Lean Cheong Keng v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Keen Onn
• Judgment Date: 30 October 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGDC 280
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Section 5[3] Betting Act [Cap. 21],Sections 5[1] and 6[1] Money Changing & Remittance Business Act,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Principles applied in sentencing in respect to the offences of illegal bookmaking and illegal money lending and remittance business.

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The charges

1. The accused pleaded guilty before me to the 7 charges, five of which are under section 5(3) of the Betting Act (Cap 21) and 2 charges are under section 5(1) and 6(1) of the Money-Changing & Remittance Business Act. One of the five similar charges under section 5(3) of the Betting Act that were proceeded with has been reproduced below for easy reference:-

DAC 31641/02 ( Exhibit P1)

"You,

LEAN CHEONG KENG, MALE/36 YRS, NRIC NO: S1758943A

are charged that you, on or about the 19^th day of May 2001 at Lean Seng Lee Money Changer, located at No 144 Upper Bukit Timah Road #01-03, Beauty World Plaza, Singapore, did act as a bookmaker, to wit, by accepting bets to forecast the soccer results of the English Premier League and Spanish Primera Division, which comprises of the following match fixtures; -

Charlton Athletic Vs Liverpool

Derby County Vs Ipswich Town

Everton Vs Sunderland

Middlesbrough Vs West Ham

Newcastle Vs Aston Villa

Tottenham Hotspur Vs Manchester United

Alaves Vs Barcelona

and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(3) of the Betting Act, Cap 21."

2. Upon his conviction on these 7 charges, the Accused admitted and consented to another 159 similar charges under section 5(3)(a) Betting Act, one charge of possession of uncertificated films under section 21(1)(a) of the Films Act and one charge of possession of obscene films under section 30(2)(a) of the Films Act to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

The Facts

3. The Accused was the manager of Lean Seng Lee Moneychanger ("LSL Moneychanger"), a sole proprietorship business registered in Singapore since 28 May 1987. The Statement of Facts, to which the Accused had admitted to without qualification, revealed that on 8 November 2001 at about 1220 hours, a party of CAD officers raided LSL Moneychanger located at Beauty World Plaza at Upper Bukit Timah Road. There, in the presence of the Accused, the police seized four books and some pieces of papers containing writings pertaining to illegal bookmaking. These four books and pieces of paper were sent to Gambling Suppression Branch, CID, for analysis. The entries written by the Accused were analysed by Sgt Lee Seow How, a gambling expert attached to the Gambling Suppression Branch. Based on Sgt Lee's expert opinion, the entries were records of bets accepted by the Accused in his capacity as an illegal bookmaker. He had received and negotiated bets from punters who placed their bets to forecast soccer results of fixtures for the following matches and value of bets:-

Charges	Date	Event	Amount of Bets
DAC 31641 Exhibits HH1 Page 39	19 May 2001	English Premier League and Spanish Primera Division which comprising of the following match fixtures;- Charlton Athletic Vs Liverpool Derby County Vs Ipswich Town Everton Vs Sunderland Middlesbrough Vs West Ham Newcastle Vs Aston Villa Tottenham Hotspur Vs Manchester United Alaves Vs Barcelona	$339,000/-
DAC 31645 Exhibits HH1 Page 41	27 May 2001	Italian Serie A, which comprising of the following match fixtures;- Brescia Vs Vicenza Fiorentina Vs Atalanta Inter Milan Vs Lazio Juventus Vs Peruggia Lecce Vs Parma AS Roma Vs AC Milan Udinese Vs Napoli Verona Vs Bologna	$376,000/-
DAC 31646 Exhibits HH1 Pages 42 & 43	2 Jun 2001	World Cup Qualifying Rounds, which comprising of the following match fixtures;- Brazil Vs Canada Republic of Ireland Vs Bulgaria Northern Ireland Vs Bulgaria Wales Vs Poland Sweden Vs Slovenia Ukraine Vs Norway Finland Vs Germany Romania Vs Hungary Peru Vs Ecuador Paraguay Vs Chile Japan Vs Cameroon	$413,000/-
DAC 31647 Exhibits HH1 Pages 43 & 44	6 Jun 2001	World Cup Qualifying Rounds, which comprising of the following match fixtures;- Czechoslovakia Vs Northern Ireland Ukraine Vs Wales Israel Vs Spain Norway Vs Belarus Iceland Vs Bulgaria Switzerland Vs Slovenia Greece Vs England	$490,000/-
DAC 31648 Exhibits HH1 Page 45	10 Jun 01	Italian Serie A and Spanish Primera Division, which comprising of the following match fixtures;- AC Milan Vs Brescia Atalanta Vs Udinese Bologna Vs Lecce Napoli Vs Roma Vicenza Vs Juventus Real Valladolid Vs Barcelona	$425,000/-

4. As for the remaining 2 charges that were proceeded with, investigations also revealed that the Accused had conducted money-changing business between 1 January to 8 November 2001 without a valid license from MAS (6^th charge). Similarly, between 13 November 2000 and 8 November 2001, the Accused had also conducted a remittance business without obtaining any remittance license from MAS (7^th charge).

Mitigation and Submissions on Sentence

5. The Accused is 36 years old, a first offender and had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. Counsel for Accused informed the Court that he is married with 4 young children with ages ranging from 4 years to 8 years old. He has a history of Type 2 diabetes mellitus since 1994 and has to self inject insulin twice a day. As for the circumstances leading to the offence, Counsel informed the Court that this is the first time he has been initiated by some friends to do bookmaking in international soccer games. The Accused had committed these offences due to financial hardship arising from family expenses and his weekly treatment of his diabetes. As for his infringements under the Money Changing and Remittance Business Act, he informed the Court that the money changing business was actually owned by his brother and he had forgotten to apply for renewal of the license. Counsel submitted that the Accused is remorseful and had cooperated with the police. Accused pleaded to the Court to gave him a conditional discharge as a custodial sentence may adversely affect his medical condition because he feared that he may not get proper medical attention in prison.

6. The prosecution, however, pressed for a stiff sentence so as to serve an effective deterrent to other potential would-be bookmakers (Exhibit "E"). The DPP also submitted a schedule of sentencing precedents wherein the Courts had meted out sentences of between 6 months and 20 months imprisonment in addition to the imposition of substantial fines of between $60,000 to $200,000 for offences under section 5(3)(a) of the Betting Act. The DPP argued for a sentence well above the benchmark of 6 months’ imprisonment plus a substantial fine per charge given that the amount of bets was much higher in this case. The DPP also objected to conditional discharge as there was nothing to suggest that the Prisons do not have sufficient facilities to attend to the Accused's medical condition.

Sentencing Framework

7. An offence under section 5(3) of the Betting Act is no doubt a serious offence. The gravity of the offence is reflected by the sentence prescribed, that of mandatory imprisonment of up to 5 years, and mandatory fine of between $20,000 to $200,000.

8. In my view, offences of illegal bookmaking are one of the many social evils which ought to be dealt with by deterrent sentences. Illegal bookmaking activities including those on soccer fixtures, are a very large concern and have assumed greater prominence in recent years with the use of more advanced communication facilities and live satellite transmission of such soccer matches. They are easy to commit and difficult to detect and to prove. The proliferation of such illicit bookmaking activities also stems from the large profits that can be generated in a very short time. Therefore, the dominant consideration must be one of general deterrence. The police considerations behind this legislation that were highlighted during the Parliamentary debates relating to the amendments to enhance the punishment provisions remain pertinent today. In particular, during the second reading of the Betting (Amendment) Bill on 10 Jan 1986, the Minister for Home Affairs noted at Column 723 to 727 that:

"This Bill should really be taken together with the following two Bills, the Common Gaming Houses (Amendment) Bill and the Road Vehicles (Special Powers) (Amendment) Bill, three of which are to be viewed as a package of amendments…….

Sir, the amendments are really a response to an issue of public interest and a response to voluminous public complaints and outcry. I think all Members are aware of the problem which illegal mini-turf clubs pose to the public and to the residents in our HDB estates. Large crowds gather at coffee shops and hawkers centres on days when there are races. The proliferation of the illegal mini-turf clubs in housing estates has given rise to concern on the part of residents, concern that has been expressed in various forums, including this house. What is the impact of illegal mini-turf clubs? It has adverse impact on the quality of life and on the environment in HDB estates particularly. It has ruined the residential environment. It has an unsavoury and anunpleasant effect on the residents, most of whom are law-abiding and want to live in peace and security. The crowds which gather and operators of illegal mini-turf clubs not only frequent the premises but also spill over into corridors and even staircases of the HDB blocks. Members of the public have experienced feelings of insecurity and anxiety and a sense of lawlessness is created.

For the year that has just...