Public Prosecutor v Magendran Muniandy

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chay Yuen Fatt
• Judgment Date: 18 July 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 150
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case Nos. DAC-912012-2020, DAC-912013-2020 and DAC-919726-2020, Magistrate’s Appeal No. MA-9108-2023-01
• Hearing Date: 08 November 2021,09 November 2021,10 November 2021,11 November 2021,26 July 2022,27 July 2022,28 July 2022,21 April 2022,01 June 2023,18 April 2023,06 February 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 150
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Rimplejit Kaur
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in Person
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences - Using Forged Documents,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Principles,Aggravating Factors,Egregious Conduct of Defence
• Published date: 04 August 2023

District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt: Introduction

The accused is a 34-year-old male Malaysian. He claimed trial to three charges for offences of using forged documents as genuine to support his application to the relevant authorities to extend his Long Term Visit Pass and to work in Singapore. He denied the charges claiming, inter alia, that the documentary evidence against him was erroneous or even fabricated.

At the conclusion of the trial, his various defences were rejected and he was convicted of all three charges. He was sentenced to twenty weeks' imprisonment in total. He filed an appeal against both his conviction and sentence. His imprisonment sentence has been stayed pending the appeal and he is on bail pending the appeal.

The Three Charges

For ease of reference, I set out the three charges in full as follows:

First Charge

You… are charged that you, on 24 August 2018, at 10 Kallang Road, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”) Building, Singapore, did fraudulently use as genuine a forged document, namely, a ‘Letter of Support for Extension of Long Term Visit Pass’ dated 20 August 2018 and purportedly issued by the Ministry of Education (“the Letter”), which you knew to be forged, by presenting the Letter to the ICA to support your application for an extension of the Long Term Visit Pass, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

Second Charge

You… are charged that you, on 13 April 2018, in Singapore, did fraudulently use as genuine a forged document, namely, an image showing the date of issue and date of expiry of a Visit Pass purportedly issued by the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (“the Image”), which you knew to be forged, by presenting the Image to the Ministry of Education (“MOE”) to obtain a letter of support for an extension of a Long Term Visit Pass, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

Third Charge

You…are charged that you, on 19 April 2018, in Singapore, did fraudulently use as genuine a forged document, namely, a letter of acknowledgement dated 3 February 2018 and purportedly issued by the National University of Singapore (“the Letter”), which you knew to be forged, by presenting the Letter to the Ministry of Education (“MOE”) to obtain MOE’s support for your application for an extension of a Long Term Visit Pass, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 read with Section 465 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

The Forged Documents

The accused is Mr Magendran Muniandy (“the accused”), a Malaysian who was in Singapore on a Long-Term Visit Pass (“LTVP”). He is charged with three charges for offences under s 471 read with s 465 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) for fraudulently and knowingly using forged documents in support of his application to extend his LTVP.

I set out the details of the three forged documents (collectively “forged documents”) and the circumstances as tabulated by the Prosecution:¹

Charge	Particulars of offence
DAC-912012-2020 (First Charge)	On 24 August 2018, the accused presented a ‘Letter of Support for Extension of Long-Term Visit Pass’ dated 20 August 2018 and purportedly issued by the Ministry of Education (“MOE”) (“the forged MOE support letter”) to the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”) to support his application for an extension of the LTVP.
DAC-912013-2020 (Second Charge)	On 13 April 2018, the accused presented an image showing the date of issue and date of expiry of a Visit Pass purportedly issued by the ICA (“the Image”) to MOE to obtain a letter of support for an extension of the LTVP.
DAC-919726-2020 (Third Charge)	On 19 April 2018, the accused presented a letter of acknowledgment dated 3 February 2018 and purportedly issued by the National University of Singapore (“the forged NUS acknowledgment letter”) to MOE to obtain its support for an extension of the LTVP.

In short, the forged documents and the sequence in which the accused used and submitted them to the authorities are as follows: MOE 13 April 2018 – Image was submitted to MOE; 19 April 2018 – forged NUS acknowledgment letter dated 3 February 2018 was submitted to MOE; (The original NUS acknowledgment letter is dated 3 May 2017) ICA 24 August 2018 – forged MOE support letter dated 20 August 2018 was submitted to ICA. (The original unaltered MOE support letter is dated 16 April 2018)

Prosecution’s Case and Evidence

The Prosecution’s case is detailed in its closing submissions.² I propose only to set out the most relevant and material portions.

The MOE Tuition Grant Agreement

The accused was awarded a tuition grant in 2008 by MOE for his undergraduate studies (Bachelor of Science) at the National University of Singapore (“NUS”). On 17 October 2008, the accused signed an MOE Tuition Grant Agreement (“the Agreement”). The Agreement required the accused, as one of the conditions, to serve a bond with MOE upon completion of his undergraduate studies. The accused is required to be employed in Singapore for a period of three years (“the Bond”).

The relevant clause prescribing the said condition is set out as follows:³ 2(1) In consideration of the premises and with the approval and the consent of the Sureties, the Student hereby covenants: -

…

(c) that he/she shall (unless unable to obtain any employment within one (1) year after completion of the Course or re-employment within (1) year after his/her resignation or dismissal from or cessation of his/her employment) work in Singapore for a period or periods totalling in the aggregate three (3) years (hereinafter referred to as the “Bonded Period”) upon the completion of the Course;

The Bond commenced after the accused graduated from NUS with a Bachelor of Science degree on 30 June 2011.⁴ The accused knew that he was required to serve the Bond thereafter.⁵

Accused’s employment at NUS

The accused was employed by the Life Sciences Institute (“LSI”) of NUS for three years from 18 August 2014 to 17 August 2017.⁶ He was issued with an Employment Pass (“EP”) for the said period. The EP was terminated on 18 August 2017 after three years of his employment.⁷ The accused does not dispute the fact that he was an employee of NUS for a period of three years.⁸ In effect, he had served his Bond by 18 August 2017.

Application for an extension of the LTVP

After the EP was terminated, the accused applied for and was issued with his first LTVP for a period of one year. According to ICA’s records, the LTVP was issued on 31 August 2017 and was valid until the date of expiry on 31 August 2018.⁹ PW1 Ms Ng Bee Wah (“Ms Ng”), a processing officer at the Visitor Services Centre of ICA, testified that the first LTVP is usually issued to applicants who are foreign graduates of an Institute of Higher Learning (“IHL”) in Singapore, regardless of whether the applicant has served his tuition grant bond. ICA does not require a supporting letter as proof of any outstanding bond as part of the application process.¹⁰

Accused lied to MOE that he has yet to serve his Bond

On 12 April 2018 at 11.00 am, the accused sent an e-mail to ‘MOE TGONLINE’ (an e-mail account created by the MOE Tuition Grant Section to receive queries from students)¹¹ requesting a copy of the Agreement and a “Supporting Letter” from MOE to apply for an extension of his LTVP. The accused further stated that he has yet to serve the Bond.¹² In light of the accused’s employment history with NUS, this was a lie. The accused’s email is set out in full for easy reference¹³:

From: Magendran Muniandy [mailto:magendran.muniandy. XXX@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, 12 April 2018 11:00 AM

To: MOE TGONLINE (MOE)

Subject: Request for Tuition Grant Bond Document & Supporting Letter from MOE

To Whomever it may concern,

I am Magendran Muniandy (Fin: XXX) would like to request for the Tuition Grant Bond Document and Supporting Letter from MOE for the use to extend my Long Term Visit Pass application as requested by ICA.

I have graduated from NUS but yet to serve my 36 months bond and therefore I would like to apply for LTVP in order to seek employment in Singapore and start my bond for the tuition Grant.

Please refer to the attached email from ICA for the requested document that is needed for my LTVP application.

Thank you,

Magendran Muniandy

XXX

PW3 Ms Loh Yan Ting (“Ms Loh”), a senior executive of MOE’s Tuition Grant Section, was handling general enquiries relating to tuition grant matters at the material time.¹⁴ She replied to the accused’s email at 12.37 pm requesting his employment history after his graduating from NUS in 2012.¹⁵

At 1.01pm, the accused replied to Ms Loh’s stating as follows:¹⁶

…

I was hired by Proctor & Gamble and was sent to Japan to work. Initially the plan was for me to work there for 1.5 years and be back to Singapore but due to organisational changes, I was asked to work there for longer period of time.

Until recently I quit my job there and back to Malaysia/Singapore to seek for employment and I discovered that my bond is yet to be served.

Therefore, I would like to take the initiative to serve my bond asap.

…

Crucially, the accused failed to reveal that he had worked for LSI (NUS) for three years. This omission is not disputed by the accused.¹⁷

Accused lied that he worked for only two months in Singapore

At 5.04 pm, Ms Loh asked if the accused’s overseas posting to Japan by Proctor & Gamble (“P & G”) fulfilled any one of MOE’s three criteria such that his employment could count towards the fulfilment of the Bond. Ms Loh also requested for information pertaining to the accused’s employment in Singapore.¹⁸

The accused replied to Ms Loh’s e-mail at...