Public Prosecutor v Kuan Ah Ming

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Marvin Bay
• Judgment Date: 23 March 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGDC 51
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC-906188-2019 & DAC-909525-2019, MAGISTRATE'S APPEAL 9032/2020/01
• Year: 2020
• Published date: 31 March 2020
• Hearing Date: 12 December 2019,07 February 2020,28 January 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Lee Jing Yan (Attorney General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Defence Counsel Johnny Seah
• Citation: [2020] SGDC 51

District Judge Marvin Bay: Introduction

This is an appeal against sentence by the accused Kuan Ah Ming, a permanent resident aged 57, who faced two charges in respect of his harassment activities, with another person, at the behest of unlicensed moneylenders (commonly referred to by the acronym UML) contrary to section 28(1)(b) of the Moneylenders Act (MLA) and an offence under section 28(2)(a) of the MLA read with section 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) a(“Penal Code”), which is punishable under section 28(2)(a) read with section 28(3)(a) of the Act. I sentenced Mr Guan to sentences of six months’ imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run consecutively, yielding a global term of 12 months’ imprisonment. Mr Kuan’s co-accused for the UML charges; Mr Loh Swee Keng received terms of nine months’ imprisonment for each of the mirror charges. The co-accused nine-month sentence for one of these mirror charges was ordered to run consecutively with one-month sentence for a theft charge (which did not involve the accused), with the other UML charge ordered to run concurrently, and thus aggregating to a global term of 10 months’ imprisonment.

I am given to understand that Mr Kuan’s appeal is predicated in his dissatisfaction with the fact of his sentence being two months longer than that of his confederate, and also of his receiving consecutive sentences, where only two UML charges were proceeded with. These grounds will delve into the salient sentencing considerations which are in play for this genre of UML harassment offences, as well as my basis for considering Mr Kuan’s offending to be comparatively more egregious than that of his associate, whom he had recruited into this criminal activity. I will also state the basis for Mr Kuan’s receipt of consecutive sentences, and that these would be just and proportionate, where appropriate adjustments have been made to ensure a commensurable level of parity (after factoring in the ‘relevant differences’ in their respective manners of offending).

Charges

Mr Kuan faced two charges including the one (DAC-906188-2019) set out below:

(Mr Kuan is) charged that (he), on the 15th day January 2019, at about 12.30 am, at Blk 808 Yishun Ring Road #XXX, Singapore, together with one Loh Swee Keng, in furtherance of (their) common intention¹ and acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender known only as “Joseph”, did commit an act likely to cause annoyance to one Ahamed Saifudeen Abdul Shukkur, to wit, by locking the metal gate with a blue bicycle lock and pasting a yellow note with writing “ZAID BIN MADON (particulars and address) CALL YOSEPH (number)” on the gate, in connection with a loan to one Zaid Bin Madon, when “Joseph” was not an excluded moneylender, an exempt moneylender or authorised to do so by licence…

The event which premised the other proceeded charge; DAC-909525-2019, had also occurred on 15 January 2019, at 1.10 am , at an apartment in the sixth floor of Blk 123 in Simei, where Mr Kuan, with the same confederate Loh Swee Keng, had conducted harassment activities against a certain Khoo Gek Chiang who had borrowed monies an unlicensed moneylender, by locking the metal gate with a bicycle lock. Mr Kuan had done this at the behest of the person known to him as ’Joseph’.

The offence

The Moneylenders Act makes it an offence for an unlicensed moneylender to by himself or a proxy, cause ‘alarm and annoyance’ to individuals in circumstances connected to the extension of a loan². The proxies or agents of such harassment activities ‘acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender’ commit an offence carrying a maximum term of five years’ imprisonment, along with liability to a maximum fine of $50 000 and caning³.

Relevant details from the Statement of Facts

The following is a precis of relevant facts from the Statement of Facts⁴ which Mr Kuan admitted to without any qualification. The facts which were most pertinent to sentencing would be the background history with his principal ‘Joseph’, his engagement of co-accused Loh Swee Keng in perpetrating his acts of harassment as well as the modus operandi developed and their specific roles in prosecuting the acts. These aspects are especially given my understanding that Mr Kuan’s dissatisfaction with his sentence has primary arisen from his perception of a disparity existing between his sentence and the one meted to his accomplice. The highlighted facts will allow a better juxtaposition with similar cases where co-accused persons were differentially sentenced, and allow a more nuanced discussion on when and how the principles of sentencing parity allow for differential sentencing, and the extent of that difference.

Entering into the arrangement to harass on ‘Joseph’s’ behalf

The Statement of Facts indicates Mr Kuan and Mr Loh Swee Keng, a Singaporean aged 49, to have been acquaintances. Their relation had dated from 2017 after an introduction by a mutual friend. Mr Kuan admitted having in December 2018, enticed Mr Loh with the prospect of earning ‘additional income’ by joining him to assist an unlicensed moneylender known to Mr Kuan as ‘Joseph’. Mr Loh had been enlisted with Mr Kuan promising to share half of what ‘Joseph’ paid him (Mr Kuan) with Mr Loh. Mr Kuan admitted to being paid $200-$300 by ‘Joseph’ for each act of harassment, and he would duly pay Mr Loh $150 for his assistance.

Development of a standard operating procedure for executing harassment activities

Mr Kuan admitted to the duo developing a standard modus operandi for each harassment job performed for ‘Joseph’. The process began with Mr Kuan receiving a debtor’s address from ‘Joseph’ via WhatsApp messaging, which Mr Kuan would forward to Mr Loh.

In the actual execution of the acts of harassment, Mr Loh would drive to Mr Kuan’s location, pick him up and drive him to the debtor’s residence to commit the UML offences.

Facts relating to the DAC-906188-2019

The victim in this charge was one Ahamed Saifudeen Abdul Shukkur, a 36-year old the second floor unit at Block 808 Yishun Ring Road. Mr Saifudeen himself had not borrowed from any unlicensed moneylenders, but his landlord: Mr Zaid bin Madon had fallen into the thrall of unlicensed moneylenders.

On 15 January 2019 at 7.31am, Mr Zaid had been notified by his tenant about the harassment activity in his apartment, and had lodged a police report of the predicament faced by the tenant. Mr Zaid stated “I rent out my house, I reported police about loanshark, I left my house almost 2 years, today my tenant called me said the gate was chain pad lock and can’t go for work.”

Admitted harassment activities uncovered by investigations

Mr Kuan has conceded to the following having taken place. On 15 January 2019 at about 12.30 am, the two men had acted under instructions of ‘Joseph’ to proceed to Mr Zaid’s apartment, where Mr Loh had used a blue bicycle lock to lock the main gate of the unit. Mr Kuan’s own role was to paste a yellow note on where he had penned ‘ZAID BIN MADON, (particulars and address) CALL YOSEPH(number)’. Mr Loh had thereafter used his mobile phone to take images of the locked unit and note. Mr Loh had then forwarded the images photographs to Mr Kuan, who in turn sent the images to ‘Joseph’, the commissioning unlicensed moneylender. Mr Kuan has admitted to the harassment having been committed in furtherance of a common intention between himself and Mr Loh, to undertake this act at ‘Joseph’s’ behest.

The situation required police intervention to visit the Yishun unit, where the bicycle chain and padlock securing the main gate of the department were cut and seized, along with the debtor’s note.

Facts relating to DAC-909525-2019

The second victim was a certain Khoo Gek Chiang, aged 47, who had resided at the sixth floor of Block 123 Simei Street 1, who had owed sums to an unlicensed moneylender. On 15 January 2019 at about 9.20am, Mr Khoo had found himself imprisoned in his own Simei apartment home, and had lodged a police report stating ‘I just realised my gate is locked by padlock now. I saw the person running away. I am a borrower.”

The surrounding facts gleaned from police investigation showed that Mr Kuan had later on 15 January 2019, at 1.10am, proceeded, again under the instructions of ‘Joseph’ with Mr Loh to undertake a fresh set of harassment activities at Mr Khoo’s Simei unit. and Loh proceeded to the Simei unit. At the unit, both men reprised their routine with Mr Loh using a blue bicycle lock to lock the main gate, and proceeding to use his mobile phone to take an image of the locked unit, and sending the image to Mr Kuan for his onward transmission to ‘Joseph’, Mr Kuan’s anonymous principal. Here too, Mr Kuan affirmed that the harassment activities had been committed in furtherance of the common intention of both to visit acts likely to cause annoyance to Mr Khoo, in connection with the loan he owed an illegal moneylender.

Facts relating to TIC charges

Mr Kuan consented to the taking into consideration of three other charges. These related to the following: DAC-905538-2019, where Mr Kuan has acted alone for an unlicensed moneylender ‘KT’ to past a debtor’s note at the gate of a debtor at an address in Whampoa Drive on 31 Jan 2019 at 4.40 pm. DAC-911974-2019, where the accused has acted in concert with Mr Loh Swee Keng for unlicensed moneylender ‘Joseph’ to past a debtor’s note, and lock the gate of a debtor at an address in Beach Road on 17 Jan 2019 at 1.35 am; and DAC-911875-2019, where Mr Kuan has acted alone for an unlicensed moneylender ‘Joseph’ to past a debtor’s note at the gate of a debtor at an address in Jurong West Street 81, on 30 Jan 2019 at 4.40 pm.

Sentencing address by prosecution

To justify their call for a global term of 14 months’ imprisonment, the learned DPP furnished a fairly detailed address, which covered four distinct areas. The first being a general survey of cases of the...