Public Prosecutor v Lee Chee Hui

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Salina Bte Ishak
• Judgment Date: 07 June 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 162
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 18 October 2016,09 June 2016,19 January 2017,20 March 2017,17 January 2017,27 March 2017,08 June 2016,07 June 2016,18 January 2017
• Docket Number: DAC 921091 - 2014, Magistrate’s Appeals No: 9102/2017/01
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Eugene Sng from Attorney-General's Chambers
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Michael Khoo SC of Michael Khoo and Partners
• Published date: 22 November 2017

District Judge Salina Bte Ishak: The Charge

The Accused, Miss Lee Chee Hui, a 28-year old female Singaporean, had claimed trial to DAC 921091 - 2014, a charge of cheating under Section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.). The charge she was convicted on is as follows:

“Exhibit C1A”

…on or about 22 March 2014, in Singapore, did cheat one Rodrigo Jr. Desiderio Juliano (“Rodrigo”), to wit, by deceiving the said Rodrigo into believing that you were an investigation officer from Queenstown Neighbourhood Police Centre, when you knew you were not, and by such manner of deception, you dishonestly induced the said Rodrigo into delivering to you one Apple Macbook Pro valued at $400.00/-, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

In respect of DAC 921091 - 2014, I had imposed a sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment with effect from 27 March 2017. Dissatisfied against my decision, she had filed a Notice of Appeal against her conviction and sentence for DAC 921091 - 2014 on the same day i.e. 27 March 2017 and is presently on bail of $10,000 pending the hearing of her appeal.

During the trial, the Prosecution had called seven witnesses to the stand to give evidence against the Accused. They are:

Marking	Name	Role
PW1	Mr Rodrigo Jr Desiderio Juliano	The victim
PW2	Mr Yeo Chuan Chih	Witness
PW3	Miss Soh Ming Kee Cheryl	Witness
PW4	Ms Zahidah Binte Shaik Khan	Arresting officer
PW5	Mr Khoo Sze Hong	Investigating officer (IO) and recorders of Accused’s statements
PW6	Ms Nithiya d/o Silvadorai	Recorder of Accused’s Further Statement dated 11 April 2014
PW7	Mr Lok Hai San	Supervising Officer of IO Khoo Sze Hong

The Defence called the following witness for its case:

Marking	Name	Role
DW1	Miss Lee Chee Hui	The Accused

The Undisputed Facts

The following facts were undisputed: Sometime in March 2014, an advertisement for the sale of a 13 inch MacBook Pro belonging to PW3, one Soh Ming Kee Cheryl at $400 had been placed on a mobile marketplace application Carousell by her and PW2, one Yeo Chuan Chih Ethan using the account ‘soheryl’; On 16 March 2014, the victim i.e. PW1, one Rodrigo Jr Desiderio Juliano saw the said advertisement and on the same day came to an agreement with PW3 on the sale of the said MacBook Pro. The victim met PW2 at Lakeside MRT Station and received the MacBook Pro together with its box and accessories after paying $400; On 22 March 2014, sometime in the afternoon, the victim met the Accused in the vicinity of Clementi MRT Station and the victim handed the said MacBook Pro to the Accused together with its box and accessories; At the material time, the Accused was not an investigator from Queenstown Neighbourhood Police Centre; The Accused had returned to her home at Block 333 Clementi Avenue 2 with the said MacBook Pro together with its box and accessories and this was recorded in the CCTV footage of the said block; On the same day on 22 March 2014 at 21:46 hours, the victim lodged a police report at Jurong West NPC in relation to the said MacBook Pro; The said 13 inch MacBook Pro was not recovered by the police when they went to do a search at the Accused’s home although they found several MacBooks in her room; The Accused handed over $400 to the victim in the presence of the investigating officer, PW5 ASP Khoo Sze Hong who was then an Inspector of Police.

The Issues

The central dispute in the present case relates to the circumstances in which the Accused had met the victim and whether any representations were made by the Accused to the victim. It was the Prosecution’s case that the Accused had deceived the victim into believing that she was an investigator from Queenstown Neighbourhood Police Centre. She had also deceived the victim into believing that she was conducting an investigation regarding the MacBook Pro which was stolen and had induced the victim into delivering the MacBook Pro to her.

In contrast, the Accused denied deceiving the victim and it was her defence that she had collected the MacBook Pro on behalf of her friend, one Kelvin Tan Yew Jian. It was also the case for the Defence that the proceeded charge against the Accused was deficient as it had not particularised how the Accused had deceived the victim.

Hence, the main issues for my determination were whether: the proceeded charge in DAC 921091 – 2014 against the Accused was made out beyond a reasonable doubt or was deficient as alleged by the Defence; the Accused had cheated the victim by deceiving him into believing that she was an investigation officer from Queenstown Neighbourhood Police Centre, when she knew she was not and the Accused had dishonestly induced the said Rodrigo into delivering one Apple MacBook Pro valued at $400 to her.

The Prosecution’s Case THE BACKGROUND FACTS

Before stating its case, the Prosecution had first set out the background facts.

On 16 March 2014, the victim (PW1) was browsing an application known as Carousell when he saw an advertisement for the sale of the MacBook at the price of $400.¹ This advertisement had been placed by Yeo Chuan Chih Ethan (“Ethan”) and Soh Ming Kee Cheryl (“Cheryl”) using Cheryl’s Carousell account, “soheryl”.²

The victim informed his friend, Hernan, about the advertisement.³ Hernan agreed to the price, and the victim messaged “soheryl” using his Carousell account “buymi”.⁴ Arrangements were made for the sale and the victim met Ethan at Lakeside MRT Station later the same day. He paid Ethan $400 in cash and received the MacBook together with its box and accessories.⁵

On the afternoon of 22 March 2014, the victim and the Accused met in the vicinity of Clementi MRT Station. The victim handed the Accused the MacBook, together with its box and accessories. The Accused then returned to her home at Clementi Avenue 2 together with the items she received from the victim. This was recorded in CCTV footage of the block at which she resided (Exhibit P3).

On 22 March 2014 at 9.46 p.m., the victim made a police report (Exhibit P1) alleging that someone who identified herself as “Vivian Ong” and who claimed to be an IO from Queenstown NPC had called him regarding a theft of an Apple MacBook Pro. The police report also stated that the victim had met Vivian Ong at the carpark beside Clementi MRT Station and handed the MacBook to her for investigations.

On 5 April 2014 at 11.20 a.m., the Accused was arrested at Changi Airport upon her return to Singapore from overseas.⁶ On 6 April 2014, a raid was conducted on the Accused’s home, where a box for a 15” MacBook Pro was seized.⁷ The Accused was released on bail later that day.

THE PROSECUTION’S SUBMISSIONS

It was submitted that the elements of a cheating charge are uncontroversial. The Prosecution must prove that: a deception was practiced on the victim; the victim was thereby induced to deliver property to any person; and the Accused had a dishonest intention when he induced the victim to deliver the property.

The Prosecution’s submissions were divided into two broad sections.

In the first section, it was submitted that to substantiate the Prosecution’s case, it would address the evidence that establishes the charge against the Accused. The following points would be made: the victim has given a clear, coherent and consistent account of the material facts which directly establishes the elements of the charge; the victim’s evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Ethan and Cheryl as well as the investigations conducted by IO Khoo and the Accused’s statements that were recorded in the course of trial contain admissions as well as deliberate lies that corroborate the Prosecution’s case.

In the second section, it was further submitted that the Prosecution would address the Accused’s defence at trial. In this regard, it was the Prosecution’s case that it would demonstrate that the Accused’s evidence regarding Kelvin was an afterthought fabricated to deny her guilt and that the Accused was not a credible witness.

The Prosecution’s Case The victim’s account

The Prosecution had first addressed the victim’s account of the material facts, which provided the primary evidence in support of the charge. It was submitted that the victim had given a clear, coherent and consistent account as set out below.

The victim had testified that on 22 March 2014, he was contacted by a person who claimed to be “Vivian Ong”⁸ from Queenstown NPC (“Vivian”).⁹ Vivian said that there had been a report regarding a stolen MacBook Pro.¹⁰ According to the victim, Vivian first asked whether he had bought any laptop online over the past few days, before asking whether it had been purchased through Carousell from “soheryl”.¹¹ When told that the victim had indeed purchased a laptop from “soheryl” on Carousell, Vivian had asked him to contact “soheryl” to say that there was something wrong with the MacBook and to set up a meeting.¹² The victim therefore contacted “soheryl”. However, before a meeting could be finalised, Vivian had instructed the victim to stop communicating with Cheryl and Ethan and to surrender the MacBook to Queenstown NPC.¹³ The victim then left work during his shift at around 2.30pm to get the MacBook before going to Clementi MRT Station where he had arranged to meet Vivian.¹⁴

During his journey to Clementi MRT Station, the victim had received periodic calls from Vivian seeking updates on his whereabouts.¹⁵ Upon arriving at Clementi MRT Station, the victim phoned Vivian and was told to meet at the car park beside the station. When he reached the car park, he received a call from Vivian, who also waved at him to identify herself as the one with whom he was talking on the phone.¹⁶ In court, the victim had identified Vivian as the...