Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Iqbal Lukman Ali

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Emily Wilfred
• Judgment Date: 01 July 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGDC 160
• Published date: 10 August 2004
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ms Shirani Alfreds (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Paul and Mr Tan Lye Huat

1 July 2004

District Judge Mrs. Emily K. Wilfred

1 The appellant (“accused”) claimed trial to one charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 and two charges under Section 109 of the Penal Code read with Section 57(1) (k) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 133 for abetting, by instigating one Hanan Bte Mohamed Zain to make a false declaration in two visa application forms. At the end of the trial, he was found guilty of the offences and sentenced as follows:-

1. DAC 20216/2003 –12 months imprisonment

2. DAC 20217/2003 – 2 months imprisonment

3. DAC 20218/2003 – 2 months imprisonment

DAC 20216/2003 was ordered to run consecutively with DAC 20217/2003 and concurrently with DAC 20218/2003, making a total of fourteen (14) months imprisonment. The accused has appealed against conviction and he is on bail pending appeal.

2 The accused was tried and convicted on the following charges:-

DAC 20216/03

“ You, Mohamed Iqbal Lukman Ali, are charged that you between the 3^rd day of October 2001 and 25^th day of March 2002, in Singapore, being entrusted with sum of $5,000/-(Dollars Five Thousand) by one Baskar Khan for the purpose of placing a security deposit bond with the Singapore Immigration & Registration for the visa application of one Nurul Islam, a Bangladeshi, did commit criminal breach of trust of the said money, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.”

DAC 20217/03

“ You, Mohamed Iqbal Lukman Ali, are charged that you, on or about the 15^th day of October 2001, at the Visitors’ Service Centre, Singapore Immigration & Registration, No 10 Kallang Road, Singapore, did abet by instigation one Hanan Bte Mohamed Zain in the commission of an offence of making a false declaration to obtain for one Nurul Islam, a Bangladeshi, by instructing the said Hanan Bte Mohamed Zain to make a false declaration in the visa application that the said Nurul Islam was her family friend when in actual fact he was not known to her, which offence was committed in consequence to your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 109 of the Penal Code read with section 57(1)(k) of the Immigration Act, Cap 133 and punishable under section 57(1)(iv) of the same Act”.

DAC 20218/03

“ You, Mohamed Iqbal Lukman Ali, are charged that you, on or about the 25^th day of February 2002, at the Visitors Service Centre, Singapore Immigration & Registration, No 10 Kallang Road, Singapore, did abet by instigation one Hanan Bte Mohamed Zain in the commission of an offence of making a false declaration to obtain for one Nurul Islam, a Bangladeshi, by instructing the said Hanan Bte Mohamed Zain to make a false declaration in the visa application that the said Nurul Islam was her family friend when in actual fact he was not known to her, which offence was committed in consequence to your abetment, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 109 of the Penal Code read with section 57(1)(k) of the Immigration Act, Cap 133 and punishable under section 57(1)(iv) of the same Act”.

Undisputed Facts

3 The accused is an Investigation Officer (“IO”) with the Property Offender’s Squad of Tanglin Police Divisional Headquarters, dealing with serious crimes. The Complainant, Baskar Khan (“Baskar”), a Bangladeshi National, was a registered police informant on a special pass when he became acquainted with the accused. He was working for one ASP Bakurdeen of Central Police Divisional Headquarters. Baskar first met the accused in 1999 when he lodged a complaint at the Tanglin Police Station, of being assaulted by a fellow Bangladeshi, The accused was one of the police officers, who interviewed him. There was an exchange of telephone numbers and Baskar was to provide the accused with information to the accused, concerning Bangladesh and Indian Nationals in Serangoon Road.

4 Sometime in October 2001, the accused agreed, at the request of Baskar, to assist in the visa application for Nurul Islam (“Nurul”). Baskar gave the accused a blank visa form, duly signed by Nurul, a photocopy of Nurul’s passport and two photographs. The accused filed in the particulars and got his wife to be the applicant. The accused acted in his personal capacity and not as a police officer. The purpose of bringing Nurul to Singapore was to gauge his capabilities as an informant. If he proved to be competent, the accused would refer the matter to his superior and recommend Nurul as a police informant.

5 On 3^rd October 2001, the accused and Baskar met at midnight in the carpark near an ATM machine at Newton Hawker’s Centre. Baskar handed the accused a sum of $5020, which the accused acknowledged receipt (P4). The sum of $5000 was to be placed as a security deposit with the Singapore Immigration and Registration (“SIR”) once Nurul’s visa application was approved.

6 On 7^th November 2001, the accused and Baskar met again. Baskar brought along his relative, Sumun. Baskar asked the accused for a SIM card with roaming facilities and the accused gave him one. The accused took down the particulars of Sumun’s work permit and wrote on a piece of paper (P9B). Sumun signed the document twice. Sumun was to keep in touch with the accused by telephone, concerning the progress of the visa application for Nurul as Baskar was returning back to Bangladesh the following day.

7 Sumun kept in touch with the accused for a period of time and handed the accused a sum of $500.

8 On two occasions, 15^th October 2001 and 25^th February 2002, the accused submitted visa application forms for Nurul at the Visitors Service Centre, Singapore Immigration & Registration (“ SIR”). In both the application forms, the accused wife, Hanan stated that Nurul was a ‘ family friend’ after a discussion with the accused. Both the applications were approved and the accused was duly informed but he did not act on the applications so the applications lapsed. According to the accused, he was busy.

9 When Baskar returned to Bangladesh, he kept in touch with the accused and sent several blank visa forms with the accompanying documents required, initially for Nurul and subsequently for himself.

Prosecution’s Case

10 Prosecution called several witnesses including the complainant, Baskar Khan (“Baskar”), his cousin, Sumun and the Immigration Officer, Jason Low who are the main witnesses. The Prosecution’s case was that the accused received $6,020 from Baskar as follows:-

1. $5020 from Baskar on 3^rd October 2001;

2. $500 from Baskar on 7^th November 2001; and

3. $500 from Sumun sometime in November 2001

The sum of $6000 was paid to the accused for the payment of a security deposit with SIR to facilate a visa for Nurul Islam and subsequently for the accused and $20 was the administrative fee. Neither Nurul nor Baskar received a visa to enable them to come to Singapore. Since the accused had paid $20 for administrative fee and $800 for the outstanding handphone bill incurred on behalf of Baskar, he was accountable for the balance $5000 entrusted to him by Baskar. Instead he dishonestly converted for his own use.

11 The accused got his wife, Hanan (“Hanan”) to apply for the visa of Nurul. He submitted two visa applications at SIR on 15^th October 2001 and 25^th February 2002. In both the application forms, Hanan stated that Nurul was a ‘ family friend’ after a discussion with the accused. She had never met Nurul nor was he a friend of the accused. Hence it was the accused, who abetted with his wife, Hanan, by instigating her to make a false declaration in the two visa application forms.

Baskar Khan(“Baskar”)(PW1)

12 Baskar Khan (“Baskar”), the Complainant, is a Bangladeshi who first came to Singapore on 13 Septemnber 1998 as an illegal immigrant. He was charged for illegal entry on 13^th October 1998 and released on 5^th Febraury 1999. He became an informant for ASP Bakurdeen in March 1999. From 13^th October 1998 to November 2001, one Sharon Teo of Central Police Station where Bakurdeen was attached, issued Baskar with a special pass. Bakurdeen also gave him a hand phone for his use in 1999 and paid him for his services. In addition, Baskar worked as a table cleaner, earning about $1,000 per month.

13 On 30^th September 2002, he wrote a letter of complaint to the CPIB that the accused had cheated him of S$6000. An investigation into the matter, led to the present charges being preferred against the accused. Baskar first met the accused in early 1999 when he reported that a fellow Bangladeshi in Takashimaya Shopping Centre assaulted him. The accused was one of the police officers, who interviewed him at Tanglin Police Station. In the course of his investigation, the accused learnt that Baskar was a police informant, working for one ASP Bakurdeen of Central Police Station from 1999 to 2001. (Subsequently Baskar worked as an informant for another police officer, “Mike” when Bakurdeen was interdicted. Baskar did not reveal this to the accused). After the interview, the accused gave Baskar his office telephone and pager numbers to enable Bbaskar to inform him of any offences being committed in Serangoon Road area. Baskar was reluctant as he was already on the payroll of Bakurdeen. However he did give information to the accused off and on. Baskar also introduced to the accused other Bangladeshi nationals, Shamin and subsequently Ramzan, to be his informants. They were rejected by the accused. Baskar, then proposed his cousin, Nurul Islam (“Nurul”) to be the accused’s informant. He was in Bangladesh. The accused agreed and instructed him to obtain a photocopy of Nurul’s passport, two passport photographs and a blank visa form from the Singapore High Commission in Bangladesh, duly signed.

14 When Baskar received the documents from Nurul, he called the accused, sometime in mid-June/July 2001 and they agreed to meet at the basement of Women’s Tower, KK Hospital. At that time, Tanglin Police station had shifted into its new premises at...