Koo Kah Yee v Public Prosecutor
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 27 November 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] SGHC 261 |
Year | 2020 |
Published date | 02 December 2020 |
Docket Number | Magistrate’s Appeal No 9081 of 2020 |
Hearing Date | 01 October 2020 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Robert Leslie Gregory (L G Robert) and Chow Weng Weng (Chow Ng Partnership) |
Defendant Counsel | Wong Woon Kwong and Lim Shin Hui (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Citation | [2020] SGHC 261 |
Subject Matter | Benchmark Sentences,Statutory Offences,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Appeals,Criminal Law,Remote Gambling Act |
The appellant, Koo Kah Yee, is a Malaysian national. She pleaded guilty to one charge under s 11(1) of the Remote Gambling Act (No 34 of 2014) (“RGA”) read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) for abetting, by intentionally aiding in, the provision of Singapore-based remote gambling services. Three other related charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.
The District Judge sentenced the appellant to 12 months’ imprisonment on the proceeded charge: see
After considering the appellant’s submissions, I dismissed the appeal. For the reasons set out below, I was satisfied that the sentence was wholly appropriate in the circumstances, and in fact, quite lenient. In this judgment, I also take the opportunity to set out a sentencing framework for offences under s 11(1) of the RGA.
Facts The facts are set out in the Statement of Facts (“SOF”), which the appellant admitted to without qualification. The appellant worked as an administrative staff member of an organisation that she came to learn was operating as a remote gambling syndicate. The syndicate comprised, amongst others, the following personnel:
The syndicate had three main clusters, each comprising agents who collected bets and shareholders who shared in the profits and losses flowing from the asure6 and 888pool websites.
The operations of the asure6 and 888pool websites were centrally managed and controlled from Singapore. Illegal 4D bets placed by agents and punters were keyed into these websites. Public lotteries were then conducted using remote communications.
Sometime in early 2012, the appellant, who was then in Malaysia, received a call from Steven Seet, one of the syndicate leaders. The two had become acquainted when the appellant worked for Steven Seet as a secretary in a massage parlour in Singapore back in 2009. Steven Seet offered the appellant a job in Singapore as an accounts assistant with an entity called Erictex Trading (“Erictex”). The appellant was informed by Steven Seet that Erictex was an IT company supporting licensed gambling in Philippines and she accepted the job offer.
In February 2012, the appellant commenced work at Erictex. Its premises were located at Ubi Road. There, she worked together with some IT programming workers, who assisted in troubleshooting the asure6 and 888pool websites as well as a bookkeeping website called www.ES123.net (“the ES123 website”). Shortly thereafter, the appellant came to learn that Erictex was dealing with illegal 4D and horse betting activities. Specifically, she learnt that asure6 and 888pool were illegal 4D betting websites operated by Eric Seet and Steven Seet. She also learnt that the ES123 website was a bookkeeping platform maintained by the syndicate to track the syndicate’s cash flow and expenses for illegal 4D bets.
Further, the appellant learnt that apart from Erictex, two other companies, namely SB IT Developer (“SB IT”) and Best Laser Music House, had also been established by Eric Seet and Steven Seet. These two companies, along with Erictex, were companies that had no real legitimate business activities and together, they shared three office units at Ubi Road. The appellant knew that these three shell companies had been established only for the purpose of carrying out illegal 4D and horse betting activities through the asure6 and 888pool websites. Whilst the appellant was, strictly speaking, employed by Erictex, she managed and attended to administrative matters for all three shell companies.
The appellant’s administrative work consisted of the following:
As the appellant admitted in the SOF, her role as an administrative assistant was crucial to the operation of the syndicate’s remote gambling activities. In addition to her work in the syndicate as outlined above, the appellant also assisted with the administrative matters of other legitimate businesses set up by Eric Seet and Steven Seet, specifically, a café, a coffee shop and a bakery.
Notably, the appellant also recruited another administrative staff, one Sunny Lai, into the syndicate. Sometime in 2013, the appellant learnt that Steven Seet was looking for someone to help key in reports relating to illegal 4D activities. The appellant, despite knowing that the syndicate was engaged in illegal activities, asked Sunny Lai if she would be interested to join Steven Seet’s operation and told her that her job would involve keying in data related to illegal gambling activities. Sunny Lai agreed to take the job and started working for the syndicate from July 2013 to the end of October 2016.
In November 2016, after a prolonged period of probes by the police, various members of the syndicate were arrested. The appellant was arrested on 2 May 2017 at the Woodlands Checkpoint. A total of 49 persons were arrested in connection with the syndicate’s activities. Based on the betting records seized, the total betting revenue received by the asure6 website alone (for the period 22 November 2015 to 14 August 2016) was $18,207,212.62. This sum did not reflect the total amount of all the betting revenue received because some of the relevant records were not successfully retrieved.
The appellant was charged with abetting, by intentionally aiding, Steven Seet and Eric Seet in the provision of Singapore-based remote gambling services through the asure6 and 888pool websites, an offence under s 11(1) of the RGA read with s 109 of the Penal Code as follows:
You … are charged that you, from 2 February 2015 to 27 November 2016 (both dates inclusive), in Singapore, did abet by intentionally aiding [Steven Seet] and [Eric Seet] in the provision of Singapore-based remote gambling services through the [asure6 and 888pool websites], to wit, you aided [Steven Seet] and [Eric Seet] by performing duties of an administrative staff/accounts assistant for [Steven Seet] and [Eric Seet], which involved the performing of general administrative matters including that of issuing of cheques for rental of office units, electricity bills and internet usage, paying workers’ salaries, managing workers’ payrolls, applying of permits, managing workers’ CPF contributions, payout of petty cash to workers on claims, and helping workers to file their income taxes, which acts were crucial to the operation of the said websites by [Steven Seet] and [Eric Seet] and committed knowing that [Eric Seet] and [Steven Seet] were providing Singapore-based remote gambling services through [the asure6 and 888pool websites] during this period, and with intent to aid such purpose, offences of providing Singapore-based remote gambling services were committed by [Steven Seet] and [Eric Seet] in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 11(1) of the [RGA] read with Section 109 of the Penal Code …
As the Prosecution clarified before the District Judge, even though the appellant had started working for the syndicate in February 2012, the charge cited 2 February 2015 as the commencement date of the offence because that was when the RGA entered into force. Hence, for the purposes of the proceeded charge, the offending period of the appellant was approximately 22 months.
Three other charges were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing the appellant:
The District Judge sentenced the appellant to 12 months’ imprisonment. He noted that the predominant sentencing...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Abdul Rahman Bin A Karim
...v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2020] 4 SLR 1174), ss 11(1) and 8 of the Remote Gambling Act (Koo Kah Yee v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGHC 261 and Lau Jian Bang v Public Prosecutor [2019] 3 SLR 1161), s 331(3A) read with s 240(1) of the Securities and Futures Act (Public Prosecutor v......
-
Public Prosecutor v Ng Han Bee
...Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 1005 at [58], Public Prosecutor v Wong Chee Meng [2020] SGHC 144 at [57], and Koo Kah Yee [2020] SGHC 261 at [56] (see also Andrew Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal Justice (6th Ed, 2015, Cambridge University Press) at [4.3] and [4.5]). Legislat......
-
Public Prosecutor v Lim Yung Keng Adam
...Prosecutor v Su Jiqing Joel [2021] 3 SLR 1232 (“Joel Su”) at [98] (offence under the Planning Act); Koo Kah Yee v Public Prosecutor [2021] 3 SLR 1440 at [40] (offence under the Remote Gambling Act); Chiew Kok Chai v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 713 (“Chiew Kok Chai”) at [69] (offence unde......
-
Public Prosecutor v Tan Chip Huat
...victims: Poh Boon Kiat at [94], Public Prosecutor v Quek Chin Choon [2015] 1 SLR 1169 at [38], and Koo Kah Yee v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGHC 261 at [62] (see also Kow Keng Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore (Academy Publishing, Second Ed, 2019) at 16.040). In the circumstances, sen......