Public Prosecutor v Karunanithi s/o Alagasamy

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Mathew Joseph
• Judgment Date: 31 May 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGDC 134
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 921459 of 2017 & ors, (MA-9176-2020-01)
• Published date: 13 June 2020
• Year: 2020
• Hearing Date: 25 January 2019,18 September 2019,19 September 2019,10 September 2018,17 December 2019,17 September 2019,13 September 2019,24 January 2019,27 March 2020,12 September 2018,11 February 2020,11 September 2018,23 January 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Mr Kenneth Kee
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Sadhana Devi & Mr Siraj Shaik Aziz
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Receiving Stolen Property,Criminal Procedure and sentencing,Statements
• Citation: [2020] SGDC 134

District Judge Mathew Joseph: Introduction

The accused Karunanithi Alagasamy claimed trial to two proceeded charges as below -

“DAC-921459-2017

You are charged that you, on the 20th day of June 2017, at about 3pm, at Blk 11 York Hill #XXX, Singapore, did dishonestly receive stolen property, to wit, cash amounting to S$39,000, having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 411(1) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev. Ed).”

“DAC-921460-2017

You are charged that you, on the 21st day of June 2017, at about 3pm, at Ceylon Sports Club located at 101 Balestier Road, Singapore, did dishonestly receive stolen property, to wit, cash amounting to S$30,000, having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 411(1) of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev. Ed).”

At the conclusion of the trial, the accused was found guilty of both charges and sentenced to a total of 9 months imprisonment. He has appealed against his conviction and sentence. He is presently on bail pending appeal. I have also ordered a stay of execution on the sentence of imprisonment.

Background

The accused was a Businessman. He was facing financial challenges in his business. He had received two large sums of money on two separate occasions. He had first received a sum of $39,000 from his elder brother Dorasamy. The very next day, he had received a second sum of $30,000 from one Sheramu, who was a friend of his brother. The accused claimed that he had no reason to believe that there was anything amiss when he received the two sums of money. Investigations were carried out. The accused was subsequently charged and he claimed trial for two counts of dishonestly receiving stolen property under s 411 of the Penal Code relating to $39,000 on 20 June 2017 (“the first charge”) and $30,000 on 21 June 2017 (“the second charge”) having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.

Undisputed Facts Agreed statement of Facts

The facts below are undisputed and based on the Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASOF”) and also the testimony of the key Prosecution witnesses, Dorasamy, and Sheramu. On 18 June 2017 at about 6.15 pm,¹ one Sheramu s/o Ayasamy (“Sheramu”),² committed theft of $172,670 (“the stolen cash”) and two gold chains belonging to the victim, Ms Ammani Ponnusamy (“the victim”).³ The stolen cash amounted to the victim’s life savings.

On 19 June 2017, Sheramu handed $50,000 to Dorasamy s/o Allagasamy (“Dorasamy”)⁴ coming from the stolen cash, while informing him that it had been stolen from the victim.⁵ Dorasamy is the accused’s elder brother.

As both men knew that the police would be looking for them, they decided to find someone to look after the stolen cash. After some discussion, both men decided that they would keep the money with the accused.⁶

At the time, the accused was facing severe financial difficulties with multiple people commencing lawsuits to recover loans from the accused amounting to approximately $400,000. ⁷

On 20 June 2017, at about 3.00 pm, the accused met up with Dorasamy at Blk 11 York Hill #XXX, Singapore.⁸ During this meeting, Dorasamy gave some money to the accused coming from the stolen cash. The accused did not count the money then, but he did count the money the next day (on 21 June 2017) and informed Dorasamy that he had received a sum of $39,000.⁹ The accused knew that the monies he received from Dorasamy were in turn obtained from Sheramu.¹⁰

On 21 June 2017, the accused picked up Dorasamy and Sheramu in his car before driving to Ceylon Sports Club (“CSC”) located at 101 Balestier Road, Singapore. At about 3.00 pm, the accused received cash of $30,000 from Sheramu,¹¹ also coming from the stolen cash.

On 26 June 2017, at about 8.30 pm, police officers placed the accused under arrest at his residence located at 16 Jalan Tenteram, Singapore, on suspicion of dishonestly receiving stolen property. A search of his house revealed a sum of $65,264 in cash, which was found inside his jacket that was inside a cupboard in the master bedroom which was then seized.¹² Additionally, a sum of $26,135 was found in the UOB bank account belonging to the accused’s wife.¹³

Up to the point of his arrest in the evening of 26 June 2017, the accused never informed the police officers at his apartment unit that he had received monies specifically from both Dorasamy and Sheramu sometime in the preceding week. In addition, the accused never volunteered information to the police officers regarding the cash hidden in his jacket even as they searched the master bedroom.

Prosecution Case

It was the case for the Prosecution that the accused did not contest the actus reus of both charges of receiving the respective sums of cash from Dorasamy and Sheramu).¹⁴ It was submitted that the core issue to be determined was whether the requisite mens rea of the two charges had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt - that the accused had reason to believe that the cash he received was stolen property.

It was submitted that the Prosecution’s primary case was that the accused had reason to believe at the time he received the respective amounts of cash of $39,000 and $30,000 from Dorasamy and Sheramu that these sums were stolen property. It was submitted that this should be the irresistible inference to be drawn by the Court due to: the highly suspicious objective circumstances as to how the two transactions took place; the belated nature of the accused’s defence at trial; and the accused’s lies to the police prior to his arrest which are corroborative of his guilt.¹⁵

At the same, the Prosecution also had an alternative case.¹⁶ The Prosecution’s alternative case was that when the accused was first confronted by Investigation Officer Kisho Abdul Khaliq (“IO Kisho”)¹⁷ outside his apartment unit on 26 June 2017, the accused was expressly informed about Sheramu’s theft of the victim’s life savings. Notwithstanding this, the accused dishonestly retained the cash received from Dorasamy and Sheramu by wilfully withholding this information from the Police even as they searched his apartment unit having reason to believe at that juncture, that it was stolen property. It was submitted that if the court were to find that only the alternative case had been made out by the Prosecution, the court was invited to alter the present charges to state that on 26 June 2017, the accused did dishonestly retain the respective amounts of $39,000 and $30,000, which he had reason to believe were stolen property. It was submitted that the court would then be entitled to convict the accused on both counts accordingly pursuant to s 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed).¹⁸ I will deal with this alternative submission at a later part of this judgment.

Evidence of Prosecution witnesses

The two key Prosecution witnesses were Dorasamy and Sheramu. PW2 Sheramu had carried out the theft of the victim’s life savings. PW3 Dorasamy was the elder brother of the accused.

Given the nature and circumstances of the charge and the personal relationships involved, I considered the testimony of both witnesses with some circumspection. I will consider both their evidence together with the accused’s evidence, as the evidence of all these 3 actors in the unfolding play is inextricably linked.

Case for the Defence

The accused elected to give evidence. He essentially denied the two charges stating that he did not know that the sums of money he had received were stolen moneys.

Counsel had also submitted that the accused had no reason to believe that the moneys he received from his elder brother were stolen property. In support of this submission, it was argued that there was a close relationship between the accused and Dorasamy. Further, the accused never contemplated that Dorasamy could be involved in a theft. Counsel further submitted that the accused had a strong basis for his genuine belief that he was receiving an informal loan from his brother’s friend. A further argument was that the lack of formal documentation was not a red flag for the accused as he is used to handling informal loans of the same or higher amount from his friends. Counsel had further argued that the conduct of the accused after he had received the moneys is inconsistent with someone who has reason to believe that he was handling stolen property.¹⁹

As for Sheramu and Dorasamy, Counsel had submitted that Shermu was an unreliable witness and his credit should be impeached. On the other hand, it was submitted that Dorasamy was a credible witness even though in some areas, Sheramu did not corroborate Dorasamy. Further, the fact that the accused was the younger brother of Dorasamy did not by itself mean that Dorasamy was not a reliable witness.²⁰

Legal issue for determination by the Court Did the accused have the necessary mens rea

As mentioned earlier and as agreed among parties in the ASOF, the accused did not dispute having received the stolen property on the respective 2 occasions. The actus reus of the offence is therefore not in dispute. The sole legal issue therefore is whether the accused had the requisite means rea, that is, whether he had reason to believe the moneys he had received were stolen property.

Reasons for decision and findings by the Court The Offence under s. 411 (1) of the Penal Code

The offence under section 411 (1) of the Penal Code states as follows – 411.—(1) Whoever receives or retains any property, knowing or having reason to believe the property to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both.

Key areas of evidence

I do not propose to go into all the evidence adduced during the trial nor consider all the arguments raised by both parties. Several facts are undisputed and...