Public Prosecutor v Lim Pei Ni Charissa
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Kow Keng Siong |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] SGDC 24 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Published date | 09 March 2006 |
| Year | 2006 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Eddy Tham (Deputy Public Prosecutor) |
| Defendant Counsel | Edmond Pereira (Edmond Pereira and Partners) |
| Subject Matter | Criminal Law,Offences,Property,Cheating,Conspiracy to cheat using stolen credit cards -Accused alleged to have engaged in conspiracy to cheat retail establishments by using credit cards stolen by accomplice from letterboxes,Accused contending she had not known that accomplice had used stolen credit cards to make purchases,Whether accused had committed cheating offences pursuant to conspiracy between accomplice and herself,Sentence,Section 420 read with s 109 Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Forms of punishment,Probation,Accused between 17 and 18 years old at time of offences, and first-time offender,Whether probation appropriate sentence for accused,Section 5(1) Probation of Offenders Act (Cap 252, 1985 Rev Ed) |
| Citation | [2006] SGDC 24 |
| 20 February 2006 |
Judgement reserved. |
District Judge Kow Keng Siong:
The charges & the appeal
1. This Judgement arises from an appeal against conviction and sentence.
2. The Accused, Ms Charissa Lim Pei Ni, faced a total of 177 charges under section 420 read with section 109 of the Penal Code. Before me, the Accused claimed trial to 7 of these charges, namely[note: 1] –
a. DAC 18818/2005 (2nd charge),
b. DAC 18821/2005 (5th charge),
c. DAC 18850/2005 (34th charge),
d. DAC 18852/2005 (36th charge),
e. DAC 18863/2005 (47th charge),
f. DAC 18957/2005 (141st charge), and
g. DAC 18960/2005 (144th charge).
3. According to the 7 proceeded charges, the Accused was alleged to have engaged with one Roger Loo Chee Hoong (Loo) in a conspiracy to cheat various retail establishments by using stolen credit cards to pay for purchased items in 2 periods in 2003 and 2004.
4. At the end of the trial, I found the Accused guilty and sentenced her to a total of 33 months’ imprisonment.
5. I shall now set out the reasons for my decision.
Undisputed facts
6. Relationship between the Accused and Loo: Loo and the Accused first came to know each other sometime in or about January 2002 while both were working at Planet Hollywood. Loo was then a bartender and the Accused a hostess. They soon became a couple and began staying together in a rented apartment at Sengkang (for about 1 month) and thereafter at various hotels (on and off). The Accused and Loo subsequently rented an apartment at Pandan Valley between July 2002 and July 2003.[note: 2]
7. Theft of credit cards in 2003: Sometime in June 2003, Loo stole credit cards belonging to one Toh Chong Yan (Toh) from a letter box at Pandan Valley by using a pair of chopsticks.[note: 3]
8. Facts relating to 2nd charge: After the theft of Toh’s credit cards, on 28 June 2003, Loo and the Accused went to a Giordano store located at No. 384 Orchard Road, #B1-07/08 Lucky Plaza. At the store, Loo selected a $14-shirt and paid for it using Toh’s UOB VISA credit card.[note: 4]
9. Facts relating to 5th charge: Later that same day, Loo and the Accused went to Metro Pte Ltd located at No. 290 Orchard Road, #02-08 Paragon. There, the Accused selected an assortment of bras amounting to a total of $167.80. She then handed these items to Loo, who again used Toh’s UOB VISA credit card to pay for them. After making payment, Loo handed the bras to the Accused.[note: 5]
10. Loo’s arrest in July 2003: After Giordano and Metro, Loo continued to commit credit card fraud by using stolen cards to pay for other purchases and expenses – frequently incurred together with the Accused – until sometime in early July 2003 when he discovered that he was wanted by the authorities for unrelated theft and forgery of cheques offences. On 7 July 2003, Loo surrendered himself to the authorities. On 23 July 2003, he pleaded guilty to the unrelated theft and forgery of cheques offences and was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment. At the material time, the authorities did not know that Loo had stolen credit cards and used them for payment.[note: 6]
11. Loo’s imprisonment and release: During the period of his imprisonment, the Accused maintained contact with Loo and visited him in prison on several occasions, frequently with Loo’s parents. Loo was eventually released sometime in March 2004. After his release, Loo continued to meet up and shop with the Accused.[note: 7]
12. Theft of credit cards in 2004: Sometime in April 2004, Loo began stealing credit cards from letter boxes again.[note: 8]
13. Facts relating to 34th charge: On 25 April 2004, after Loo had stolen a Citibank VISA credit card belonging to one Law Kum Peng (Law), he and the Accused went to Levis Boutique located at No. 260 Orchard Road, #01-07 The Heeren. At the store, the Accused selected an assortment of Levis clothing amounting to a total of $362.40. She then handed these items to Loo, who paid for them using Law’s stolen credit card. After making payment, Loo handed over the purchases to the Accused.[note: 9]
14. Facts relating to 36th charge: On 26 April 2004, Loo and the Accused went to Miss Sixty located at No. 290 Orchard Road, #02-29/30 Paragon. At the store, the Accused selected an assortment of clothing amounting to a total of $346. She then handed these items to Loo, who used a stolen OCBC VISA credit card belonging to one Vincent Chia Wey Ling (Chia) to make payment. After paying for the clothing, Loo handed them to the Accused.[note: 10]
15. Facts relating to 47th charge: Later that day, Loo and the Accused went to a Christian Dior store located at No. 25 Scotts Road, L3 DFS Galleria Scotts Walk. At the store, the Accused selected an assortment of Christian Dior products (amounting to a total of $2150) and handed them to Loo. Loo paid for these items using Chia’s OCBC VISA credit card. After making payment, Loo handed the purchases to the Accused.[note: 11]
16. Facts relating to 141st charge: On 16 September 2004, Loo and the Accused went to an AX 21 store located at No. 391 Orchard Road, #B1-03/04 Ngee Ann City. There, the Accused selected an assortment of clothing amounting to a total of $2883. She handed these items to Loo, who used a stolen DBS VISA credit card belonging to one Paulo C. Cavalheiro (Cavalheiro) to make payment. After making payment, Loo handed the purchases to the Accused.[note: 12]
17. Facts relating to 144th charge: The next day (17 September 2004), Loo and the Accused went to a Nine West store located at No. 252 North Bridge Road, #01-33 Raffles City. At the store, the Accused selected 9 pairs of shoes amounting to a total of $1,585 and handed them to Loo. Loo paid for the shoes using Cavalheiro’s VISA credit card. After making payment, Loo handed the shoes to the Accused.[note: 13]
18. Accused benefited from Loo’s use of stolen credit cards on other occasions: It was not disputed that apart from the instances specified in the 7 proceeded charges, the Accused was also with Loo on more than 150 other occasions in 2003 and 2004 where Loo had used stolen credit cards to make payment. On most of these occasions, the Accused had either:
a. received gifts, or
b. enjoyed benefits (eg food and beverages at restaurants)
paid for with the stolen credit cards. The value of these gifts and benefits came to $33,624.56. Details of these transactions are reflected in the Annex to the Agreed Statement of Facts.[note: 14]
19. Loo’s conviction arising from the credit card scam: Loo was arrested on 7 December 2004 in connection with his theft and fraudulent use of credit cards, and was charged with 209 counts of cheating, theft and conspiracy to cheat charges. Of these, a total of 177 were conspiracy charges involving the Accused. Loo eventually pleaded guilty to 10 of his charges and consented to the remaining 199 charges being taken into consideration. At the time of the Accused’s trial, Loo was serving a 6-year corrective training sentence.[note: 15]
Primary issue
20. During the trial, the Defence did not dispute the fact that the underlying principal cheating offences under section 420 of the Penal Code had been committed by Loo – ie he had deceived the establishments in the 7 proceeded charges into believing that he was rightful holder of the stolen credit cards, and had thereby dishonestly induced them into (a) accepting the credit cards for payment, and (b) delivering purchased items to him.[note: 16]
21. The ultimate issue in this case was a very narrow one – ie whether these cheating offences had been committed pursuant to a conspiracy between the Accused and Loo to commit credit card fraud.
22. Abetment by conspiracy is defined in section 107(b) of the Penal Code. It has three essential elements. First, the person abetting must engage, with one or more persons, in a conspiracy. Second, the conspiracy must be for the doing of the thing abetted; and third, an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing: Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP
23. Agreement is the basic element in conspiracy. The idea of an agreement entails a meeting of minds, a mutual understanding of what is to be done. There must be an agreement between the alleged conspirators to do the act: Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v PP
24. According to the Prosecution, there was an agreement between the Accused and Loo for the latter to use stolen credit cards to cheat the various establishments stated in the 7 proceeded charges into accepting these cards for fraudulent purchases.[note: 18] This contention was vigorously disputed by the Defence. It was the Defence case that the Accused did not know at all material times that Loo had used stolen credit credits to pay for these purchases; in fact, she did not even know precisely in what manner Loo had paid for these items.[note: 19]
Prosecution’s evidence
Loo’s incriminating evidence
25. Loo told Accused that he had stolen credit cards: Loo was the Prosecution’s main witness. Loo testified that on 28 June 2003, he revealed to the Accused that he had stolen credit cards from a letter-box stuffed with letters, and that they could go shopping. The Accused was surprised by Loo’s disclosure, and kept asking him how he had obtained the credits cards and whether they could be used. According to Loo, she was happy and eager to go shopping. Loo was not surprised at the Accused’s reaction as she had always wanted to buy a lot of things that he could not afford.[note: 20]
26. The 2nd charge: To determine whether the stolen credit card could be used, Loo decided to test it with the Accused...
To continue reading
Request your trial