Public Prosecutor v Shu How Huat

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Roy Grenville Neighbour
• Judgment Date: 29 September 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGDC 325
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC No 11083 of 2011 & Ors
• Year: 2011
• Published date: 04 October 2011
• Hearing Date: 29 July 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Thiagesh Sukumaran., Assistant Public Prosecutor
• Defendant Counsel: Appellant in Person
• Citation: [2011] SGDC 325

District Judge Roy Grenville Neighbour:

The appellant stood charged on 57 counts for assisting in an unlicensed moneylending business as defined by section 5(1) of the Moneylenders Act (“MLA”) which is an offence punishable under section 14(1)(b)(i) read with sections 14(1A)(a) and 14(3A)(b) of the said Act. At the commencement of the hearing the appellant pleaded guilty to 18 charges and upon conviction gave his consent for the remaining charges to be taken into consideration in sentencing.

With regard to the proceeded charges, the offences are similar with the qualification that the unlicensed moneylending activities differ. All the offences were committed on diverse occasions during a period of 3 months from January 2011 to March 2011. In the charges the appellant is alleged to have assisted one “James” in the carrying on of an unlicensed moneylending business by engaging in various activities in connection with the illicit business namely, handing over and collecting ATM cards to other runners of the moneylending business, depositing and transferring monies into bank accounts, conducting electronic fund transfers and handing loans to borrowers.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the appellant was found guilty and convicted on the proceeded charges. On each charge the appellant was sentenced to 2 months imprisonment and fined $30,000 in default 2 months’ imprisonment. The sentences in 4 charges were ordered to run consecutively. In total, the appellant is sentenced to serve 8 months’ imprisonment and fined $540,000 in default 36 months’ imprisonment. Dissatisfied, the appellant lodged this appeal on grounds that the sentences are manifestly excessive.

FACTS

The facts are that on 30 Mar ‘11 at about 7.45 pm at the ground floor of Block 109 Toa Payoh Lorong 1, the appellant was arrested by the police. At the time of his arrest, the appellant was in possession of S$760 in cash, two POSB ATM Cards and a POSB MasterCard belonging to one Hong Jingkai. The items were seized.

That same day, after the arrest, the appellant’s residence was searched. From the appellant’s room a POSB ATM Card, a UOB ATM Card, two stacks of name cards in the name of “C&G Finance Company” and some bank receipts were seized.

Police investigations revealed that sometime on Sep ‘10, the appellant realized that he needed more money so that he could get married and further his studies. The appellant then contacted a casual friend who introduced one “James” to him. “James” offered the appellant a job at a monthly salary of S$1,200 to distribute name card of C&G Finance Company. The appellant was informed to distribute the name cards in the vicinity of the Singapore Turf Club on race days. He was also to distribute the cards at HDB blocks and HDB multi-storey car parks. The appellant agreed and arrangements were made for him to collect the name cards. Upon receipt of the cards, though his suspicions were aroused that the cards may be related to an unlicensed moneylending business, the appellant chose not to probe any further and accepted the job.

Sometime in mid Oct ‘10, the appellant started distributing the name cards at HDB blocks and multi-storey car parks. On race days namely, Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays, the appellant would station himself in the vicinity of Singapore Turf Club and distribute the name cards. The appellant distributed the name cards till January ‘11.

Sometime in Jan ‘11, “James” asked the appellant if he wanted to earn more money by carrying out banking transactions on his instructions using Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Cards. When the appellant inquired about the details of the banking transactions, the appellant was told that they involved illegal loan-shark money. “James” then offered to increase the appellant’s monthly salary to S$1,800. By then, the appellant was aware that the name cards he distributed earlier related to an illegal moneylending business. Despite knowing this, the appellant choose to accept the offer and continued to work for “James”.

From then on, the appellant received daily instructions from “James” and carried out the banking transactions accordingly. Accordingly, when directed by “James”, the appellant would perform the following tasks, namely; Collecting ATM Cards from various individuals; Handing over ATM Cards to various individuals; Checking the balances of the accounts with the ATM Cards in his possession; Transferring funds from one account to another; Handing over cash to various individual borrowers and runners; and Withdrawing funds from and depositing funds into designated accounts;

Facts relating to 2nd 3rd, 4th 5th 6th charges

The facts relating to the 2nd to 6th charges are that police investigations revealed that on several occasions between Jan ‘11 and Mar ‘11, the appellant met James’s runners namely, one Toh Kai Boon (“Toh”), See Kwong Kiat (“See”), Ching Wah Seng (“Ching”), Hong Jingkai (Hong”) and either handed to or collected from them ATM cards to perform monetary transactions. During the said period, the appellant handed Toh 5 ATM cards comprising two UOB ATM cards bearing nos. 5226299.4 and 5204046.0, one DBS ATM card no. P24124999, one POSB Mastercard no. 5548274032576042 and one POSB ATM card no. 2466397.2.

On 20 Mar ‘11, along Upper Serangoon Road, outside Kovan MRT station the appellant handed to See 2 ATM cards comprising one UOB ATM card bearing no. 5081165.6 and one POSB ATM card bearing no. 4058807.0.

On 27 Mar ‘11, at Northpoint Shopping Centre, along Yishun Central the appellant collected one UOB ATM card no. 5081165.6 and one POSB ATM card no. 4058807.0 from Ching. Subsequently, the appellant also used the ATM cards collected from Ching to perform electronic monetary transactions for “James” in respect of the unlicensed moneylending business.

Sometime in Mar ‘11, along Sims Avenue, outside Kallang MRT Station the appellant collected one POSB Bank ATM card no. 5264 7103 1297 5687 from Hong. The appellant subsequently used this ATM card and performed electronic monetary transactions for “James” in respect of the unlicensed moneylending business

During the same period too, the appellant met one Azlinda Binte Mohd Ali (“Azlinda’) along Battery Road outside Raffles MRT Station and collected one UOB Bank ATM card no. 5204046.0 from her. The appellant then handed over the said card to another unknown runner. The said card was subsequently used to perform electronic monetary transactions for “James” in connection with the unlicensed moneylending business.

The appellant knew that the ATM Cards he handed over to Toh, See and the unknown runner would be used by them to perform electronic monetary transactions for “James”. By executing the monetary transactions for “James” in the unlicensed moneylending business, handing over ATM cards to Toh, See and unknown runners, and collecting ATM cards from Ching and Azlinda, the appellant had assisted “James” in carrying on of the unlicensed moneylending business.

Facts relating to 10th 11th, 12th 13th, 14th Charges

Investigations revealed that with regard to the 10th to 14th charges, on several occasions...