Public Prosecutor v Liu Meiying

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Salina Ishak
• Judgment Date: 20 November 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 275
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case No 915781 of 2018 & Others, MA 9158-2023-01
• Hearing Date: 06 July 2020,07 July 2020,08 July 2020,09 July 2020,18 August 2020,19 August 2020,20 August 2020,24 February 2021,25 February 2021,26 February 2021,27 February 2021,22 February 2021,23 February 2021,02 March 2021,03 March 2021,04 March 2021,09 March 2021,10 March 2021,11 March 2021,12 March 2021,22 March 2021,23 March 2021,24 March 2021,25 March 2021,26 March 2021,05 April 2021,06 April 2021,07 April 2021,07 September 2021,08 September 2021,09 September 2021,21 September 2021,22 September 2021,23 September 2021,24 September 2021,27 September 2021,28 September 2021,29 September 2021,18 April 2022,19 April 2022,20 April 2022,09 May 2022,10 May 2022,01 August 2022,02 August 2022,31 August 2022,01 September 2022,22 September 2022,06 February 2023,07 February 2023,08 February 2023,10 February 2023,01 June 2023,03 July 2023,18 August 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 275
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Norman Yew, Benjamin Samynathan and Jonathan Tan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Nathan Shashidaran, Chen Li Wen Tania, Laura Yeo Wei Wen and Carmen Lee (Whithers Khattarwong LLP)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Penal Code,Computer Misuse Act,Fraud committed on WDA,Instigation to cheat WDA,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,General and specific deterrence,Fraud involving public funds
• Published date: 25 November 2023

District Judge Salina Ishak: Background

Between 2011 and 2013, the Workforce Development Agency (“WDA”) administered the “Funding for Employer-Based Training Scheme” (“the funding scheme”) that disbursed funds to employers who sent their employees for training and to business entities that provided the training. This was a scheme to encourage employers to upgrade their employees’ skills by defraying their costs in doing so. This scheme was one of the programs that were introduced by WDA to enhance the employability and competitiveness of the Singapore workforce. Business entities (“applicant companies”) may apply online for training grants to fund their employees’ participation in courses run by approved training providers (“training providers”). Public funds were used to finance these training grants. The present case involves a fraud committed on WDA between 2011 and 2013 in respect of this funding scheme.

The accused, Madam Liu Meiying also known as “Corenna”, a female 59-year-old female Singapore citizen, is the sole director and shareholder of Derma Floral Beauty Academy (“DFBA”) and Derma Floral Beauty Pte Ltd (“DFB”) as well as the sole proprietor of Beaux Ex Bellus Trading (“BEBT”), collectively referred to as Derma Floral Group (“DFG”). She is overall in charge of DFG and is also the trainer for DFB and DFBA.

She claimed trial to the following 27 charges namely: Five charges under s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) of the Computer Misuse Act (Cap.50A, 2007 Rev. Ed.)(“CMA”) and one charge under s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) of the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (Cap.50A, 2007 Rev. Ed)(“CMCA”), for instigating one Lau Pin Lin also known as “Jovis” to cheat WDA into disbursing training grants by making six online submissions to WDA falsely stating that four trainees of courses conducted by DFG were employees of DFB or BEBT for the full duration of their courses, a fact which she knew to be false (the “fake employment charges”); Three charges under s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMA and five charges under s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) of the CMCA for instigating Jovis to cheat WDA into disbursing training grants by making eight online submissions to WDA falsely stating that six trainees of eight courses conducted by DFG had attended at least 75% of their respective course hours for these eight courses, a fact which she knew to be false (the “fake attendance charges”); Five charges under s 477A read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap.224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC”), for instigating Jovis to create five receipts falsely stating that they evidenced Gan Wai Wah’s (also known as “Vinnie”) and Feng Xia’s cash payments to DFG for facial treatments rendered to them, when the said cash payments were in fact paid to DFG to make employer contributions to their Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) accounts and thereby create the false impression that they were employees of DFG during their courses (the “fraudulent receipts charges”); and Eight charges of cheating punishable under s 417 read with s 109 PC, for instigating Jovis to cheat WDA into consenting to DFB and DFBA retaining the training grants earlier disbursed to them, by submitting eight sets of attendance records to WDA falsely showing that two trainees, namely Jovis and Ng Sock Leng (also known as “Joanne”) as had attended at least 75% of the course attendance for two courses (the “audit charges”).

On 13 September 2019, Jovis pleaded guilty to four charges pertaining to her involvement in the accused’s 27 charges, with 23 charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence. The four proceeded charges were: Two charges of causing a computer to secure access to the SkillsConnect online portal hosted on the WDA server, to submit to WDA two claims under the funding scheme with intent to commit cheating and inducing WDA into disbursing training grants for two trainees, offences punishable under s 4(3) of the CMA and s 4(3) of the CMCA respectively. One charge of falsifying a paper belonging to her employer, Liu Meiying, namely a receipt purportedly as evidence of cash payment for a facial treatment from Feng Xia when in fact no such treatment was provided by BEBT to Feng Xia, an offence punishable under s 477A of the PC. One charge of cheating by submitting a set of attendance records to WDA falsely showing that she had attended at least 75% of the course attendance, a fact she knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, WDA was dishonestly induced to consent to DFBA retaining the training grant that was earlier disbursed to them, an offence punishable under s 417 of the PC. She was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment for each charge and received a global sentence of 12 weeks’ imprisonment.

After a 55-day trial, on 3 July 2023, the accused was convicted on all 27 charges. The matter was fixed for sentencing on 18 August 2023 for the Prosecution’s address on sentence as well as the Defence’s plea in mitigation. On 18 August 2023, after carefully considering the Prosecution’s address on sentence, the Defence’s plea in mitigation as well as their respective replies, I sentenced the accused as follows:

1	DAC-915781-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMA	Three months imprisonment.
2	DAC-915782-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMA	Six weeks imprisonment.
3	DAC-915783-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMA	Six months imprisonment.
4	DAC-915784-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMA	Six months imprisonment.
5	DAC-915785-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMA	Six weeks imprisonment.
6	DAC-915799-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMCA	Two months imprisonment.
7	DAC-915800-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMA	Two months imprisonment.
8	DAC-915801-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMA	Eight months imprisonment.
9	DAC-915802-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMA	Six months imprisonment.
10	DAC-915804-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMCA	Two months imprisonment.
11	DAC-915805-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMCA	Five months imprisonment.
12	DAC-915806-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMCA	Four months imprisonment.
13	DAC-915807-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMCA	Nine months imprisonment.
14	DAC-915808-2018	s 4(1) punishable under s 4(3) read with s 10(1) CMCA	Two months imprisonment.
15	DAC-915810-2018	s 477A read with s 109 PC	Three months imprisonment.
16	DAC-915811-2018	s 477A read with s 109 PC	Three months imprisonment.
17	DAC-915815-2018	s 477A read with s 109 PC	Three months imprisonment.
18	DAC-915816-2018	s 477A read with s 109 PC	Three months imprisonment.
19	DAC-915817-2018	s 477A read with s 109 PC	Three months imprisonment.
20	DAC-915818-2018	s 417 read with s 109 PC	Three months imprisonment.
21	DAC-915836-2018	s 417 read with s 109 PC	Five months imprisonment.
22	DAC-915837-2018	s 417 read with s 109 PC	Three months imprisonment.
23	DAC-915838-2018	s 417 read with s 109 PC	Five months imprisonment
24	DAC-915839-2018	s 417 read with s 109 PC	Three months imprisonment
25	DAC-915840-2018	s 417 read with s 109 PC	Six months imprisonment
26	DAC-915841-2018	s 417 read with s 109 PC	Three months imprisonment
27	DAC-915842-2018	s 417 read with s 109 PC	Six months imprisonment

I ordered the sentences for six charges in DAC 915784-2018, DAC 915801 - 2018, DAC 915804 - 2018, DAC 915810 - 2018, DAC 915817 - 2018 and DAC 915838 - 2018 to run consecutively and the sentences for the remaining 21 charges to run concurrently. The total sentence was 27 months’ imprisonment with effect from 18 August 2023.

The accused being dissatisfied with my decision has filed an appeal against her conviction and sentence on 18 August 2023. She is currently on bail pending the hearing of her appeal. A stay of execution was granted for the commencement of the sentence of imprisonment.

I now set out the grounds of my decision in full.

Prosecution’s Case

It was the Prosecution’s case that the accused had used her subordinate Jovis to perpetuate a series of frauds on the WDA funding scheme. It was the Prosecution’s position that the accused, as the sole director and shareholder of the DFG group, was the mastermind of the fraud as several of her former employees had testified to being the accused’s accomplices in perpetuating the fraud on WDA.

It was essentially the Prosecution’s case that the 27 charges involved a conspiracy to do the following namely: to deceive the WDA into disbursing a total of $62,983.77 in training grants to DFG and two Applicant Companies by submitting false information about DFG’s trainees to WDA. to conceal the fraud through sham receipts and to prevent WDA from clawing back disbursed sums by submitting fraudulent documents during its auditing process to reinforce the false information that was previously submitted.

Defence’s Case

The accused denied being involved in the fraud committed on the WDA funding scheme and laid the blame entirely on Jovis. According to the Defence, the accused had not instructed or instigated Jovis to submit the said claims nor had she instructed or told Jovis or her other students to prepare attendance sheets which does not reflect the...