Public Prosecutor v Tan Poh Heng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 07 December 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 283
• Date: 07 December 1994
• Subject Matter: Whether inadequate,Sentencing,Illegal moneylending,Illegal money-lending,Imposition of fine only,Credit and Security,Money and moneylenders,Penalties,Harassment of wife of debtor,s 33(1) Moneylenders Act (Cap 188),Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 147 of 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Mahendran s/o Mylvaganam (Mahen & Associates)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lau Wing Yum (Deputy Public Prosecutor)

The respondent in this case faced two charges under the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188) (the Act) in the subordinate courts. The first charge, brought under s 33(1) of the Act, alleged that he had, sometime in the month of December 1993 at Blk 185 Boon Lay Drive #11-144 Singapore, acted `as a moneylender to harass one Maimah bte Wahab [the complainant], to wit, by knocking the door of the said flat and making telephone calls asking for Mohamed Amin bin Buang, the husband of Maimah bte Wahab to pay his debt.` The second charge, brought under s 8 of the Act, alleged that the respondent had, sometime in the month of October 1993 at Keppel Golf Club, Bukit Chermin Drive, Singapore, carried on a moneylending business without holding a licence to carry on such a business.

The respondent initially claimed trial to both charges but subsequently elected to plead guilty after the close of the prosecution case. Having heard the plea of mitigation made by defence counsel and having also considered the prosecution`s submissions in favour of a deterrent sentence, the district judge imposed on the respondent a fine of $8,000 (in default four months` imprisonment) in respect of the charge under s 33(1) and another fine of $4,000 (in default two months` imprisonment) in respect of the charge under s 8. This appeal was brought by the prosecution against the sentence imposed in respect of the first charge.

The main thrust of the prosecution`s arguments on appeal centred on the need to safeguard the public interest, which aim, so the deputy public prosecutor submitted, had not been accorded adequate consideration in the court below. He pointed out that between 1991 and 1992, there had been a drastic increase of over 100% in the number of offences committed under the Moneylenders Act. In 1993, amendments were made to the Moneylenders Act which stipulated, inter alia, enhanced punishment for various offences under the Act. These included offences created by ss 8 and 33 of the Act, the provisions under which the respondent was charged in the present case. These amendments indicated, in the deputy public prosecutor`s submissions, the stern attitude of the legislature towards the rising number of illegal moneylenders whose rapacity garnered profits out of the unhappy needs of other citizens.

Counsel for the respondent countered by pointing out that the amended s 33(1) gave the courts a certain latitude in terms of the punishment it was open to them to mete out. In itself,...