Public Prosecutor v Tan Peng Khoon

• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 13 November 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 298
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 298
• Docket Number: Criminal Motion 38 of 2015
• Published date: 19 November 2015
• Hearing Date: 06 August 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Gordon Oh, Leong Wing Tuck and Victoria Ting (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Date: 13 November 2015
• Defendant Counsel: Respondent in person,Liu Zeming (Baker Mckenzie Wong & Leow LLC) as young amicus curiae
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Extension of time

Sundaresh Menon CJ:

This was a criminal motion brought by the Prosecution pursuant to s 380(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) seeking an extension of time to file a Petition of Appeal against the sentence that was imposed on the respondent by a district judge in Public Prosecutor v Tan Peng Khoon [2015] SGDC 94. The Prosecution contended that by reason of various aggravating factors in this case, the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate having regard to the relevant sentencing precedents.

The respondent, Tan Peng Khoon, was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment following his trial and conviction on four counts of forgery for the purpose of cheating under s 468 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”), and two counts of cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property under s 420 of the same Act. The punishment prescribed under both provisions is a mandatory imprisonment term that may extend to 10 years and a fine.

I heard the motion on 6 August 2015 and allowed the Prosecution’s application for extension of time. I gave brief reasons at that time. In essence, I was satisfied that the matter was broadly covered by the principles I had set out in an earlier judgment, Lim Hong Kheng v Public Prosecutor [2006] 3 SLR(R) 358 (“Lim Hong Kheng”) and applying the analytical framework set out in that case and having regard to the particular circumstances at hand, I concluded that the motion should be granted. It may be noted that unlike Lim Hong Kheng, the present motion involved an application brought by the Prosecution and this gave rise to some nuances in the analysis, which makes it appropriate that I treat the point more fully in these detailed grounds.

Background Facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences

I should make it clear that as the appeal is pending, my recitation of the facts is based on what was found by the court below.

The respondent was an insurance agent with the American International Assurance Company Limited (“AIA”) at the material time. He devised and carried out a carefully orchestrated, multi-stepped plan to deceive his client and friend of 20 years Mdm Lim Choon Hoong (“Mdm Lim”), an illiterate Mandarin-speaking widow who was aged 61, into unwittingly signing four English language documents, which were the subject matter of the four s 468 charges.

Unknown to Mdm Lim, the effect of these documents was: to cause the surrender of one of her life insurance policies (policy no L530269243) for $2,018.11; to obtain a loan of $6,500 against another of her life insurance policies (policy no L530269078); and to authorise the respondent to receive the surrender value of the former and the loan from AIA in respect of the latter, purportedly on behalf of Mdm Lim.

Mdm Lim was not well to do. She worked as a factory worker earning a modest sum of between $500 and $600 a month. She had two sons. Her elder son was married with children of his own and was no longer living with her, whereas her younger son was still schooling and remained financially dependent on her.

Prior to the commission of these offences, Mdm Lim had loaned the respondent sums of money over many years. These appear to total a sum of approximately $150,000. She thought that the respondent would repay the amount he owed her, but her trust was misplaced. She repeatedly asked the respondent for repayment and even went to his house on at least three occasions for this purpose because she had to pay the university fees for one of her sons. But this was all to no avail. Mdm Lim resolved not to lend the respondent any more money and the respondent then hatched his plan to swindle her of what little she still had.

The respondent asked Mdm Lim to meet him at the MacDonald’s restaurant in IMM Jurong ostensibly to have breakfast. There, the respondent told Mdm Lim that he was going to leave AIA, and that he needed her to sign some documents to effect a change in her insurance agent. Mdm Lim signed four documents, three of which were official AIA documents, namely, a policy loan form, a request for cash surrender form and a bond of indemnity.

Thereafter, the respondent brought Mdm Lim to the DBS Bank branch at the same shopping centre and persuaded Mdm Lim to add him as an “either/or” joint account holder of her POSB bank account. This enabled him to make withdrawals from that account.

To achieve this, the respondent told Mdm Lim that he was a police informant and was about to receive a sum of $200,000 for his services. He told her that if his name was added to her POSB bank account, this sum could be deposited by the police into her account and in this way he would repay the amount that he owed Mdm Lim. Mdm Lim believed the respondent.

The respondent then drove Mdm Lim home and proceeded on his own to AIA’s branch office in Tampines where he committed the s 420 offences. There, he deceived an AIA customer service officer, Ms Linda Lim, into processing the policy surrender and the policy loan, and into handing over to him two AIA cheques for $2,018.11 (being the surrender value of the policy) and $6,500 (being the loan amount).

The respondent deposited both cheques into Mdm Lim’s bank account of which he was now a joint holder. He then withdrew the proceeds in cash. The respondent first withdrew $6,500 at a POSB bank branch. He then went to the casino at the Resorts World Sentosa the same evening. After about 19 hours at the casino, he exited and went to a teller machine where he withdrew the remaining $2,000 in cash from the same account before re-entering the casino.

The offences came to light after the AIA wrote to Mdm Lim stating that she had surrendered one of her life insurance policies and had taken a loan against another. One of Mdm Lim’s sons read the letter from the AIA and conveyed its contents to Mdm Lim.

Punishment meted out by the district judge

After a 13-day trial, the district judge convicted the respondent and sentenced him to a total imprisonment term of 9 months on 10 February 2015. I set out the punishment meted out by the district judge in respect of each charge in the following table:

Charge	Brief Facts	Offence	Sentence imposed by the district judge
1st charge (DAC 009185-2013)	Forging an AIA Policy Loan Form that binds Mdm Lim to repay a loan from AIA on her AIA policy no L530269243 for the purpose of using the form to cheat AIA of $6,500.	Section 468 of the Penal Code (forgery for the purposes of cheating)	6 months’ imprisonment (consecutive)
2nd charge (DAC 009186-2013)	Forging an AIA Request for Cash Surrender form that purportedly contains Mdm Lim’s request to surrender her life insurance policy no L530269078 for its cash surrender value, for the purpose of using the form to cheat AIA of $2,018.11.	Ditto	3 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
3rd charge (DAC 009187-2013)	Forging an AIA Bond of Indemnity in which Mdm Lim purportedly avers that policy no L530269078 cannot be found and agrees to indemnify AIA for payments made without the policy, for the purpose of using the bond to cheat AIA of $2,018.11.	Ditto	3 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
4th charge (DAC 009188-2013)	Forging a Letter of Authorisation in which Mdm Lim purportedly authorises the respondent to collect cheques from AIA on Mdm Lim’s behalf for the purpose of using the letter to cheat AIA to deliver the cheques for the sums of $6,500 and $2,018.11.	Ditto	3 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
5th charge (DAC 009189-2013)	Deceiving Linda Lim, the AIA customer service officer, into believing that Mdm Lim had intended to take policy loan from AIA using her AIA policy no L530269243 and by such deception dishonestly inducing the said AIA officer into delivering him a cheque for a sum of $6,500.	Section 420 of the Penal Code (cheating and inducing the delivery of property)	6 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
6th charge (DAC 009190-2013)	Deceiving Linda Lim into believing that Mdm Lim had intended to surrender her life insurance policy no L530269078 in exchange for its cash surrender value, and by such deception dishonestly inducing Linda into delivering to him a cheque for a sum of $2,018.11.	Ditto	3 months’ imprisonment (consecutive)

The present criminal motion and the respondent’s appeal

The respondent filed a Notice of Appeal against his conviction and sentence on 10 February 2015. On 24 February 2015, the Prosecution filed a Notice of Appeal against the sentence imposed, contending that having regard to the aggravating factors in this case, it was manifestly inadequate.

The Record of Proceedings and the district judge’s grounds of decision were served on the Prosecution on 4 May 2015. Under s 378(1) of the CPC, the Prosecution was required to file its Petition of Appeal within 14 days thereafter, that is by 18 May 2015. Section 378(3) goes on to say that subject to s 380 of the CPC, if the Petition of Appeal is not lodged within time, the appeal will be treated as withdrawn.

The Prosecution’s Petition of Appeal was not filed by 18 May 2015 due to an administrative lapse on its part. The Prosecution’s legal executive thought that a Deputy Public Prosecutor (“DPP”) had already been assigned to consider the notes of evidence and the grounds of decision, whereas the DPP who had conduct of the matter thought that the Prosecution had collected only the notes of evidence and not the grounds of decision and therefore that time had not yet started to run.

The Respondent, on the other hand, proceeded with his appeal against conviction and sentence by filing his Petition of Appeal on time.

When the Prosecution came to appreciate its lapse on 5 June 2015, it reviewed the case and concluded that notwithstanding its lapse, this was a case in which an extension of time should be...