Public Prosecutor v Pek Chai Chuan Aloysius
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Lim Tse Haw |
Judgment Date | 08 January 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGDC 2 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | DAC 909994/2014 |
Published date | 09 January 2015 |
Year | 2015 |
Hearing Date | 16 October 2014,18 December 2014 |
Plaintiff Counsel | DPP Ang Siok Chen |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Louis Joseph |
Citation | [2015] SGDC 2 |
The Accused, Pek Chai Chuan Aloysius (male of 30 years of age), a Singapore Citizen, pleaded guilty before me to one (1) amended charge of criminal breach of trust of a 5.01 carat diamond valued at $86,000 sometime in September 2013, an offence under s 406 of the Penal Code. He also consented to one other charge of removing the said diamond from the jurisdiction of Singapore, an offence under section 47(1)(b) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscations of Benefits) Act (Cap. 65A, 2000 Rev. Ed.)("CDSA") to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.
Having considered all relevant sentencing factors, I sentenced the Accused to an imprisonment term of
Being dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, the Accused has appealed against the same.
FACTS PERTAINING TO DAC 909994/2014The Complainant was one Wu Ze Hui Justin, male of 30 years old. He was a director of Kimberly Pte Ltd located at 317, Outram Road #02-74, Holiday Inn Atrium, Singapore (the "Company"). The Company was in the wholesale and retail business of dealing in diamonds.
At the material time of the offence, the Accused was the business development manager of the Company and handled the sales of diamonds.
On 6 May 2014 at about 5:30pm, the Complainant called the Police stating that he had “discovered that one of the diamond ring has been stolen from my shop. There is CCTV here”. Pursuant to that, officers from the Bukit Timah Neighbourhood Police Centre were dispatched to the Company premises.
Investigations revealed that sometime in September 2013, the Accused informed the Complainant that he needed to show a potential buyer a 5.01 carat diamond ring from the Company. The Complainant agreed and allowed the Accused to do so by entrusting the said diamond ring with the Accused.
The Accused then took the said diamond ring to a jeweller located at Block 1093 Lower Delta Road #03-19, Singapore where the said jeweller replaced the said 5.01 carat diamond ("the Diamond") on the ring with a synthetic diamond. Thereafter, the Accused returned the ring, now casted with the synthetic diamond, to the Company.
On or about 27 September 2013, the Accused dishonestly misappropriated the Diamond by bringing the Diamond, valued at S$86,000 to Bangkok, Thailand. The Accused claimed that he sold the Diamond to a Thai buyer at S$55,000. He further claimed that he had used the said proceeds of S$55,000 for his personal and family expenses.
The Accused had since made full restitution of S$86,000 to the Company.
ANTECEDENTThe Accused was a first offender.
MITIGATIONIn a mitigation plea1 tendered by his counsel, the Accused said that he was in dire financial straits as he had incurred "tremendous costs" when his wife gave birth to their son as they needed to pay for his "medical fees" and had to employ a domestic worker to take care of their son.2 However, a perusal of the supporting documents enclosed in Annex A of the plea in mitigation would show that the expenses incurred were ordinary and routine expenses associated with child birth. There were also no documents tendered to show that the Accused's son was suffering from any medical conditions which caused the Accused to incur "tremendous costs".
The Accused also said that he had made full restitution to the Company and the Company had since forgiven him. Various testimonials were also enclosed3 on the Accused's contributions as a bowling coach.
The Accused was remorseful and had fully cooperated with the police. As the Accused was a first offender, Counsel for the Accused pleaded for a lenient sentence.
PROSECUTION’S SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCE The Prosecution submitted for an imprisonment term of 6 to 9 months based on the following aggravating factors:
The Prosecution also tendered a table of sentences4 for s. 406 offence in support of its submissions on sentence as follows:
| | |
| |
To continue reading
Request your trial