Public Prosecutor v Chang Chin Hsion

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng
• Judgment Date: 10 September 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGDC 211
• Published date: 02 October 2003
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Insp Poh & ASP Rai
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in person

1 The accused, Chang, pleaded guilty to 20 counts under s 406 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). 67 similar charges were taken into consideration. He had committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating rental monies from numerous foreign students. I sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment per charge, with six charges to run consecutively, totalling three years’ imprisonment. The prosecution, being dissatisfied, filed an appeal against the sentence on 28 August 2003.

The facts

2 In gist the facts are as follows. At the beginning of 2002, Chang rented about 35 units of flats to sublet to foreign students. Chang would collect three to 12 months of advance rental payments and deposits from them. He then paid some of the rent to the owners of the flats and subsequently absconded in April 2003 with the rest of the monies. As a result of Chang defaulting on the rental payments to the flat owners, some 102 foreign students were evicted from the units. On 1 June 2003, the police finally managed to locate and arrest Chang. All in all, he had misappropriated approximately $136,965 (comprising of about $57,772 for the proceeded charges and $79,193 for the charges taken into consideration).

Accused’s submissions

3 Chang gave a brief mitigation. He stated that he had high blood pressure and when the SARS outbreak occurred early this year, his business suffered. He was sorry for what he had done.

Prosecution’s submissions

4 Prosecution did not make any submissions on sentencing and left it to the court.

My decision on sentencing

5 In sentencing Chang to six months’ imprisonment with six charges to run consecutively, thus totalling three years, I took into account the following factors and sentencing precedents. As a starting point, the sentencing benchmark for amounts misappropriated of between $100,000 to $200,000, range from 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment. In this case, Chang had misappropriated a total of approximately $136,965. However I felt that the range of between 21 to 27 months’ imprisonment was inadequate, as there were various aggravating factors.

6 There were numerous victims, over 100, who were affected by Chang’s misdeeds. They were foreign students who could ill-afford to lose their money, and Chang was in a position of trust to them. As a result of Chang absconding with the money, these students were evicted from their accommodation and had to find alternative lodgings. His misdeeds have painted Singapore in a poor light to foreigners. In addition, much police resources were spent in trying to locate Chang after he had absconded, and no restitution was made. Chang was also not a first offender, having been convicted and sentenced in 1997 to 10 months’ imprisonment for cheating by personation.

7 Next, I looked at some precedent cases for guidance. In Ang Chee Huat v PP (MA 48/1996)(unreported), the victim was an American national who was a very good friend of the accused. The victim entrusted the accused with a sum of money to relocate his business operations and the accused subsequently...