Public Prosecutor v Tan Hui Peng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Ng Peng Hong
• Judgment Date: 29 October 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGDC 302
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC-912664-2015 & Ors
• Published date: 06 November 2015
• Year: 2015
• Hearing Date: 15 October 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutor Ms Chew Xin Ying
• Defendant Counsel: Defence Counsel Mr Tan Hee Joek
• Citation: [2015] SGDC 302

District Judge Ng Peng Hong:

The Accused was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of 24 weeks. The Prosecution is appealing against the said sentence.

The Accused pleaded guilty to 5 charges under section 465 of the Penal Code (DAC Nos. 912664-912665, 912667-912669 of 2015) for simple forgery. She agreed to the remaining 10 charges under section 465 and 406 of the Penal Code to be taken into account for the purposes of sentencing.

As the proceeded charges were similar except for the amount, the name of the bank and the date, I would therefore set out for this appeal only one charge for ease of reference :

You…..are charged that you, on or before the 17th day of April 2011, in Singapore, did forge a document, to wit, a Nordea Bank Finland Plc (“ Nordea”) cheque, bearing cheque number 182554,for an amount of S$5,772.21/-drawn on Nordea account number [XXX], by dishonestly making a part of the cheque with the intention of causing it to be believed that the cheque was executed by the authorized signatory, by whom you knew it was not executed, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 465 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). See DAC 912664/2015.

The amount in each of the proceeded charges ranged from $3059.13 to $10,000.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Accused admitted to the following Statement of Facts tendered by the Prosecution:

“A INTRODUCTION

1. The accused is Tan Hui Peng, Female / 34 years old, bearing NRIC number [XXX], Singapore citizen. At the material time, the accused worked as an office manager with Vogt & Wiig Service Pte Ltd, which office was located at 1 North Bridge Road, #06-26, High Street Centre, Singapore (“VNW”). VNW is a foreign law firm. 2. The complainant is one Thomas Alexander Dale, Male / 37 years old. At the material time, the complainant was a director of VNW.

B FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

3. On 4 April 2012, at or about 10:53 a.m., the complainant lodged a Police report (bearing report number A/20120404/2034) at Bukit Merah East NPC. The complainant reported that the accused was suspected of forging cheques and misappropriating company monies. The incident location was given as VNW’s office.

C FACTS PERTAINING TO DAC 912664-2015

4. On or before 17 April 2011, the accused submitted a false claim using a hotel invoice reflecting a total sum of S$5,772.21/- for a hotel stay by a visiting foreign lawyer (at “the Hotel”). The foreign lawyer had initially paid for his hotel expenses (as indicated in the said invoice) with his credit card, then subsequently obtained his reimbursement from VNW. 5. When the accused received the hotel bill from the Hotel, the accused prepared a payment voucher to be paid to the Hotel. The accused then forged the signature of one Christian Ellingsen (“Ellingsen”), another director of VNW, on the said voucher to make it seem like the hotel stay had been approved by him. The accused then showed this signed payment voucher to the complainant and lied to the complainant that the Hotel had not been paid. 6. Upon seeing the purportedly approved hotel bill, the complainant handed the accused a blank company cheque (bearing cheque number 182554) issued by Nordea Bank Finland Plc (“Nordea”), which had been pre-signed by himself, for the purpose of paying $5,772.21 to the Hotel. 7. The accused then dishonestly:- a. Use a franking machine to insert the sum of S$5,772.21/-into the amount field of the cheque; and b. Write her name into the payee’s name field of the cheque. 8. Thereafter, the accused deposited the said cheque into her own POSB savings account and kept the money for herself.

D FACTS PERTAINING TO DAC 912665-2015

9. On or before 30 May 2011, the complainant used VNW’s company credit card to pay for his medical expenses. The complainant then handed the accused a blank, uncrossed cheque (bearing cheque number 626993) issued by the Development Bank of Singapore (“DBS”) in his own name. The complainant directed the accused to issue the said cheque for an amount of S$3,059.13/- and make the said cheque payable to VNW’s company account, for the purpose of reimbursing VNW for his medical expenses. 10. The accused used a franking machine to insert the sum of S$3,059.13/- into the amount field of the cheque and hand the cheque back to the complainant for him to sign. After the complainant had signed the said cheque, the accused instead of writing VNW’s company name into the payee’s name field of the cheque, wrote the word“cash” in the said field. 11. The accused encashed the said cheque and kept the money for herself.

E FACTS PERTAINING TO DAC 912667-2015 and DAC 912669-2015

12. On or before 17 August 2011, Ellingsen entrusted the accused with several pre-signed, blank, uncrossed DBS cheques which were meant to clear his bills while he was not in Singapore. 13. The accused then took two cheques (bearing serial numbers 474776 and 474777 respectively) and dishonestly:- a. Use a franking machine to insert the sums of S$6,000/-and S$10,000/-into the amount field of each cheque, respectively; and b. Write the word “cash” into the payee’s name field of each cheque. 14. Thereafter, the accused encashed the said cheques and kept the money for herself.

F FACTS PERTAINING TO DAC 912668-2015

15. On or before 23rd August 2011, Ellingsen entrusted the accused with several presigned, blank, uncrossed DBS cheques which were meant to clear his bills while he was not in Singapore. 16. The accused then took one cheque (bearing serial number 474775) and dishonestly: -a. Use a franking machine to insert the sum of S$3,059.13/-into the amount field of the cheque; and b. Write VNW’s company name into the payee’s name field of each cheque. 17. Thereafter, the accused deposited the said cheque into VNW’s company account. By doing so, the accused intended to cover up her fraud in relation to the outstanding reimbursement to VNW in DAC 912665-2015. 18. Prior to the accused committing the acts in relation to DAC 912668-2015, she had already been questioned by the complainant in respect of his outstanding reimbursement to VNW for his medical expenses. Nevertheless, the accused went ahead to commit the acts stated in paragraphs 15-17 above.

G CONCLUSION

19. By virtue of the foregoing, the accused had forged five documents by dishonestly making a part of each cheque with the intention of causing it to be believed that the cheque was executed by the authorized signatory, by whom she knew it was not executed. She has thereby committed five counts of an offence punishable under Section 465 of the Penal Code (Cap 224), and is charged accordingly. 20. The accused dishonestly gained a total sum of S$37,385.54/-.The accused has made full restitution.” MITIGATION PLEA

In the mitigation plea counsel set out the background facts of the Accused as follows. The Accused’s highest educational level was a Diploma in Business Management. Her current monthly salary was about $3,400. She was a single mother with a 7-month old baby daughter. Both were living with her aged retired mother at a 3-room HDB flat. Her mother was 61 years old and in poor health suffering from blurred vision and insomnia. Her father passed away from cancer when the Accused was only 7 years old.

REASONS FOR COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCES

At the material time between the commission of the offence in 2010 and 2011, the Accused was employed by Vogt & Wiig Services Pte Ltd as a personal assistant. She and her ex-boyfriend incurred several credit card debts....