Ong Tiong Poh v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 June 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 189
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 224 of 1997
• Date: 01 June 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1998
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Teck Leng (Michael Khoo & Partners)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 189
• Defendant Counsel: Amarjit Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Offence under Penal Code (Cap 224) s 420,Charges fail to state deceived person is induced to deliver property,Charge,Whether young age of appellant should be taken into account,Appellant part of sophisticated syndicate capable of committing credit card fraud on large scale,Offences,ss 109 & 420 Penal Code (Cap 224),Appeals,Effect of errors,Criminal Law,Important requirement under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) that deceived person induced to deliver property,Property,whether defect in charges material,Sentencing,Whether charges defective,Cheating,Whether court should amend charges to reflect requirements of s 420,Elements of offence,Whether charges as framed affect substance of evidence below or conduct of appellant's defence,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether sentences manifestly inadequate,Whether court should enhance sentences,s 420 Penal Code (Cap 224)

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

The appellant faced 68 charges of cheating, attempted cheating and abetment of cheating of various shops by the use of counterfeit credit cards. The prosecution proceeded with ten of the charges and the other 58 were stood down. Of the ten charges, two were for cheating and eight for abetment by conspiracy of cheating. The two cheating charges (exhs P1 and P2A) concerned a car accessories shop, Hui Auto Trading. P1 stated:

You,

Ong Tiong Poh, M/20 yrs

NRIC No: 7620409-H

are charged that you, on 8 January 1997, at about 6.21pm at M/s Hui Auto Trading located at Blk 3015 Ubi Road 1, Singapore, did cheat one Tan Mong Hong, a manager of the said establishment, to wit, you presented a counterfeit Hongkong Bank Visa credit card No 4630-9700-0025-7802 in the name of Tan Kok Keong to the said Tan Mong Hong for payment of an exhaust pipe amounting to $250 to deceive him into believing that you were the rightful holder of the said credit card when you knew you were not and by such manner of deception, you dishonestly induced the said Tan Mong Hong to accept the said counterfeit credit card for payment of the said exhaust pipe which he would not have done had he not been so deceived and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

P2A was in similar terms except that the time of payment was slightly different and the goods bought were `car accessories` worth $300.

2.Four charges (P3, P4, P5 and P8A) concerned a fashion boutique, Mode Boutique. P3 stated:

You are charged that you, in the month of December 1996 in Singapore, did engage with one Chan Chee Ong, Koh Kok Keong, Ng Wee Teck, Poh Kian Hua, Koh Teck Kwang and others unknown in a conspiracy to do a certain thing, namely to cheat, and in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place on 22 December 1996 at or about 5.54pm at M/s Mode Boutique located at #02-29, Parkway Parade Shopping Centre, Singapore, to wit, one Chan Chee Onn presented a counterfeit Hongkong Bank Visa credit card No 4252-1700-0980-4194 to one Nancy Ong, a cashier of the said establishment for payment of a Prada Brand handbag amounting to $1,017.70 to deceive the said Nancy Ong into believing that he was the rightful holder of the said credit card when you knew he was not and by such manner of deception, Chan Chee Onn dishonestly induced the said Nancy Ong to accept the said counterfeit credit card for payment of the said items which she would not have done had she not been so deceived, which act was committed in consequence of your abetment and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 420 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

P4 related to a wallet and belt amounting to $500, and P5 another wallet and belt amounting to $875. P8A involved a different counterfeit card, which was used to pay for a handbag amounting to $1,150; the person using the card was alleged to be Koh Kok Keong.

3.One charge, P6B, related to a goldsmith shop, Only Gold:

You are charged that you, in the month of December 1996 in Singapore, did engage with one Chan Chee Onn in a conspiracy to do a certain thing, namely to cheat, and in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place on 24 December 1996 at or about 5.33pm at M/s Only Gold located at No 200, Victoria Street, #01-23, Singapore, to wit, one Chan Chee Onn presented a counterfeit Mastercard credit card No 5442-9630-0010-7007 to one Evelyn Lim, a cashier of the said establishment for payment of gold jewelleries amounting to $2,750.13 to deceive the said Evelyn Lim into believing that he was the rightful holder of the said credit cards when you knew he was not and by such manner of deception, Chan Chee Onn dishonestly induced the said Evelyn Lim to accept the said counterfeit credit card for payment of the said items which she would not have done had she not been so deceived, which act was committed in consequence of your abetment and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under s 420 read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

4.The remaining three charges - P7, P9 and P10A - were also similar in form to P3. All alleged that the appellant had conspired with the same four persons and others unknown to cheat, and that cashiers had been dishonestly induced to accept the cards for payment, which they would not have done had they not been deceived. One charge, P7, differed in that the cashier was also alleged to have been dishonestly induced to `deliver` the items purchased, which he would not have done had he not been deceived. P7 and P10A both concerned a goldsmith shop, Nilgiris Gold Jewellers; according to P7, Koh Kok Keong had presented a counterfeit card on 22 December 1996 at about 4.34pm to pay for jewelry amounting to $1,035, while in P10A Ng Wee Teck had presented another counterfeit card that same day at about 4.42pm to pay for a necklace valued at $2,479. The last charge, P9, alleged that Ng Wee Teck had presented a counterfeit card on 14 December 1996 at about 2.22pm to pay for bird`s nest amounting to $3,078 at Healthy Ginseng Birdnest Pte Ltd.

5.At the trial, Chan Chee Onn (CCO), Koh Kok Keong (KKK), Ng Wee Teck (NWT) and Poh Kian Hua (PKH) testified for the prosecution. They, along with Koh Teck Kwang (KTK), were each serving jail sentences ranging from two to three years in duration after having pleaded guilty to multiple charges under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). The gist of their evidence was that the appellant helped to run a counterfeit credit card syndicate. CCO, KKK, NWT, PKH and KTK were `runners` who would use the counterfeit cards to buy goods in shops. The purchased goods would be handed to the appellant, PKH or other persons and the `runner` would later receive 30% to 40% of the value of the goods as commission from them.

6.I will briefly summarise the evidence of each witness. CCO testified that the appellant had previously been `caught` in Japan for making counterfeit credit cards. Upon his return to Singapore, the appellant asked him to be a runner for counterfeit credit cards, and sent him to Malaysia for `training` for a week with NWT, to learn how to use the counterfeit cards. Later the appellant contacted him for work in Singapore and he made a number of purchases using counterfeit cards on the appellant`s instructions; after purchase of the goods he would hand them to the appellant and get the commission of 30% to 40% of the selling price of the goods. As for the transactions mentioned in the charges, at a meeting at Lion City Hotel on 14 December 1996, the appellant had given instructions to the group for purchases at Healthy Ginseng Birdnest Pte Ltd, and consequently they bought bird`s nest from the shop using a counterfeit card. The appellant also gave instructions for the purchases at Nilgiris Gold Jewellers on 22 December 1996. After buying goods from Nilgiris the group proceeded to Parkway Parade shopping centre, where they met with the appellant at a KFC restaurant. There the appellant gave them more credit cards and instructed CCO to buy goods from Mode Boutique. CCO did so, passed the goods to the appellant, and received 30% of their value from him two days later as commission. On 24 December 1996, he was instructed by the appellant (again at Lion City Hotel) to go to Only Gold alone to buy gold; later he again received 30% of the price as commission. CCO added that the mastermind of the credit card scheme was one Lee Chee Mun, whom he was introduced to by the appellant in Malaysia. PKH would transport the counterfeit cards from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore and hand them to the appellant. The group would meet at the lobby of Lion City Hotel to discuss what to purchase; the appellant could usually be found at an adjacent building, City Plaza, and it was convenient for them to meet him at Lion City Hotel.

7.KKK was the appellant`s childhood friend. He testified as a prosecution witness but was cross-examined by the prosecution as he sometimes refused to implicate the appellant. He said that the appellant had asked him before to purchase goods with counterfeit cards but he had refused; he worked instead for PKH and his cards and instructions came from PKH. But he also said that the appellant had agreed,...