Public Prosecutor v Lim Li Yong, Amanda

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Ng Cheng Thiam
• Judgment Date: 03 July 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGDC 137
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 21 May 2019,03 May 2019
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No. 902882/2018 & Others, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 9113/2019/01-02
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Lee Zu Zhao (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Nicholas Narayanan & Selina Yap (Ms) (M/S Nicholas & Tan Partnership LLP)
• Published date: 31 August 2019

District Judge Ng Cheng Thiam: Charges

The Accused appeared before me on 3 May 2019. At this stage, the Prosecution has tendered 62 counts of Cheating under section 417 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“s 417 PC charges”); and 29 counts of Forgery for the purpose of Cheating under section 468 of the same Code (“s 468 PC charges”).

The Prosecution proceeded with 15 counts of the s 417 charges. The proceeded charges were all similar in nature and they are reproduced in a tabular form at the end of the Statement of Facts (see [10] at pages 5-6 below).

Conviction, Charges Taken into Consideration, Sentence and Appeal

The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts (Exhibit P1) without qualification. I found her guilty and convicted her accordingly.

The Accused then admitted to all the remaining 47 counts of s 417 charges and 23 out of 29 counts of the s 468 charges. She also gave her consent for these admitted charges to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. The Prosecution withdrew the remaining 6 counts of the s 468 charges and she was granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal on these 6 withdrawn charges.

In my deliberation on sentence, I have considered the Prosecution’s position on sentence (Exhibit P3); the Defence’s mitigation plea (Exhibit D1); and their respective oral arguments.

The individual sentences that I have imposed are set out in the table below:

No.	DAC No.	Amount Cheated	Sentence Imposed
1	902882-2018	$3,630/-	7 weeks’ imprisonment
2	902887-2018	$1,720/-	5 weeks’ imprisonment (consecutive)
3	902888-2018	$1,320/-	5 weeks’ imprisonment
4	902889-2018	$1,840/-	5 weeks’ imprisonment
5	902890-2018	$2,350/-	7 weeks’ imprisonment
6	902892-2018	$1,900/-	5 weeks’ imprisonment
7	902897-2018	$2,300/-	7 weeks’ imprisonment
8	902899-2018	$1,588.87	5 weeks’ imprisonment
9	902900-2018	$2,390/-	7 weeks’ imprisonment
10	902901-2018	$1,930.50	5 weeks’ imprisonment
11	902902-2018	$4,426.50	8 weeks’ imprisonment (consecutive)
12	902905-2018	$4,369.01	8 weeks’ imprisonment (consecutive)
13	902907-2018	$4,200/-	8 weeks’ imprisonment
14	902908-2018	$3,700/-	7 weeks’ imprisonment
15	902911-2018	$3,800/-	7 weeks’ imprisonment (consecutive)

I ordered four sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively (as indicated above in the table), making the global sentence 28 weeks’ imprisonment.

The Accused and the Prosecution were dissatisfied with the sentence imposed. Each of them has filed an appeal against sentence. Pending the hearing of the appeal in the High Court, I have granted the Defence’s application for the Accused to be released on bail.

In these Grounds of Decision, I shall first set out the facts of the case. I will then follow up with the reasons behind my decision to impose a total sentence of 28 weeks’ imprisonment.

Facts

The portions of the Statement of Facts which are pertinent to the commission of the offences by the Accused are reproduced in full below:

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

3. On 13 December 2016 at about 5.51 pm, the complainant lodged a police report at Bedok Police Divisional HQ stating that Silver Bullion Pte Ltd had discovered that the accused had been making fictitious reimbursement claims by providing forged documents for non-existent transactions with other companies or with inflated figures in order to make reimbursement claims for payments that were made to other companies. The location was given as No. 20 Jalan Afifi, #03-02A, Singapore.

BACKGROUND FACTS

4. Since January 2014, the accused was employed by Silver Bullion Pte Ltd as a Marketing Manager for the Silver Bullion Group (“the Group”), which includes Silver Bullion Pte Ltd and The Safe House SG Pte Ltd. The Group was in the business of providing storage for precious metals. The accused’s responsibilities included designing and creation of marketing collaterals, overseeing marketing and advertising activities, and executing marketing / sales campaigns. As part of her job, she was allowed to either use Silver Bullion Pte Ltd / The Safe House SG Pte Ltd to make payments, or she could pay with her own money before obtaining reimbursement under either company. 5. Sometime after 23 November 2016, the complainant found that the accused had made a total of $67,242 in reimbursement claims from Silver Bullion Pte Ltd and The Safe House SG Pte Ltd in the year 2016, which was a rather large sum of money that drew the complainant’s suspicion. Consequently, internal inquiries were conducted and the complainant subsequently lodged a police report. 6. Since February 2015, the accused conceived of a scheme to cheat both Silver Bullion Pte Ltd and The Safe House SG Pte Ltd by forging documents (such as invoices) of either non-existent or inflated transactions with various suppliers, in order to deceive Silver Bullion Pte Ltd and The Safe House SG Pte Ltd into believing that she had paid for these transactions out of her own pocket, and that she should be reimbursed for them. 7. In this manner, the accused obtained a total of 65 such reimbursements amounting to a total of SGD 75, 846.86 from February 2015 to November 2016. The total amount cheated was SGD 70, 367.24. 8. On or about the dates specified below, the accused did cheat by deceiving either the Director of Silver Bullion Pte Ltd and The Safe House SG Pte Ltd, Gregersen Gregor Juergen, or the Manager of Safe House SG Pte Ltd, John Tay, by inducing them into believing that she was entitled to reimbursement for fictitious payments made to various suppliers, which the accused knew was false, and by such manner of deception, she dishonestly induced them into delivering the said amounts to her.

No.	DAC No.	Date of Claim	Supplier Involved	Party Cheated	Amount Cheated
1	902882-2018	24 Oct 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Company	$3,630/-
2	902887-2018	16 Nov 15	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$1,720/-
3	902888-2018	2 Dec 15	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$1,320/-
4	902889-2018	13 Jan 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$1,840/-
5	902890-2018	27 Jan 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$2,350/-
6	902892-2018	23 Feb 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$1,900/-
7	902897-2018	4 May 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$2,300/-
8	902899-2018	1 Jun 16	Creative Market	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$1,588.87
9	902900-2018	3 Aug 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$2,390/-
10	902901-2018	1 Sep 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$1,930.50
11	902902-2018	5 Sep 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$4,426.50
12	902905-2018	21 Sep 16	Yiwu Allwin Imp & Exp Co Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$4,369.01
13	902907-2018	21 Sep 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$4,200/-
14	902908-2018	21 Sep 16	Panel Enterprise Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$3,700/-
15	902911-2018	9 Nov 16	Focus Print Pte Ltd	The Safe House SG Pte Ltd	$3,800/-

According to the Statement of Facts, the Accused has made full restitution, an amount which came up to $70,367.24

Sentence – Parties’ submissions and the Court’s decision Applicable Sentencing Principles

In my judgment, general deterrence is applicable to this case. General deterrence aims to educate and deter other like-minded members of the general public by making an example of a particular offender. Deterrence is generally not displaced as an applicable sentencing consideration even where an offender demonstrates that he was labouring under familial and financial hardships during the commission of the offence: see Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 (“Law Aik Meng”) at [24] – [25], [27] and [29].

I also held the view that specific deterrence in sentencing was applicable in this case. Specific deterrence relates to the effect that the punishment might have in persuading an accused to refrain from committing such offences again by fashioning an appropriate sentence that takes into account the nature of the offence and the accused’s peculiar disposition: Public Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753 at [25] – [29].

Defence’s Sentencing Position – Seeking a fine

The Accused’s counsel made a passionate plea for a sentence of a fine per proceeded charge. Her counsel submitted that she “had familial and personal circumstances at the time that forced her to commit” these offences.

As the only child of two aged and sickly parents, the Accused had to pay for the expensive medical expenses incurred by her parents. Firstly, her father had a long-time battle with diabetes, and then with kidney failure....