Public Prosecutor v Lim Hua Tong Jasons

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: May Lucia Mesenas
• Judgment Date: 29 September 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGMC 28
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2005
• Published date: 09 November 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Moey Weng Foo and Tang Kian Leng, Dave
• Subject Matter: Insolvency Law,Bankruptcy,Offences,Obtaining credit of $500 or more without disclosing that one is an undischarged bankrupt,Accused taking three loans amounting to $37,000 from victim without disclosing that he was an undischarged bankrupt,Accused claiming to have disclosed bankruptcy status to victim,Whether accused had discharged onus on him to show he had disclosed his bankruptcy status,Sentence,Section 141(1)(a) Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed)
• Citation: [2005] SGMC 28

29 September 2005

Magistrate May Lucia Mesenas:

The Charges and the Appeal

1 This Judgement arises from an appeal against conviction and sentence.

2 The Accused, Mr Jasons Lim Hua Tong, claimed trial to 3 charges under the Bankruptcy Act Cap 20, of obtaining loans of more than $500, from the victim, one Ms Pek Kim Lee (PW2), on 3 occasions for the following sums on the following respective dates, without disclosing to PW2, at the material times, that he was an undischarged bankrupt:

a) $5,000 on 11 February 2001 (Exhibit P1);

b) $30,000 on 28 February 2001 (Exhibit P2) and

c) $2,000 on 30 May 2001 (Exhibit P3).

Undisputed Facts

3 It was undisputed that the accused was adjudged a bankrupt on 22 September 2000 (Exhibit P4) and at all material times, was and is still to date, an undischarged bankrupt.

4 For the first two charges, P1 and P2, the accused had admitted that he took the loans of $5,000 and $30,000 from PW2 on 11 February 2001 and 28 February 2001 respectively.

5 The Accused had also received a letter from the Insolvency & Public Trustee’s Office (IPTO) dated 26 September 2000 (Exhibit P5), stating that the Official Assignee is now administering the accused’s affairs and that his assets are vested with the Official Assignee. In the same letter, the accused was requested to attend at IPTO for a briefing on 17 October 2000 where his duties and responsibilities as an undischarged bankrupt would be explained to him. It was not disputed that the accused had only attended the said briefing on 19 April 2001 where he was given Bankruptcy Information Sheets Nos. 1 to 5 (Exhibit P7), amongst other documents. The accused had also acknowledged receipt of P7 amongst other documents by signing on the Acknowledgment of Receipt of documents (Exhibit P6), and undertook to comply with the duties and responsibilities as stated in P7. The accused had also subsequently submitted to the Official Assignee his Statement of Affairs dated 14 August 2001 (Exhibit P8).

6 The accused was the sole proprietor of “Jwinner Insurance Agency” from 16 August 1999 to 16 April 2001, which ran a business of general insurance including life insurance (Exhibit D2).

The Prosecution’s Case

Evidence of Ms Pek Kim Lee (PW2)

7 The main witness for the Prosecution was the person from whom the Accused had obtained the credit, namely, PW2, Pek Kim Lee. She is currently a Senior Engineer of an American firm, Microsemi Singapore Pte Ltd. At the material time, she was working at the aforesaid company as well.

8 In 2000, PW2 and the accused were first acquainted through a mutual friend, namely, Issac Tan, who was also the accused’s classmate at the time as both of them were taking night classes together then. PW2 contacted the accused to inquire about her car insurance which was about to expire. She subsequently bought the car insurance through the accused who also delivered the policy to her home. When the policy was delivered to her, the accused gave PW2 his business card and told her that his company, “Jwinner Insurance Agency” was representing Mitsui Marine Insurance (later established to be “Mitsui Marine & Fire Insurance (Asia) Pte Ltd”). He also said that he was involved in community work and promptly gave her a card pertaining to the youth club which he was involved in.

9 Thereafter there was no contact between the accused and PW2 until September 2000 when PW2 contacted the former for two specific reasons:

a) To buy travel insurance; and

b) To find out more about investing her Central Provident Fund (CPF) monies in insurance products.

10 PW2 subsequently bought the travel insurance from the accused as she travelled frequently on her business trips. Since September 2000, she had more frequent contacts with the accused to discuss about her future investments in insurance products. In October 2000, the accused had, in fact, asked PW2 to be his guarantor for a loan that he intended to take from OCBC Bank to purchase a car, namely, a Mercedes Benz. PW2 called up the said bank and was informed that if the accused defaulted in the payments, she would be liable for the repayment of the entire loan. Upon learning this, PW2 declined to be the accused’s guarantor.

11 In mid to late October 2000, the accused bought the said Mercedes Benz, bearing registration number SBV 8977.

12 In January 2001, given that PW2 intended to invest her money in certain investment products offered by John Hancock (a company which provides investment and insurance products, amongst other insurance related services), she informed the accused of her finances at the time when he was assessing her financial situation. An assessment was made on PW2’s finances by the accused with a view of advising her on her future investments.

First Charge

13 On 12 February 2001, the accused called PW2 and asked for her help in a form of a loan of $5,000 which he needed to borrow, for his business. The accused requested her to make the cheque payable to “Jwinner Insurance Agency” which she did and the cheque (vide cheque number 500027) dated 11 February 2001 (Exhibit P9), was duly issued to the accused. He promised to re-pay PW2 the sum borrowed in a month’s time and on the same day, he issued her a post-dated cheque from OCBC Bank (vide cheque number 326012) dated 12 March 2001. The sum of $5,000 was accordingly debited from PW2’s POSB bank account as shown in her statement of account for February 2001 (Exhibit P10).

Second charge

14 On 28 February 2001, the accused called PW2 on her mobile phone and informed her that he needed more help from her for his business. Thereafter, the accused went to PW2’s office at about 6pm on the same day to discuss more about the loan. The accused informed PW2 that the previous loan she gave him was insufficient to reinstate his licence which will be suspended by the General Insurance Association of Singapore (“GIAS”) if the accused did not pay the outstanding sums of money that he owed to Mitsui Marine Insurance. He then requested to borrow $30,000 from PW2 and told her that he would re-pay the loan in 6 equal monthly instalments inclusive of an interest rate at 5%.

15 To this end, the accused typed an “ I Owe You” (hereinafter referred to as an “I.O.U” note), titled “Statement of Loan Amount Payment” (Exhibit P11) by using PW2’s work computer. In P11, it stated the accused’s name, his NRIC number, and that the amount of $30,000 taken is a personal loan from PW2. It also included a schedule of re-payments at an annual interest rate of 5%, amounting to $5,250 per month which would be made to PW2 in 6 monthly instalments with the first payment commencing on 30 April 2001 and the last one on 30 September 2001. The note was also duly signed by the accused.

16 Thereafter, PW2 went back home to retrieve her cheque-book for the purpose of issuing the cheque to the accused, who followed her home. They went back to PW2’s home in separate cars. PW2 wrote out a cheque (vide cheque number 500033) payable to “Jwinner Insurance Agency” for the sum f $30,000 (Exhibit P12) and handed the same to the accused. The cheque was subsequently cleared and the corresponding amount debited from PW2’s bank account as reflected in PW2’s statement of account for March 2001 (Exhibit P13).

17 In March 2001, PW2 deposited the post-dated cheque, amounting to $5,000 which the accused had given to her previously on 12 February 2001. Subsequently, PW2 received a letter from DBS Bank dated 3 April 2001, with the said accompanying cheque dated 12 March 2001 issued by the accused (Exhibit P14), which stated that the accused’s cheque was returned unpaid as payment was stopped.

18 PW2 then started contacting the accused to request for the repayment of the $5,000 loan. Initially, the accused refused to take her phone calls and then sometime in May 2001, the accused called PW2 and informed her that he was in Court for traffic offences that he had committed. He told her that he needed $2,000 to pay for the fines or else he would be imprisoned. At that point in time, PW2 testified that she could not afford for him to go to jail because if he did, she would be unable to trace him and recover the money that she had previously loaned him.

Third charge

19 On 30 May 2001, PW2 went to the Subordinate Courts and helped him to pay the fine. She withdrew $2,000, in two separate transactions of $1,000 each, from the automated teller machine (ATM) located at the People’s Park Centre, which is opposite the Subordinate Courts. She made separate transactions as the ATM could only dispense cash of up to $1,000 at a time, with the maximum withdrawal of $2,000 per day from the same account. She kept the receipt for the second withdrawal of $1,000 from the ATM (Exhibit P16). These two withdrawals totalling $2,000 were debited from PW2’s POSB bank account as reflected in her statement of account for the month May 2001 (Exhibit P15).

Attempts by PW2 to get accused to repay loans

20 In June 2001, the accused sold PW2 investment products from John Hancock and she had hoped that with the commission that the accused earned, he would be able to repay the loans that he had obtained from her, which by then, amounted to $37,000 in total. During this same period that she bought the said products from him, she had also asked the accused to make re-payments of the amounts that he had taken from her.

21 PW2 testified that the accused started avoiding her phone calls and no re-payments of any of the loans were made to her, even up to date (that is, at the date of this trial). The accused, however, made an attempt for the repayments of the loan at the time when he learned that PW2 was getting a new car. He proposed that PW2 take a loan from the bank equivalent to the amount that he owed her and that he would pay the monthly instalments to the bank. PW2 turned down this proposal as she was unsure how long he would take to pay up the instalments and was also worried that if he defaulted in the payments, her car would be...