Public Prosecutor v Daniel Wong Mun Meng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Terence Tay
• Judgment Date: 05 March 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] SGDC 47
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC-942911-2015 & anor; MA-9346-2017-01
• Year: 2018
• Published date: 20 July 2018
• Hearing Date: 27 October 2016,15 November 2017,31 March 2017,30 May 2017,14 October 2016,13 October 2016,06 January 2017,03 January 2017,05 October 2017,05 January 2017,15 September 2017,04 January 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutors Asoka s/o Markandu and Chong Yonghui Attorney-General's Chambers
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Ho Pei Shien Melanie Wongparnership LLP
• Citation: [2018] SGDC 47

District Judge Terence Tay: Introduction

The accused, who was a teacher in a secondary school at the material time, claimed trial to one charge each under section 489A of the Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008) (the “PC”) (the “First Charge”) and section 489B of the PC (the “Second Charge”) for counterfeiting and using, respectively, 2 pieces of counterfeit Singapore $100 portrait-series currency notes bearing the serial number 2EA035784 (the “Fake Notes”)¹.

Photographs of the Fake Notes are reproduced below for ease of reference:²

The Fake Notes tendered in court had some discolouration because they were sent for fingerprint-lifting with the police forensics department. At the time that ASP Chan seized the Fake Notes, they were “perfectly fine, counterfeit note”.³

Even though the offences took place outside the ambit of the accused’s work, his students featured prominently in his defence as he claimed that he had produced the Fake Notes to, amongst other reasons, excite and engage them during class. However, the evidence disclosed that the accused had engaged a Vietnamese foreigner for massage services instead and paid her with the Fake Notes, purportedly in his excitement.⁴

After a trial lasting 12 days,⁵ I rejected the accused’s defence and found him guilty of both charges and convicted him accordingly. I sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment for each of the charges and ordered both sentences to run concurrently.

Dissatisfied with his conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal through his defence counsel, Ms Melanie Ho (“Ms Ho”).

I ordered a stay of execution and the accused was released on bail pending appeal.

Key Elements of the Offence

The key elements of the First Charge were: That the accused counterfeited the Fake Notes; and That the Fake Notes were counterfeit.

The key elements of the Second Charge were: That the Fake Notes were counterfeit; That the accused had reason to believe that the Fake Notes were counterfeit; and That the accused used the Fake Notes as genuine.

The Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution established its case through 16 witnesses and produced, amongst others: the statement which Assistant Superintendent of Police Chan Hui Min (“ASP Chan”)⁶ recorded from the accused on 20 August 2015 at 12:10 pm (the “Long Statement”);⁷ the statement which Assistant Superintendent of Police Nazri Abdul Karim (“ASP Nazri”) recorded from the accused under section 23(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, Rev Ed 2012) (the “CPC”) in relation to the First Charge on 1 December 2015 at 3:05 pm (the “First Cautioned Statement”);⁸ and the statement which ASP Nazri recorded from the accused under section 23(1) of the CPC in relation to the Second Charge on 1 December 2015 at 3:15 pm (the “Second Cautioned Statement”).⁹ (Collectively, the First Cautioned Statement and the Second Cautioned Statement will be referred to as the “Cautioned Statements”.)

Through Ms Ho, the accused confirmed that the Long Statement and the Cautioned Statements were given voluntarily.

The accused gave a detailed account in the Long Statement of how he produced the Fake Notes by photocopying a genuine Singapore $100 currency note (the “Real Note” or “Real Notes” as the context may require) and paid the Fake Notes to the Victim on 3 August 2015 in exchange for massage services: 3 Earlier this month, out of curiosity, I printed the Singapore S$100/- note as an experiment. I withdraw about S$150/- from an ATM and was given a piece of S$100/- note and a piece of S$50/- note. It was in the afternoon at about 4pm when no one else was in my room. My wife was not back home. My mother-in-law and children were not around too. I experimented by printing with my HP inkjet printer. I placed the one piece of S$100/- note on my colour printer. My printer is not connected to my computer or laptop. It is a standalone printer whereby I can place the Singapore note on the printer and press a print button to print. After printing on the first side, I reversed the note and printed on the flip on the same piece of A4 size paper which I had reversed also. I do have A4 paper at home for my personal usage. The A4 paper was already placed in the printer. The alignment of the printing went well on both sides as I put the S$100/- note on the edge of the printer. The first try went well. I did not have to do the printing a few times. I made used of the corner of the printer. One note is printed at one edge of the A4 paper. I repeated the process once more as there is still space for another S$100/-. I printed the second note on the other corner of the A4 paper. The second note well went for both sides too. I then took my scissor and cut the two S$100/- notes. I went to the kitchen and took the aluminium foil roll. I cut the aluminium foil according to the hologram and pasted the foil on the two pieces of S$100/- notes. I used the UHU stick which I already had at home. … 4 If I am wrong, on the same night, I went out to buy some food. … I ate dinner alone in a restaurant in Orchard Tower Centre. After my late snack, pizza, I happened to meet a lady. She is Vietnamese lady. She was alone and we cross path. We looked at each other and she nodded at me. I greeted her and she asked if I wanted a massage in English. She spoke simple English and I was able to understand her. She also asked if I need an overnight massage of just for a short period of time. I told her for a short while and I asked for her price. She asked for S$250/-. I asked if she could accept S$200/- because I had those two pieces of counterfeit S$100/- note with me. She is agreeable and we walked to my car. While in the car, I took out the two pieces of S$100/- notes from wallet and gave her the two pieces of S$100/- notes.

(Emphasis added.)

According to the accused’s bank statement for the period 14 June 2015 to 12 September 2015,¹⁰ the only withdrawal of $150 was made on 23 July 2015.¹¹ Therefore, the accused could have produced the Fake Notes on or after 23 July 2015, but not later than 2 August 2015. The accused’s evidence in the Long Statement suggested that the Fake Notes were likely produced on 2 August 2015 itself.

The First Cautioned Statement and the Second Cautioned Statement were in pari materia and stated the following:

I extremely remorseful for what I have done. I have put myself and family severe distressed. Hope the law be lenient to me and to give me second chance. I will not commit this offence in future. When this offence committed, I was in severe depression due to my work environment. I also seek counselling from MOE, I-care counsellors.

Evidence of the police officers

On 20 August 2015, ASP Chan, Station Inspector Suhardy bin Mhd Sani (“SI Suhardy”), Station Inspector Mohamatariami bin Salim (“SI Tariami”), Station Inspector Quek Kee Boon (“SI Quek”) and Senior Staff Sergeant Eric Low Hin Kee (“SSS Eric”) (collectively, the “Arresting Party”) travelled in 2 separate unmarked police cars to the secondary school where the accused taught (the “School”) to arrest the accused. ASP Chan, SI Suhardy and SI Tariami travelled in the one car while SI Quek and SSS Eric travelled in another car.¹²

When the Arresting Party arrived at the School, only ASP Chan, SI Suhardy and SI Tariami proceeded into the premises. SI Quek and SSS Eric waited in their car outside the premises.¹³

SI Suhardy and SI Tariami waited for the accused in a meeting room while ASP Chan and the principal spoke outside the meeting room. After someone brought the accused to the meeting room, the accused admitted to SI Suhardy and SI Tariami that “he printed the notes from his home”.¹⁴

From the School, the Arresting Party brought the accused to his apartment at a condominium in Clementi (the “Condominium”). SI Suhardy and SI Tariami remained in their car while SI Quek and SSS Eric accompanied ASP Chan and the accused into the accused’s home.¹⁵

In the accused’s home, the accused led ASP Chan, SI Quek and SSS Eric into the master bedroom where the accused handed over the equipment and material that he used to produce the Fake Notes. The said equipment and material were seized by the police.¹⁶ The following is the relevant extract of ASP Chan’s evidence during examination-in-chief:¹⁷ A … In the room itself, he showed us---actually, he voluntarily and quickly, in a swift manner, he showed us where, where, all the items were. So he showed us the printer, he told us the paper were already in the printer. Then he showed us the scissors he used to cut the counterfeit notes. … And along with the printer, there were the power cable – the plug – so we took that also. …After we’re done with the room, we went out. It was near the kitchen area. He showed us the---the place where he kept the aluminium foil. He was searching---I think he was pulling all the drawers and pushing it back and then finally, he went further in to get the aluminium foil. And he also surrendered a stick of UHU glue. He---he claimed that he used the UHU glue to paste the aluminium foil onto the counterfeit note which he printed.

Evidence of the victim

The victim, who was from Hanoi, Vietnam, was visiting Singapore for the first time on 16 July 2015. She had brought with her a Singapore $1,000 currency note and about US$500-600. On her second day in Singapore, the victim utilized the Singapore $1,000 currency note at Gardens by the Bay and received change in the form of Singapore $50, $10, $5 and $2 currency notes.¹⁸

The victim had never seen a Singapore $100 currency note prior to 3 August 2015.¹⁹

The victim went to a bar at Orchard Towers on 2 August 2015 at about 11 pm and left the bar after 2:00 am the next day. The accused approached the victim while she was outside the bar and asked for massage services. As the victim could not speak English then, her communication with the accused was based...