Public Prosecutor v Sriram s/o Seevalingam @ Rafa El-Fadzli
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Melissa Tan |
Judgment Date | 22 October 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGDC 235 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | District Arrest Case No 931281 of 2019 and 14 Others, Magistrate’s Appeal No MA-9215-2021-01 |
Year | 2021 |
Published date | 29 October 2021 |
Hearing Date | 24 September 2021,30 August 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Dhiraj G Chainani (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Defendant Counsel | Lulla Ammar Khan (Cairnhill Law LLC) |
Subject Matter | Offences,Property,Cheating,Credit Card Cheating,Theft,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing |
Citation | [2021] SGDC 235 |
The Accused is a 32-year-old male Singaporean. He pleaded guilty to four counts of cheating by personation under s 419 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”) and one count of theft in dwelling under s 380 of the Penal Code. He admitted to and consented for the remaining ten charges to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing (“TIC charges”). The TIC charges comprise:
The Accused was sentenced to a total of 12 months’ and one week’s imprisonment. The individual sentences imposed are as follows:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
The Accused has filed an appeal against the sentence imposed. A stay of execution of the sentence was granted. The Accused is currently on bail pending the appeal.
The charges The cheating by personation charges were similarly framed, save for details relating to the time and place of the offence, credit cards involved, and the amount cheated. For reference, I have reproduced DAC-931281-2019 in full:
For ease of reference, the following table summarises the key details of all the proceeded cheating by personation charges:
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
The theft in dwelling charge states as follows:
The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts without qualification. The salient facts are summarised below.
Facts relating to the cheating by personation offencesBetween May 2019 and October 2019, the Accused misappropriated credit cards and used them on various occasions to purchase alcohol at three establishments.
Facts relating to DAC-933435-2019, DAC-933436-2019 and DAC-933438-2019On 17 May 2019, the Accused was working at Bushido Tapas Bar SG. At around 10pm, the Accused exited the restaurant to smoke at an area at 8 Marina Boulevard when he found TSH’s Credit Card on the pavement beside him. He picked up TSH’s Credit Card and kept it in his pocket.
Sometime in the same evening, the Accused proceeded to Clarke Quay to consume alcohol with some friends. The Accused used TSH’s Credit Card to carry out the following transactions:
On each occasion, the Accused intended to deceive the respective staff into believing that he was the rightful owner of TSH’s Credit Card when he knew that he was not. The Accused then signed on the charge slip that the staff presented to him. As a result, damage in property was caused to Highlander Bar and PONG, namely, the bottles of alcohol.
Facts relating to DAC-931281-2019On 2 October 2019, one Romeril David Robert (“Romeril”) and his friend visited Chimichanga Little India (“Chimichanga”) where the Accused was working. The Accused joined Romeril and his friend for drinks. Subsequently, Romeril and his friend left Chimichanga to visit bars at Orchard Towers. When the Accused’s shift at Chimichanga ended, he went to Orchard Towers and once again met Romeril and his friend.
Sometime between 12.00am and 1.30am on 3 October 2019, Romeril discovered that his wallet was missing. His wallet contained,
Subsequently, the Accused proceeded to The Beacon, which is an entity under the larger group, Baliza Singapore. At about 2.29am, the Accused presented RDR’s Credit Card to the staff of The Beacon as payment for three bottles of Belvedere three-litre vodka alcohol costing $2,950. He presented RDR’s Credit Card, intending to deceive the staff of The Beacon into believing that he was the rightful owner of RDR’s Credit Card when he knew that he was not. The Accused then signed on the charge slip that the staff presented to him. As a result, damage in property was caused to The Beacon, namely, the three bottles of alcohol costing $2,950.
By the said manner of deception, the Accused dishonestly induced the staff of Highlander Bar, PONG and The Beacon to accept the credit cards as payment for the alcohol. The said staff would not have done so had they not been so deceived.
During his visit at The Beacon on 3 October 2019, the Accused consumed one bottle of alcohol costing approximately $938.33. The remaining two bottles were unopened and kept by the staff of The Beacon under the Accused’s name for his future use.
Following the discovery of the offences, the Accused made restitution of $400, which was meant to serve as restitution for the following:
On 23 March 2019, the Accused met with a friend, one Kumaran s/o Rajaretnam (“Kumar”), at the Singapore Petroleum Company petrol station located at 91 Jurong East Avenue 1, Singapore (“SPC Jurong East”). They had arranged to drink alcohol together.
While Kumar went to the toilet, the Accused entered the convenience store at SPC Jurong East, which is a building used for custody of property. The Accused took one bottle of 750ml sterling sparkling white wine valued at $40.00 (“wine bottle”) to another section of the convenience store and placed it inside the tote bag that he was carrying, intending to dishonestly take the wine bottle out of the convenience store without paying for it. Thereafter, the Accused roamed around the convenience store and picked up two bottles of mineral water from a refrigerator.
When Kumar entered the convenience store, the Accused passed the two bottles of mineral water to him to make payment. The Accused did not inform Kumar that he had taken the wine bottle. They left the store after Kumar paid for the two bottles of mineral water.
The Accused intended to take dishonestly the wine bottle out of possession of SPC Jurong East by placing it inside his tote bag and exiting the convenience store without paying for it. He did not have any consent to do so.
The wine bottle was later recovered by the police when they arrested the Accused. The police returned the wine bottle to SPC Jurong East.
Sentencing An...To continue reading
Request your trial