Close | Public Prosecutor v Foo Su Ling [2010] SGDC 25 |
| DAC 10226/2009 and Ors, MA 422/2009 | |
| 19 Jan 2010 | |
| District Court | |
| Roy Grenville Neighbour | |
| Tan Jeh Yaw, Deputy Public Prosecutor for the respondent, Ismail Bin Hamid, Ismail Hamid & Co, counsel for the appellant |
Judgment
19 January 2010 District Judge Roy Grenville Neighbour: The accused is the appellant. At the commencement of the hearing the appellant pleaded guilty to 8 cheating charges under section 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) and upon conviction consented to 121 similar charges being taken into consideration in sentencing. The charges to which the appellant pleaded guilty to are: DAC No 10226/2009 [Exhibit C4A] You, are charged that you, on the 19th day of October 2007, Singapore, together with one Chew Kiew Cheng, male 29 years old, and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did cheat one Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong, female 17 years old, to wit, by creating and posting on the internet web site styled www.nice-spree.blogspot.com that you were advertising for sale various teenage apparels and fashion wear, to deceive the said Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong to order 33 pieces of female tops and bottoms from you amounting to S$420.70, a fact which you knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, you intentionally induced the said Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong to transfer a sum of S$420.70 to a POSB Savings account bearing serial number xxx-xxxxx-x being payment for the aforesaid apparels, which act she would not have done had she not been so deceived, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. DAC No 10227/2009 [Exhibit C5A] You, are charged that you, on the 15th day of October 2007, Singapore, together with one Chew Kiew Cheng, male 29 years old, and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did cheat one Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong, female 17 years old, to wit, by creating and posting on the internet web site styled www.nice-spree.blogspot.com that you were advertising for sale various teenage apparels and fashion wear, to deceive the said Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong to order 4 pieces of female tops and bottoms from you amounting to S$68, a fact which you knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, you intentionally induced the said Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong to transfer a sum of S$68 to a POSB Savings account bearing serial number xxx-xxxxx-x being payment for the aforesaid apparels, which act she would not have done had she not been so deceived, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. DAC No 10228/2009 [Exhibit C6A] You, are charged that you, on the 16th day of October 2007, Singapore, together with one Chew Kiew Cheng, male 29 years old, and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did cheat one Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong, female 17 years old, to wit, by creating and posting on the internet web site styled www.nice-spree.blogspot.com that you were advertising for sale various teenage apparels and fashion wear, to deceive the said Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong to order 11 pieces of female tops and bottoms from you amounting to S$151, a fact which you knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, you intentionally induced the said Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong to transfer a sum of S$151 to a POSB Savings account bearing serial number xxx-xxxxx-x being payment for the aforesaid apparels, which act she would not have done had she not been so deceived, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. DAC No 10263/2009 [Exhibit C41A] You, are charged that you, on the 12th day of October 2007, Singapore, together with one Chew Kiew Cheng, male 29 years old, and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did cheat one B, female 14 years old, to wit, by creating and posting on the internet web site styled www.nice-spree.blogspot.com that you were advertising for sale various teenage apparels and fashion wear, to deceive the said B to order 2 pair of jeans from you amounting to S$40, a fact which you knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, you intentionally induced the said B to transfer a sum of S$40 to a POSB Savings account bearing serial number xxx-xxxxx-x being payment for the aforesaid apparels, which act she would not have done had she not been so deceived, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. DAC No 10264/2009 [Exhibit C42A] You, are charged that you, on the 25th day of September 2007, Singapore, together with one Chew Kiew Cheng, male 29 years old, and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did cheat one B, female 14 years old, to wit, by creating and posting on the internet web site styled www.nice-spree.blogspot.com that you were advertising for sale various teenage apparels and fashion wear, to deceive the said B to order assorted clothing from you amounting to S$399, a fact which you knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, you intentionally induced the said B to transfer a sum of S$399 to a POSB Savings account bearing serial number xxx-xxxxx-x being payment for the aforesaid apparels, which act she would not have done had she not been so deceived, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. DAC No 10265/2009 [Exhibit C43A] You, are charged that you, on the 10th day of October 2007, Singapore, together with one Chew Kiew Cheng, male 29 years old, and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did cheat one B, female 14 years old, to wit, by creating and posting on the internet web site styled www.nice-spree.blogspot.com that you were advertising for sale various teenage apparels and fashion wear, to deceive the said B to order assorted clothing from you amounting to S$784, a fact which you knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, you intentionally induced the said B to transfer a sum of S$784 to a POSB Savings account bearing serial number xxx-xxxxx-x being payment for the aforesaid apparels, which act she would not have done had she not been so deceived, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. DAC No 10266/2009 [Exhibit C44A] You, are charged that you, on the 14th day of October 2007, Singapore, together with one Chew Kiew Cheng, male 29 years old, and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did cheat one B, female 14 years old, to wit, by creating and posting on the internet web site styled www.nice-spree.blogspot.com that you were advertising for sale various teenage apparels and fashion wear, to deceive the said B to order assorted clothing from you amounting to S$200, a fact which you knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, you intentionally induced the said B to transfer a sum of S$200 to a POSB Savings account bearing serial number xxx-xxxxx-x being payment for the aforesaid apparels, which act she would not have done had she not been so deceived, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. DAC No 10267/2009 [Exhibit C45A] You, are charged that you, on the 15th day of October 2007, Singapore, together with one Chew Kiew Cheng, male 29 years old, and in furtherance of the common intention of you both, did cheat one B, female 14 years old, to wit, by creating and posting on the internet web site styled www.nice-spree.blogspot.com that you were advertising for sale various teenage apparels and fashion wear, to deceive the said B to order assorted clothing from you amounting to S$444.15, a fact which you knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, you intentionally induced the said B to transfer a sum of S$444.15 to a POSB Savings account bearing serial number xxx-xxxxx-x being payment for the aforesaid apparels, which act she would not have done had she not been so deceived, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. 2. At the conclusion of the hearing, the appellant was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment on each charge. The sentences of imprisonment in respect of three charges were ordered to run consecutively. The remaining sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. In total the appellant is to serve 9 months’ imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the sentence, the appellant lodged this appeal. Facts 3. The appellant, aged 22 years old is the fiancé of the accomplice Chew Kiew Cheng (“Chiew”), aged 30 years. The accomplice is the holder of a POSB Saving Account No. xxx-xxxxx-x. (“the savings account”). 4. The victim in relation to the fourth to the sixth charges is one Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong (“Serena Jeow”), female, aged 17 years old. On 15, 16 & 19 October ‘07, in respect of orders for clothes she made on the internet at the website operated by the appellant and the accomplice, she transferred on the said dates a total sum of $639.70 to the accomplice’s savings account. 5. In respect of the 41st to 45th charges, the victim is one B, (“B”), female aged 14 years. On 25 Sept ‘07 and 10th, 12th, 14th & 15th Oct ’07, she transferred a total sum of $1,867.15 for the orders she made on the internet at the website operated by the appellant and the accomplice to the accomplice’s savings account. 6. In total both victims transferred a total sum of $2,506.85 to the accomplice’s savings account. 7. Police investigations revealed that on or about 18 Oct ‘07, the victims lodged Police reports stating that they ordered assorted clothing and accessories from 2 websites, namely www.nicespree.blogspot.com and www.nice-spree.blogspot.com. After picking the items they intended to purchase, they transferred money to the accomplice’s savings account. After transferring the money, they did not receive the items ordered. On 18 Oct ‘07, the two websites were taken down and the victims were unable to contact the appellant or her accomplice at the mobile telephone number provided. 8. Police investigations further revealed that between June and Sept ’07, the accomplice, then unemployed, devised a plan to advertise clothing on the internet without the intention to deliver the items to buyers. After discussing with the appellant, the appellant agreed to join in the scam. When the appellant asked the accomplice if he was serious in cheating potential buyers in this manner, the accomplice said he was. As the accomplice had no knowledge of how to create a website, the appellant created one calling it www.nicespree.blogspot.com. This was the first website the appellant created. In this scam, the appellant and her accomplice provided a timeline of 30 days for items to be delivered. The accomplice’s mobile phone number was provided as a contact and the accomplice’s POSB account number was also provided for the purpose of receiving payment for the items ordered. The appellant and the accomplice also purchased a mobile telephone Hi-card number to be used specifically for the purpose of cheating their victims. 9. The accomplice in creating the contents for the website, stated on the website that there were cheap jeans and accessories for teenagers for sale. The accomplice advertised these items at reduced prices from that of other retailers. The appellant and the accomplice then created an email address: nicespree@hotmail.com at the said website, giving the impression that interested buyers could email their details and purchase orders to them through the email address provided. They never met the victims personally. 10. From then on, both the appellant and the accomplice maintained the website responding to emails they received at said email address. Once contacted by the victim, the appellant or her accomplice would instruct the victim to transfer the monies for the ordered items to the savings account. They also provided the mobile telephone number to the victim giving the impression that they were genuine sellers when they were not. After the money had been transferred, the victim would either email or send a message by Short Message Service (SMS) to the appellant. In turn, the appellant would reply stating that the goods would be delivered in 3 to 4 weeks’ time. 11. Sometime in late Sept ‘07, the service provider, suspecting that the website operated by the appellant and her accomplice was a spam site, barred the website www. nicespree.blogspot.com. Upon discovering this the appellant and the accomplice created another website www.nice-spree.blogspot.com to continue their scam. 12. For both websites, the appellant used the moniker “Missy” or “Missy Chew” to communicate with the victims. In respect of the second website, the appellant and the accomplice took turns to reply to the buyers through SMS and email. As the owner of the website was supposed to be a female person, the appellant answered all telephone calls to the mobile phone making it more convincing to the victims. This was all pre-arranged by the appellant and the accomplice. Acting in concert and with common intention they both also planned and agreed on what to say to the victims. 13. In respect of the monies transferred into the accomplice’s savings account, the appellant was fully aware that the money belonged to the victims as the accomplice was unemployed. The appellant was also aware that the accomplice did not have any money in the savings account. The appellant also had access to the accomplice’s ATM card and the PIN number. Though the money was transferred by the victims to the accomplice’s savings account, the appellant had access to the account and made withdrawals from it using the accomplice’s ATM card. 14. Consequently, the appellant and her accomplice spent the money they received from the victims on their meals and expenses which included paying for both their mobile phone bills. The appellant also requested the accomplice to buy her two branded bags and one wallet costing more than $2,000. The appellant knew that the money used to pay for the bags and the wallet was remitted to them by the victims. The appellant was also aware that the accomplice had no intention to honour the orders made by the victims. Both the appellant and her accomplice also had no means of procuring the items listed on the websites and selling them to their victims. 15. Each time a victim informed the appellant or the accomplice that money had been transferred to the account, both the appellant and the accomplice would check the account by using the automated teller machine (“ATM”) or using the computer to access the bank’s banking services on the internet. Once it was confirmed that the money had been transferred into the savings account, the appellant or her accomplice would send a reply confirming the order to the victims. 16. Consequently, when no deliveries were made to the victims and more orders were received on the second website, the appellant became afraid that the victims would lodge police reports. Thereupon, the appellant shut down the second website and ignored the victims repeated telephone calls made to her mobile phone. 17. In respect of the three cheating charges concerning the victim Serena Jeow Zhong Qiong, investigations revealed that sometime on 19 October 2007, the victim came across the appellant’s and her accomplice’s blogspot www.nice-spree.blogspot.com on the internet, claiming that they were selling clothing and accessories at very low prices. That day, the victim placed an order for the purchase of 33 pieces of female tops and bottoms amounting to $420.70. The victim then contacted the appellant via SMS. That day, the appellant and her accomplice in furtherance of the common intention cheated the victim by intentionally deceiving her into believing that they could sell her 33 pieces of female tops and bottoms amounting to $420.70, a fact which the appellant and her accomplice knew to be false. 18. Also, on 15th and 16th Oct ’07, the victim placed orders to purchase 4 female bottoms amounting to $68 and 11 female bottoms amounting to $151. The appellant and her accomplice in furtherance of the common intention again deceived the victim into believing that they could sell the items to her when they had no intention of so doing and by such manner of deception they dishonestly induced the victim into transferring sums of $420.70, $68 and $151 on the said dates for the purchase of the clothes to the accomplice’s savings account. The victim would not have paid the money if she had not been so deceived. The appellant and the accomplice having received the money paid to the account by the victim did not have the clothings to deliver to the victim. They both spent the victim’s money on personal items. 19. In respect of the five charges of cheating the victim B, on 25 Sep, 10th, 12th, 14th and 15th Oct ’07, the victim came across the appellant’s and the accomplice’s webpage www.nice-spree.blogspot.com, claiming that clothes and accessories were being sold at very low prices. The victim then contacted the appellant via SMS. It was revealed that on 25 Sep, 10th, 12th 14th, and 15th Oct ‘07, the appellant and her accomplice in furtherance of the common intention cheated the victim by intentionally deceiving her into believing that they could sell to her assorted clothing totaling $1867.15, facts which the appellant and her accomplice knew to be false. 20. By such manner of deception, the appellant and the accomplice had dishonestly induced the said victim to deliver to them $1867.15 via electronic transfer of funds to the accomplice’s POSB savings account for the purported purchase of the said clothing. The victim would not have paid the appellant and her accomplice the monies had she not been so deceived. The appellant and her accomplice received the monies paid by the victim to the savings account. They did not have the clothing to deliver to the victim and spent the victim’s money on personal items. 21. On 23 Oct ‘07, the Police conducted a raid at the accomplice’s residence. The appellant was then at the residence and was arrested. The appellant admitted to the arresting officers that she was involved in the cheating scam via the blogspot. A Central Processing Unit (“CPU”) found in the appellant’s room was seized. A Nokia mobile phone without a SIM card was also seized. 22. Later that day, the accomplice surrendered himself at Bedok Police Division HQ. He was subsequently arrested and charged for the Cheating offences in contravention of section 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, (Chapter 224). 23. Police investigations established that during the material period a total sum of $13,973.94 was transferred to the accomplice’s saving account. The Police managed to trace 106 victims and a total sum of $11,266.15 was traced to known victims. The remaining sum is still unaccounted. 24 On 27 Feb ’08, the appellant’s accomplice was convicted on 24 counts of cheating under Section 420 read with section 34 of the Penal Code with 105 charges taken into consideration in sentencing. He was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment on each charge. The sentences of 8 charges were ordered to run consecutively. In total, the accomplice is serving a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment. 25. On 23 Nov ‘09, the appellant made restitution of a sum of $11,266.15 to the 106 victims. Mitigation 26. In mitigation counsel pointed out that the appellant in pleading guilty to the offences saved the court much time and expense. She is now 22 years of age and employed as a sales executive. She is a first offender. In 2006, she came to know the accomplice Chiew and became intimate with him. In 2007, she became pregnant. She committed the offences out of love and loyalty to Chiew. However, during police investigations, their relationship took a bad turn when the appellant told Chiew that she intended to abort their baby. The accomplice was incensed and this marked the end of their relationship. It was submitted that it was Chiew who devised the scam and sought the appellant’s assistance to post up the websites. In respect of the offences, she thought she was absolved from complicity because she was not charged together with Chiew. She was baffled and surprised that after a lapse of 2 years she was charged in court. She is contrite and regrets her actions. She has since made full restitution amounting to $11,226.15 to the victims. Chiew did not make any restitution to the victims. Counsel argued that a fine or a days’ imprisonment and a fine would be sufficient punishment for the appellant. Sentence 27. I considered the appellant’s mitigation. In sentencing the appellant, the court took into consideration the fact that she pleaded guilty, is a first offender and was young at the time of the commission of the offences. Furthermore, she had made full restitution amounting to $11,226.15 to the victims. However, it could not be ignored that the appellant had in total, committed 129 offences of cheating together with the accomplice. Not only where they lovers they were partners in crime. 28. The prosecution proceeded against the appellant on 8 counts with 121 counts taken into consideration in sentencing. From the charges, the offences were committed on diverse dates from 28 Aug ’07 to 20 Oct ‘07 a period of approximately three months. In the course of a day, several victims were cheated. During this period more than 100 victims were cheated in the scam perpetrated by the appellant and her accomplice. According to the prosecution, though these were the only known victims, there is a possibility that there are approximately 50 more victims. 29. There is no doubt that the offence of cheating under section 417 of the Penal Code is a serious offence as reflected by the maximum punishment of thee years’ imprisonment. There was no doubt too, that the appellant and her accomplice in furtherance of the common intention deliberately committed the offences having, from the outset, no intention at all to sell any clothes or accessories to the victims when they set up their websites. The scheme was meticulously planned and brazenly executed by them. When their website was shut down, the appellant set up another website to continue the scam. 30. To assist the court to determine an appropriate sentence, the court was informed that the accomplice, was currently serving a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment. He was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment on each of the 24 proceeded charges of cheating under section 420 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. From the facts it is plain that the appellant’s actions are equally, if not more, culpable to that of her accomplice. Had it not been for the appellant’s expertise in setting up the websites, the fraud could not have been perpetrated on the young unsuspecting victims. The appellant was an active and prominent participant in the commission of the offences, taking turns to reply to the unsuspecting victims deceiving them into believing that they were dealing with genuine vendors when they were not. The appellant had unashamedly perpetrated a fraud on the victims by convincing the victims that the transactions they effected on the internet were genuine. By using the internet to commit the fraud, the appellant has also undermined the public trust and confidence of those who use the internet to effect commercial transactions. The victims were young unsuspecting teenagers aged between 16 years to 18 years of age that fell prey to the wiles of the appellant’s and her accomplice. In total, 129 victims were defrauded by the appellant and her accomplice. The Court was informed that there might be more victims. The appellant and her accomplice together splurged their ill gotten gains on themselves. With regard to the act of restitution made by the appellant little weight was given to it as it was only made at the last moment and not at the time when the appellant was arrested. 31. In view of all the circumstances, the imposition of a fine or a days’ jail and a fine for the offences would not adequately reflect the severity of the appellant’s actions. In my view, a custodial sentence was clearly warranted to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the appellant’s role together with her accomplice in the commission of the offences. They were both intricately involved in the commission of the offences. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced DAC No 10226/2009 – 3 months’ imprisonment DAC No 10227/2009 – 3 months’ imprisonment DAC No 10228/2009 – 3 months’ imprisonment DAC No 10263/2009 – 3 months’ imprisonment DAC No 10264/2009 – 3 months’ imprisonment DAC No 10265/2009 – 3 months’ imprisonment DAC No 10266/2009 – 3 months’ imprisonment DAC No 10267/2009 – 3 months’ imprisonment Furthermore, the sentences of imprisonment in DAC No 10226/2009, DAC No 10265/2009 and DAC No 10267/2009 are ordered to run consecutively. The remaining sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently. In total the appellant is to serve 9 months’ imprisonment.
Foo Su Ling, Female 22 years
NRIC: S8740496Z
Foo Su Ling, Female 22 years
NRIC: S8740496Z
Foo Su Ling, Female 22 years
NRIC: S8740496Z
Foo Su Ling, Female 22 years
NRIC: S8740496Z
Foo Su Ling, Female 22 years
NRIC: S8740496Z
Foo Su Ling, Female 22 years
NRIC: S8740496Z
Foo Su Ling, Female 22 years
NRIC: S8740496Z
Foo Su Ling, Female 22 years
NRIC: S8740496Z
