PP v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar Such offences, if left unchecked, would be akin to a slow drip of a subtle but potent poison that will inexorably and irremediably damage Singapore’s standing both as a financial hub as well as a preferred centre of commerce. 24. In Mohanizam bin Mohd v PP 25. In the present case, the accused was caught red-handed with 252 pieces of counterfeit currency. The large number of notes suggested that there was a criminal syndicate involved. Of course, there is no evidence that the accused was a member of the criminal syndicate or that he was aware of its existence. Instead, the accused’s story was that he found this money in his car boot after one “Boh Gey” rented the car from him. When he asked “Boh Gey” about it, “Boh Gey” was willing to let him in on the deal and the accused was entrusted not only with the 252 pieces of counterfeit currency, but was also given a forged identity card and lent $2,000 by “Ah Neow.” 26. The statement of facts reveals that the accused intended to sell the currency at 30-35% of its face value and was going to keep 10% as his commission. The DPP also provided the court with a table of sentencing precedents for cases involving counterfeit currency. Even if the accused was a first offender, I was of the view that an appropriate sentence would be one that was close to 7 years’ imprisonment. Needless to say, the accused is not a first offender and faced numerous charges. Prison Counsellor’s Report 27. The report from the Prison Counsellor noted that the accused’s first brush with the law occurred when he was 15 years. Since his first conviction, he had re-offended repeatedly within a year of the completion of his last sentence. 28. The report noted that the accused claimed that he attended church regularly and was involved in church activities. The accused claimed that the church had provided him with considerable financial and emotional support which motivated him to change his lifestyle. Nevertheless, the Prison Counsellor concluded that the accused was in the Moderate-High Risk/Need of criminal re-offending and his profile placed him in a group of prisoners with 49%-60% probability of recidivism within 2 years of release. 29. I note that Prison Counsellor, in preparing this report, focused primarily on the offences under the CDSA and briefly on the RTA offences. The Counsellor did not make reference to the most serious offence under s.489C of the Penal Code or the unlicensed moneylending offences. 30. The Prison Counsellor did not highlight in the report that while the accused may have started re-offending by committing the CDSA offences after his release from prison, he continued to re-offend and committed more and more serious offences, culminating with the s.489C offence in 2009. This was a significant factor which seems at odds with the accused’s claim to the Prisons Counsellor that he was motivated to change. His pattern of his re-offending shows that his engagement in church activities did not reduce his recidivist tendencies. For that matter, his arrest in February 2008 for evading a police road block did not deter him from committing further offences. Sentence Imposed 31. Taking into account the sentencing factors highlighted above, I was of the view that a structured sentence of Corrective Training was necessary to effect reform and that it had to be of a sufficient length to do so. His last prison sentence of 7 years’ and 5 strokes of the cane was apparently insufficient to reform him. 32. I was also of the view that the sentence of Corrective Training to be imposed on the accused should not be shorter than the sentence imposed on a first offender, as a recidivist would require a longer period of incarceration in order to reform and rehabilitate him compared to a first offender. 33. After careful consideration of all the above factors, I sentenced the accused to 7 years’ Corrective Training. At the time of preparing this judgment, the accused is serving his sentence.
