Public Prosecutor v Choo Hiang Mui

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edgar Foo
• Judgment Date: 27 September 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 213
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 939601 of 2018, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9149-2021-01
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 02 October 2021
• Hearing Date: 25 June 2021,27 October 2020,18 January 2021,28 May 2021,23 September 2019,26 October 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Tan Pei Wei (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pambayan (Murthy & Co)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Property,Criminal Breach of Trust,Abetment,Evidence,Proof of evidence,Onus of Proof,Witnesses,Witnesses' credibility,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Principles
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 213

District Judge Edgar Foo: Introduction

Mdm Choo Hiang Mui (“the Accused”), a 55-year-old female Chinese Singapore Citizen had claimed trial to the following charge:

DAC 939601-2018 (Amended)

You … are charged that you, from January 2018 to 8 June 2018, in Singapore, did abet by instigation one Heah Hee Siah to commit criminal breach of trust as a servant, to wit, by instigating him to dishonestly misappropriate the following property, worth a total of S$126,304.32/-: - 1965 pieces of Takashimaya/Capitaland vouchers; - 35 sets of Apple Macbook Air; - 12 sets of Apple iPad; and - 46 sets of assorted HP Laptops,

belonging to Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd (“Innovix”) when said Heah Hee Siah had been employed as a servant by Innovix and was in such capacity entrusted with dominion over the said property, which act was committed in consequence of your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 408 of the Penal Code read with Section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

The punishment prescribed under section 408 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.) is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 15 years and also liable to fine.

Section 109 of the Penal Code also provided:

Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment for such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.

At the conclusion of the trial on 28 May 2021. I found the Accused guilty and convicted her of the said charge. On 25 June 2021, after considering the Prosecution’s submission on sentence and the Defence’s mitigation plea, I imposed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment on the Accused.

The Accused, being dissatisfied with my decision, had filed her Notice of Appeal against the conviction and sentence. I hereby set out my reasons for my conviction and sentence.

Parties’ evidence and exhibits Prosecution’s evidence and exhibits

The Prosecution had called a total of 3 witnesses in their case against the Accused:

No.	Witness	Role	Witness Marking
1	Joshua Lim Cheng Ching	Senior Operations Manager of Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd	PW1
2	Chung Fi Li	Financial Controller of Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd	PW2
3	Heah Hee Siah	Former logistics/warehouse manager of Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd whom the Accused had instigated to commit criminal breach of trust as a servant	PW3

In addition to the 3 witnesses, the Prosecution had also tendered a total of 11 exhibits in support of their case against the Accused:

No.	Exhibit	Exhibit Marking
1	Case for the Defence	P1
2	NP299 filed by PW1 on 21 June 2018	P2
3	Admission letter from PW3 to Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd	P3
4	Email from PW3 to Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd dated 12 June 2018	P4
5	Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd’s Stock Variance Report	P5
6	Tax invoices from Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd’s suppliers	P6
7	PW3’s letter of appointment with SIS Technologies Pte Ltd	P7
8	PW3’s court papers for Bankruptcy No. 170/2016	P8
9	PW3’s conviction papers	P9
10	Accused’s long statement recorded on 24 June 2018	P10
11	Flow chart of Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd’s sale processes	P11

The Prosecution’s evidence could be summarised as follows:-

PW1 – Joshua Lim Cheng Ching

PW1 was the Senior Operations manager of Innovix Distribution Pte Ltd (“Innovix”)¹. As Senior Operations Manager, PW1 was overall in charge of 3 departments in Innovix, namely the warehouse/logistic department, the procurement department, and the IT department². Innovix was a distribution house and they represented several IT brands for both hardware and software. Innovix was a supplier of IT equipment and they would buy IT products and resell the products to their customers³.

PW1 had joined SIS Technologies Pte Ltd in 1999⁴. It was not disputed that SIS Technologies Pte Ltd was subsequently acquired by Innovix and PW1 continued to work for Innovix⁵.

PW1 gave evidence on how Innovix would fulfil a customer’s order. PW1 testified that when Innovix’s sales staff received a purchase order from a customer, the sales staff would key in the order into Innovix’s ERP JD Edward system⁶. The ERP JD Edward system is a system deployed by Innovix to keep track of their stock and inventories⁷. Innovix would then do credit check on the customer to make sure that the customer had no credit issue with Innovix. Upon completion of the checks, Innovix would generate a pick-up slip which would be sent to the warehouse department for the warehouse staff to set aside and pack the goods for the customers⁸. After that, the procurement department would proceed to prepare the invoices⁹. PW1 testified that the warehouse department and the procurement department were two different departments and they were manned by different staff¹⁰.

PW1 also testified that Innovix would sell their products to their customers either on cash or credit basis¹¹.

PW1 testified that PW3 was the warehouse manager of Innovix in 2018 and he oversaw the warehouse team and he reported to the managing director¹². As warehouse manager, PW3 oversaw the physical inventory for receiving and outgoing. PW3 was also responsible for logistic management where the goods were delivered to customers¹³.

PW1 said that he had made a police report against PW3 on 21 June 2018 (Exhibit P2) for taking stocks from Innovix’s warehouse¹⁴. PW1 testified that one of his colleagues from the business unit had informed him on 7 June 2018 that 35 units of Apple MacBook Air were missing from the warehouse and the warehouse person who was in charge of the picking process could not find the inventory¹⁵. PW1 then requested PW3 to check on the missing items. That evening, PW3 informed PW1 that he had placed the 35 units of Apple MacBook Air in a third-party warehouse. PW1 then instructed PW3 to bring back the 35 units of Apple MacBook Air the next day¹⁶.

The next day, PW1 followed up with PW3 but PW3 could not produce the 35 units of Apple MacBook Air. PW1 then reported the matter to the managing director of Innovix and he brought PW3 to see the managing director. At the meeting with the managing director, PW3 admitted that he had taken the 35 units of Apple MacBook Air out of the warehouse¹⁷. PW3 told PW1 and the managing director that he was helping a friend and he had taken the items out of the warehouse and had converted the items to cash to help his friend who was having cash flow problems¹⁸. However, PW3 did not tell them the name of his friend at that meeting¹⁹. PW1 said that PW3 only told them the name of his friend about 2 weeks later²⁰.

PW1 and the managing director asked PW3 why he had taken the items and how many more items had he taken²¹. PW3 replied that he was helping his friend and he could not remember exactly how many items he had taken from the warehouse. PW3 also told them that he needed to refer to his records to confirm the actual number of items taken by him²². The managing director then gave PW3 1 week to return all the items that he had taken from the warehouse²³.

PW1 testified that after the meeting with the managing director, Innovix’s HR department staff stepped in. The HR department staff requested PW3 to list down all the items that he had taken from Innovix and PW3 had emailed to them the list of all the hardware that he had taken from the warehouse (Exhibit P4) on 12 June 2018²⁴. PW1 testified that PW3 had only listed down the hardware that he had taken from the warehouse in Exhibit P4, but he had forgotten to list down the $20,000 gift vouchers that he had also taken from the warehouse²⁵. The HR department staff subsequently made PW3 sign a letter of admission (Exhibit P3) to acknowledge all the items that he had taken from Innovix’s warehouse including the $20,000 gift vouchers²⁶.

PW1 testified that after PW3 had signed Exhibit P3, he gave PW3 a few days to return all the items that he had taken²⁷. However, PW3 was unable to return all the items by the dateline set by PW1²⁸ and he requested PW1 to give him one more week for him to return the items failing which he would return the value of the items taken in cash²⁹. However, PW3 was not able to return the items taken after that one-week extension³⁰.

PW3 then asked PW1 for a second extension and he told PW1 that he needed to look for the friend whom he had passed the items to recover the items from that friend or alternatively to obtain cash from that friend³¹.

However, PW3 was unable to return the items even after the second extension and he eventually confessed to PW1 that he had passed the items to the Accused³². PW3 told PW1 that he had passed the items to the Accused because the Accused owed him $50,000 over. The Accused had told PW3 that in order for her to return him his money, PW3 would need to take the items out of the warehouse for the Accused so that she could turn the items into cash and repay PW3 his money.³³.

PW1 testified that when PW3 had failed to return the items after the second extension, PW1 decided to lodge a police report against PW3 (Exhibit P2). PW1 also testified that list of items that was stated in Exhibit P2 was based on the list provided by PW3 in Exhibit P3³⁴.

PW1 testified that after PW3 had confessed to taking items from Innovix’s warehouse, Innovix had conducted a stock-check on 13 June 2018³⁵ to confirm the actual number items taken by PW3. The stock-check was conducted by the finance department³⁶. PW3 was not informed of the result of the stocktake³⁷.

PW1 also testified that Innovix would conduct regular stock-checks on their warehouse and the stock-check would usually be conducted in the...