Public Prosecutor v Su Chia Ern

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Luke Tan
• Judgment Date: 29 February 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGDC 46
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 929575/2014 & Ors
• Year: 2016
• Published date: 03 March 2016
• Hearing Date: 25 January 2016,19 February 2016,22 January 2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Joshua Lai
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Chye Long Mervyn (Anthony Law Corporation)
• Citation: [2016] SGDC 46

District Judge Luke Tan: Introduction

The Accused, Su Chia Ern, also known as “Richard”, is a 45-year-old male Singaporean. He was the main operator of a motor vehicle repair workshop, Concept Services Enterprise (“Concept”), and the primary mastermind of numerous motor insurance fraud offences committed by a syndicate. The fraud essentially involved false injury and damage claims that were made by the Accused and his accomplices to insurance companies. In connection with the offences, claims of $380,259.75 were submitted between 2008 to 2009, and insurers were dishonestly induced to pay out (and suffered losses of) $175,663.56.

For his role, the Accused faced 31 charges under the Penal Code (Cap 224). These consisted of: 18 charges of conspiracy to cheat under section 420 read with (r/w) 109 Cap 224 – where the cheating was successfully carried out; 11 charges of conspiracy to cheat under section 420 r/w 116 Cap 224 – where the cheating was not successfully carried out; 1 charge of cheating under section 420 Cap 224; and 1 charge – Forgery for the purposes of cheating under section 468 Cap 224.

He pleaded guilty to six of these charges, namely:

Charge No.	Offence	Amount Involved	Type of Claim
7th charge - DAC 929575/2014	S 420 r/w 116 Cap 224	$21,794.85 (no pay-out)	Injury claim
11th charge – DAC 929579/2014	S 420 Cap 224	$5,423.00	Injury claim
12th charge – DAC 929580/2014	S 420 r/w 109 Cap 224	$10,827.50	Injury claim
17th charge – DAC 929585/2014	S 420 r/w 109 Cap 224	$39,663.37	Injury claim
27th charge – DAC 929595/2014	S 420 r/w 116 Cap 224	$31,716.22 (no pay-out)	Damage claim
28th charge – DAC 929596/2014	S 420 r/w 109 Cap 224	$7,898.85	Injury claim

The following 25 charges were taken into consideration for sentencing: 15 charges under s 420 r/w s 109 Cap 224; 9 charges under s 420 r/w s 116 Cap 224; and 1 charge under s 468 r/w s 109 Cap 224.

All the offences that he pleaded guilty to attracted mandatory imprisonment sentences, with the following prescribed punishments: For an offence under section S 420 r/w 116 Cap 224: An imprisonment term which may extend to 2 ½ years and shall also be liable to a fine, For an offence under section S 420 r/w 109 Cap 224: An imprisonment term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine, For an offence under section S 420 Cap 224: An imprisonment term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine.

The Accused has no antecedents.

For his offences, the Prosecution sought a global sentence of at least 42 months’ imprisonment. In court, DPP Joshua Lai clarified that this should be made up of a sentence of at least 24 months imprisonment for one of the section 420 r/w 109 Cap 224 charges, and a shorter imprisonment term (of a corresponding length) for one of the s 420 r/w 116 Cap 224 charges, making up at least 42 months’ imprisonment in total. In making a submission for this sentence, the DPP argued that deterrence (general and specific) should be the predominant sentencing consideration, and that such a sentence sought is in line with the relevant sentencing precedents. A number of aggravating features, and High Court and District Court precedents, were also highlighted to support the argument that a deterrent sentence is warranted. Further, aside from case authorities, the DPP also placed before me a paper issued by the Monetary Authority of Singapore in 2012 which commented on the risk posed by insurance fraud to insurers and policy holders, as well as a joint victim impact statement (VIS) from the Executive Director and Motor Convenor of the General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA). According to the VIS, the estimated amount of inflated or fraudulent claims is about $140 million a year.

The matters raised by the Prosecution were wide-ranging and important. I will deal with them in greater detail in a later part of my Grounds of Decision (GD).

In response, in his 2 page written mitigation plea, which was orally supplemented in court, the Accused’s counsel, Mr Melvyn Tan, pleaded for leniency for the Accused. Counsel stressed that the Accused is a good father, and a family man who has provided financial support to his family members, who would suffer as a result of his conviction. It was also highlighted that the Accused was in dire financial straits at the time he committed the offences, and that he has since co-operated with the police, is remorseful and has promised not to re-offend. His plea of guilt and his lack of antecedents were also emphasised. Save for disputing the DPP’s contention that motor insurance cases had as much impact on Singapore’s reputation as credit card offences, and also arguing that the level of sophistication of the Accused’s offences was lower, counsel did not challenge the rest of the Prosecution’s submissions, or the exhibits and authorities put up by the DPP.

After considering the facts of the case, the relevant precedents and the exhibits, as well as the submissions of both the Prosecution and the Defence, I sentenced the Accused to a global imprisonment sentence of 40 months. This consisted of two consecutive imprisonment sentences of 22 months and 18 months. The remaining 4 imprisonment sentences (ranging from 18 months to 22 months each) were ordered to run concurrently.

The Accused has appealed against his sentence. I now set out my reasons for arriving at the sentence that I imposed.

The Undisputed Facts

The Prosecution tendered a very comprehensive 13 page Statement of Facts (SOF). This set out the workings of the syndicate, the details of the various motor insurance frauds, and the role played by the Accused as the “primary mastermind” of the scheme and in many other roles involved in the planning and execution of the motor insurance frauds. The SOF was admitted by the Accused without qualification. Its main points are summarised below.

The Statement of Facts

The Accused was one of three masterminds involved in the schemed to default 3 insurance companies, NTUC Insurance (`NTUC’), Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd (‘Liberty’); and Tenet Sompo Insurance Pte Ltd (‘Tenet’). The other masterminds were one Teo Kok Hwee (“Teo”), also known as “Sky”, who was a Managing Director of Sky Power Consultancy, and one Pan Weida Pepin, also known as “Vincent” (“Vincent”), who was a car dealer at Eazi Car Leasing & Marketing Pte Ltd, as well as a freelance car dealer at Benzworld.

How the syndicate carried out the motor insurance frauds

Sometime in October 2006, the Accused set up Concept Services Enterprise (“Concept”), a motor workshop, with his friend, one Lim Chiew Beng (“Tommy”). This business was then registered under the joint name of Tommy and the Accused’s wife, Fan Lihua, although the Accused was its de facto owner, and the person with full control of it.

During the course of managing Concept, the Accused secured a contract with NTUC to provide repair and servicing services for its client’s vehicles. However, when the Accused realised that Concept could not afford to bid for, and to complete the contracts, the Accused concocted a plan to fabricate traffic accidents with the intention of submitting fraudulent insurance claims to earn additional income for himself and the workshop.

Sometime in 2008, Teo arranged with three friends to purchase 3 motorcars bearing registration numbers SJH1732D, SJJ6403K and SJK1567Z, under the name of his friends, Chua Thiam Soon, Ng Kay Kay and Ng Kay Choon, in exchange for a share of a cash-back promotional deal offered upon purchase of the vehicles. Thereafter, an arrangement was made between Vincent and Teo, for Vincent to take over possession of the latter two motorcars from the owners, who were non-drivers. Subsequently, Vincent engaged Ng Kay Kay to purchase another motorcar, SJK8762E, and took over possession of the third motorcar. Teo was named as the authorized driver in the motor insurance policies of all four motorcars. The cars were used in false accidents fabricated by the masterminds to make various false property damages and personal injuries claims against insurance companies.

During the period between 2008 and 2009, the three masterminds, i.e. the Accused, Vincent and Teo, conspired to recruit individual car owners and drivers to submit their details in Singapore Accident Statements (“SAS”) to report their particulars as drivers and passengers in fabricated traffic accidents. These individuals were in fact not present at the fabricated traffic accidents, but falsely stated their details in order to deceive insurance companies into believing that the purported traffic accidents were genuine. The masterminds would thereafter arrange for these phantom drivers and passengers to submit property damage and bodily injury claims against the insurers of the motorcars in respect of the purported traffic accidents.

The fraudulent claims stemming out of 9 purported accidents involved 20 persons (including the 3 masterminds) in this syndicate. Claims amounting to $380,259.75 (in respect of both proceeded and charges taken into consideration (TIC charges) faced by the Accused) were submitted between 2008 to 2009. Of these claims, insurers (which were deceived into believing that the accidents were genuine) were dishonestly induced to make pay-outs amounting to $175,663.56 (in respect of both proceeded and TIC charges faced by the Accused) for various fraudulent property damage and injury claims. To date, the insurance companies received little or no restitution for the losses that they suffered as a result of the pay-outs made because of the motor insurance frauds orchestrated by the Accused and planned by the two other masterminds, Teo and Vincent.

To support the claims, the Accused also took...