Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 19 January 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGHC 12
• Published date: 23 January 2018
• Date: 19 January 2018
• Year: 2018
• Hearing Date: 15 September 2017,06 October 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Yusfiyanto bin Yatiman and Josephine Chee Fei (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Christopher Ong, Jordan Li and Shamini Joseph (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2018] SGHC 12
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 9133 of 2017

Sundaresh Menon CJ: Introduction

The appellant, Logachev Vladislav (“the Appellant”), is a Russian who was 40 years old at the material time. He pleaded guilty to six charges of cheating at play, which is punishable under s 172A(2) of the Casino Control Act (Cap 33A, 2007 Rev Ed) (“the CCA”). Section 172A of the CCA provides as follows:

Cheating at play

172A.—(1) A person shall not, in relation to the playing of any game in a casino, obtain or attempt to obtain any money or advantage for himself or any other person — (a) by a fraudulent trick, device, sleight of hand or representation; (b) by a fraudulent scheme or practice; (c) by the fraudulent use of gaming equipment or any other thing; or (d) by placing a bet in a game after the result of the game is known.

(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $150,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both. (3) Any person who colludes with another person to do any act in contravention of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to be punished with the punishment provided for the offence under subsection (2).

…

The Appellant was sentenced by the district judge (“the District Judge”) to an aggregate term of 45 months’ imprisonment. This appeal, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9133 of 2017 (“MA 9133/2017”), is his appeal against the sentence imposed on him by the District Judge. The appeal is opposed by the respondent, the Public Prosecutor (“the Respondent”). As there has, to date, been no guidance from the High Court concerning sentencing for offences punishable under s 172A(2) of the CCA, this judgment proposes a framework to guide such sentencing.

The material facts

The Appellant was charged along with two of his accomplices: Skubnik Radoslav (“Skubnik”), a Czech who was 40 years old at the material time, and Egorov Andrei (“Egorov”), a Russian who was 33 years old at the material time.

Background

According to the statement of facts, which the Appellant admitted without qualification, the Appellant was part of a Russian syndicate operating in casinos in the United States, Europe and Macau. The syndicate targeted slot machines made by certain manufacturers. Syndicate members would form teams comprising a “Master” (who was the team leader) and “Players”. They would use smartphone devices to record the play patterns of the slot machines in question. The “Master” would then upload the recorded information to a server for analysis and decoding. The decoded data enabled the syndicate members to predict, with some degree of accuracy, the future outcomes of play on the targeted slot machines.

The decoded data would be sent to the “Master”, who in turn would distribute this to the “Players”. The “Players” would then return to the same slot machines, and the smartphone devices would alert them ahead of the next mass payout, thereby enabling them to win at those slot machines between 60 and 65% of the time.

In March 2016, the Appellant made arrangements for some syndicate members to travel to Singapore. These syndicate members proceeded to record the play patterns on specific slot machines at the casinos at Marina Bay Sands (“MBS”) and Resorts World Sentosa (“RWS”). These recordings were then analysed, and the analysed data was given to the Appellant while he was in Russia.

The Appellant taught Skubnik and Egorov how to use the smartphone devices. In April 2016, the Appellant instructed Skubnik to go to Singapore with the smartphone devices and use them in the casinos here. He also told Skubnik that he would be travelling to Singapore for this job. Separately, he informed Egorov of the same.

The trio arrived in Singapore on 5 May 2016. The Appellant was the “Master” for this job. He provided Skubnik and Egorov with the analysed data (which was stored in a computer). Together, they visited the casinos at MBS and RWS and identified the compromised slot machines. They then used the smartphone devices and gained an advantage when playing at these slot machines. In accordance with their agreement, Skubnik and Egorov would each receive about 10% of the winnings, while the Appellant would receive about 15 to 20%. The balance would go to the syndicate.

On 7 May 2016, between 8.18pm and 11.11pm, the Appellant used the smartphone devices to gain an advantage while playing at the compromised slot machines at the casino at MBS and won $30,959.90 in this way. This gave rise to a charge under s 172A(1)(c) and punishable under s 172A(2) of the CCA (namely, District Arrest Case No (“DAC”) 919377/2016), which the Appellant pleaded guilty to.

The other five charges to which the Appellant pleaded guilty were charges under s 172A(1)(c) read with s 172A(3) and punishable under s 172A(2) of the CCA. These involved the Appellant colluding with either Skubnik or Egorov to cheat at play. For these charges, either Skubnik or Egorov would use the smartphone devices to gain an advantage while playing at the compromised slot machines in the casinos at MBS and RWS. The details of these charges are as follows:

SN	Charge	Date / Time / Location	Accomplice	Amount cheated
1	DAC 919379/2016	5 May 2016 7.17pm to 11.16pm RWS	Skubnik	$6,401.70
2	DAC 919380/2016	6 May 2016, 7.33pm to 7 May 2016, 1.42am RWS	Skubnik	$13,551.58
3	DAC 919385/2016	8 May 2016 2.12am to 6.27am RWS	Egorov	$18,982.50
4	DAC 919392/2016	6 May 2016 4.23am to 5.54am MBS	Egorov	$14,573.00
5	DAC 919395/2016	7 May 2016 2.42am to 6.13am MBS	Egorov	$21,774.45

The proceedings below: Skubnik

Skubnik was the first to be dealt with. He pleaded guilty before another district judge on 28 June 2016 to three charges under s 172A(1)(c) and punishable under s 172A(2) of the CCA. Two similar charges and one charge under s 7(1)(a) of the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act (Cap 65, 2013 Rev Ed) were taken into consideration for sentencing purposes. On the same day, Skubnik was sentenced as follows:

SN	Charge	Amount cheated	Sentence
1	DAC 917781/2016	$6,401.70	10 months’ imprisonment
2	DAC 919292/2016	$13,551.58	12 months’ imprisonment
3	DAC 919293/2016	- $782.70	6 months’ imprisonment
Sentences in DAC 917781/2016 and DAC 919292/2016 to run consecutively Aggregate sentence: 22 months’ imprisonment

The proceedings below: The Appellant and Egorov

The Appellant and Egorov pleaded guilty before the District Judge on 24 March 2017. Egorov pleaded guilty to three charges under s 172A(1)(c) and punishable under s 172A(2) of the CCA. Seven similar charges were taken into consideration for sentencing purposes. On 12 April 2017, the District Judge sentenced Egorov as follows:

SN	Charge	Amount cheated	Sentence
1	DAC 919303/2016	$18,982.50	15 months’ imprisonment
2	DAC 919310/2016	$14,573.00	12 months’ imprisonment
3	DAC 919313/2016	$21,774.45	18 months’ imprisonment
Sentences in DAC 919310/2016 and DAC 919313/2016 to run consecutively Aggregate sentence: 30 months’ imprisonment

As for the Appellant, as mentioned earlier, he pleaded guilty to one charge under s 172A(1)(c) of the CCA and five charges under s 172A(1)(c) read with s 172A(3) of the CCA, all of which were punishable under s 172A(2) of the CCA (see the facts giving rise to these charges at [9]–[10] above). Ten charges under s 172A(1)(c) read with s 172A(3) and punishable under s 172A(2) of the CCA were taken into consideration for sentencing purposes. On 12 April 2017, the District Judge sentenced the Appellant as follows:

SN	Charge	Amount cheated	Sentence
1	DAC 919377/2016	$30,959.90	24 months’ imprisonment
2	DAC 919379/2016	$6,401.70	12 months’ imprisonment
3	DAC 919380/2016	$13,551.58	15 months’ imprisonment
4	DAC 919385/2016	$18,982.50	18 months’ imprisonment
5	DAC 919392/2016	$14,573.00	15 months’ imprisonment
6	DAC 919395/2016	$21,774.45	21 months’ imprisonment
Sentences in DAC 919377/2016 and DAC 919395/2016 to run consecutively Aggregate sentence: 45 months’ imprisonment

The District Judge issued the written grounds for her decision on 18 May 2017 (see Public Prosecutor v Egorov Andrei and Logachev Vladislav [2017] SGDC 141 (“the GD”)).

The District Judge held that since the Appellant, Skubnik and Egorov were participants in a common criminal enterprise, the parity principle would apply if they were “equally placed in terms of culpability”. However, as it was accepted that the Appellant was more culpable than Skubnik and Egorov, the District Judge thought that a “suitable uplift” in the Appellant’s sentence, relative to the sentences meted out to his two accomplices, was called for (see the GD at [20]).

As between Skubnik and Egorov, the District Judge held that their roles were “identical”, and that the main difference lay in: (a) the number of charges each of them faced; and (b) the amount each of them cheated. With respect to the number of charges each of them faced, the District Judge noted that this was a function of the number of times each of them entered the casino at either MBS or RWS and played at the compromised slot machines there. She therefore thought that this was not the critical differentiating factor between them. Rather, she considered that the second factor – the amount cheated – presented the critical difference between Skubnik and Egorov. In this respect, the amount cheated by Egorov was more than double the amount cheated by Skubnik. The District Judge found this...