Public Prosecutor v Muthukumaran Ramaiyan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Marvin Bay
• Judgment Date: 20 August 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 330
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 28 November 2013,08 November 2013,30 August 2013,29 November 2013,07 November 2013,24 March 2013,26 November 2013,27 November 2013,27 January 2014
• Docket Number: DAC 39907/2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Nicholas Seng
• Defendant Counsel: Selva Naidu (Liberty Law LLC)
• Published date: 25 August 2014

District Judge Marvin Bay: The Charge

The Accused, Mr Muthukumaran Ramaiyan (Muthukumaran), a director and manager of Delight Trading Company Pte Ltd, faced a single charge of criminal misappropriation as an agent under section 409 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”). The charge, DAC 39907/2012, reads: You, : Muthukumaran Ramaiyan : [XXX] : M/48 years old : 20 April 1964 : Singaporean are charged that you, between 6 March 2012 and 18 July 2012, in Singapore, being entrusted with dominion over $24,000/- belonging to Delight Trading Company Pte Ltd (“the Company”), in the way of your business as an agent, to wit, as a Director of the said Company, did dishonestly misappropriate the said property, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224.

The specific details of the charge involve Muthukumaran withdrawing a sum of $24000 without authorisation from his superior officers in the Bangkok Office. The company was wholly owned by Kamol Pitchitsingh, who is also a director and CEO of group of companies called the Lucky Group. Muthukumaran was hired in 2010 by Lucky Group Chief Financial Officer Somasundaram¹ (‘Soma’).

Muthukumaran had been the local resident director for 2 years from 15 July to 2010 to 23 July 2012 of Delight Trading Company Pte Ltd (Delight), a company incorporated in Singapore. It was essentially a trading company. Its registered principal activities were general wholesale trade and wholesale on a fee or contract basis.

Delight, in turn, was essentially owned by a Kamol Phichitsingh (‘Kamol’) a Thai national. He owned the entire share capital of the Company. Kamol had been a director of Delight since its incorporation in 2007². Kamol was also the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of a group of companies called the Lucky Group, a group of companies in the business of, inter alia, textile manufacturing and trading whose management is based in Bangkok, Thailand.

Delight was set up in 2007 to facilitate the operations of the Lucky Group. The Lucky Group traded through Delight and using its situation in Singapore to tap on credit facilities granted by the Singapore Branch of the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) to Delight.

The Chief Financial Officer of the Lucky Group was one Somasundaram (Soma), an Indian national who resides in Bangkok, Thailand. Soma managed all the finances and accounts in the Lucky Group, including Delight³. Soma interviewed and hired Muthukumaran in 2010. The accused was his subordinate and required to send regular reports of Delight’s transactions and accounts to him regularly. Muthukumaran was paid a salary of $4500 when first hired as a manager in March 2010⁴. He was not paid any director’s fees. He was also given the authority to sign cheques drawn on the company’s IOB account up to the sum of $5000 per cheque⁵.

This case is simplified by parties proceeding on the basis of an agreed statement of fact. While I would not otherwise reproduce a large tract of the agreed statement, the contents of the passage below are relevant to show the accused’ modus operandi, the procedural steps taken for documentation, as well as the fact that they involved within this period no fewer than three different members of Delight staff. It should also be noted that payment vouchers were created in each instance. In some instances, the monies withdrawn, in others, the staff member concerned would encash the cheque and hand the amount to him. The statement of fact sets out the undisputed factual matrix, Para [15] to [24] of PS-1 set out the agreed facts on the circumstances of his withdrawal;

15. The Accused was given the authority to sign cheques drawing on the company’s IOB account for a sum of up to $5000 per cheque. This authority was given to him to meet the day to day expenses of the company and pay staff salaries (including his salary as manager).

16. On or about 6 March 2012, acting on the instructions of the Accused, Hameed prepared a payment voucher dated 6 March 2012 for payment of director’s fees amounting to $3000 for the months of January to February 2012. The payment voucher was approved and signed by the Accused. … Acting on the instructions of the Accused, (Delight Accounts Executive, Shaik Alaudden Hameed Maralkayar:‘Hameed’)⁶ prepared an IOB crossed cheque, drawn on the Company’s IOB account, bearing cheque number 057057 dated 6 March 2012 for the sum of $3000, payable to the Accused. The cheque was signed by the Accused. The cheque was subsequently cleared by IOB and a sum of $3000 was credited to the Accused’s personal bank account.

17. On or about 28 March 2012, acting on the instructions of the Accused, Hameed prepared a payment voucher dated 28 March 2012 for payment of director’s fees amounting to $1500 for the month of March 2012. The payment voucher was approved and signed by the Accused. … Acting on the instructions of the Accused Hameed prepared an IOB crossed cheque, drawn on the Company’s IOB account, bearing cheque number 057093 dated 28 March 2012 for the sum of $1500, payable to the Accused. The cheque was signed by the Accused. The cheque was subsequently cleared by IOB and a sum of $1500 was credited to the Accused personal bank account.

18. On or about 26 April 2012, acting on the instructions of the Accused, (Delight Account Executive Ramasamy Selarani: ‘Rani)⁷ prepared a payment voucher dated 26 April 2012 for payment of director’s fees amounting to $1500 for the month of April 2012. The payment voucher was approved and signed by the Accused. … Acting on the instructions of the Accused Rani prepared an IOB crossed cheque, drawn on the Company’s IOB account, bearing cheque number 062178 dated 26 April 2012 for the sum of $1500, payable to the Accused. The cheque was signed by the Accused. The cheque was subsequently cleared by IOB and a sum of $1500 was credited to the Accused’s personal bank account.

19. On or about 15 May 2012, acting on the instructions of the Accused, Rani prepared a payment voucher dated 15 May 2012 for payment of director’s fees amounting to $5000 under the accrual account. The payment voucher was approved and signed by the Accused. … Acting on the instructions of the Accused Rani prepared an IOB crossed cheque, drawn on the Company’s IOB account, bearing cheque number 062196 dated 15 May 2012 for the sum of $5000, payable to the Accused. The cheque was signed by the Accused. The cheque was subsequently cleared by IOB and a sum of $5000 was credited to the Accused’s personal bank account.

20. On or about 21 May 2012, acting on the instructions of the Accused, Rani prepared a payment voucher dated 21 May 2012 for payment of director’s fees amounting to $5000 under the accrual account. The payment voucher was approved and signed by the Accused. … Acting on the instructions of the Accused Rani prepared an IOB crossed cheque, drawn on the Company’s IOB account, bearing cheque number 0625256 dated 21 May 2012 for the sum of $5000, payable to the Accused. The cheque was signed by the Accused. The cheque was given to Rani who subsequently encashed it and passed the sum of $5000 to the Accused.

21. On or about 31 May 2012, acting on the instructions of the Accused, Rani prepared a payment voucher dated 31 May 2012 for payment of director’s fees amounting to $1500 for the month of May 2012. The payment voucher was approved and signed by the Accused. … Acting on the instructions of the Accused Rani prepared an IOB crossed cheque, drawn on the Company’s IOB account, bearing cheque number 065271 dated 31 May 2012 for the sum of $1500, payable to the Accused. The cheque was signed by the Accused. The cheque was subsequently cleared by IOB and a sum of $1500 was credited to the Accused’s personal bank account.

22. On or about 26 June 2012, acting on the instructions of the Accused, (Delight Accounts Executive Mohammed Yazar Arafat Abbas Manthiri: ‘Ýazar’) prepared a payment voucher dated 26 June 2012 for payment of director’s fees amounting to $1500 for the month of June 2012. The payment voucher was approved and signed by the Accused. … Acting on the instructions of the Accused Yazar prepared an crossed IOB crossed cheque, drawn on the Company’s IOB account, bearing cheque number 065296 dated 26 June 2012 for the sum of $1500, payable to the Accused. The cheque was signed by the Accused. The cheque was subsequently cleared by IOB and a sum of $1500 was credited to the Accused’s personal bank account.

23. On or about 18 July 2012, acting on the instructions of the Accused, Rani prepared a payment voucher dated 18 July 2012 for payment of director’s fees amounting to $5000 under the accrual account. The payment voucher was approved and signed by the Accused. … Acting on the instructions of the Accused Rani prepared an IOB crossed cheque, drawn on the Company’s IOB account, bearing cheque number 069823 dated 18 July 2012 for the sum of $5000, payable to the Accused. The cheque was signed by the Accused. Acting on the accused’s instructions, Yazar encashed the said cheque and passed the $5000 to the Accused.

24. Between 6 March 2012 and 18 July 2012, the accused authorised 8 payments, amounting to $8000 to himself from the Company’s IOB account as payment for his director fees. The accused used the said sum for his family expenses… [Emphasis in the original].

There is no dispute that the accused paid himself the sum of $24 000 over a period of three months in 2012 from the stated IOB account. He owned no shares in the company but purported these to be director’s fees. Essentially, there is common ground that there is no written resolution for the accused to be paid director’s fees. There is also no dispute that Muthukumaran asked to be paid director’s fees after he was appointed a director. There is no dispute that there was only a single proven instance where the accused has made a specific request for...