Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Hock Johnny

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Marvin Bay
• Judgment Date: 30 January 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 50
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC No 45976/2013
• Published date: 25 February 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 30 January 2014,13 January 2014,20 January 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: DPP Daniel Marini
• Defendant Counsel: Accused in Person
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 50

District Judge Marvin Bay:

The accused pleaded guilty before me to the following charge:-

DAC 45976/2013¹

“You, TAN CHENG HOCK JOHNNY, MALE / 55 YEARS OLD NRIC No: XXX DOB: 8 JUNE 1958 NATIONALITY: SINGAPOREAN are charged that you, sometime in August 2012, in Singapore, in connection with loans taken from a group of unknown unlicensed moneylenders, did give contact information which you knew to be false to the said group of unknown unlicensed moneylenders, to wit, the address of Block 534 Bedok North Street 3 #09-824 Singapore, when you had reasonable cause to believe that the said group of unlicensed moneylenders or persons acting on the moneylenders’ behalf will use the said contact information for the purpose of committing an offence under section 28(1) or (2) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) against the occupant residing at the said address namely, one Chong Kim Fah, and further that on 20 October 2012, the said group of unknown unlicensed moneylenders or persons acting on the moneylenders’ behalf used the said contact information for the purpose of committing an offence under section 28(1) or (2) of the said act, to wit, by writing ‘9-824 98976603’ on the wall of the 9th, 10th and 11th floor staircase landing at the said address using an indelible blue marker , and splashing blue paint on the door and gate at the said address, and you have thereby committed an offence under s 28C(1)(b) punishable under s28C(2) of the said Act’

This was the single charge proceeded with no other charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

After hearing Mr Johnny Tan’s mitigation plea and the prosecution’s address on sentence, I carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case, and sentenced him to 4 months’ imprisonment.

The defence is dissatisfied with the sentence imposed, and now appeals against it. He is presently serving sentence.

FACTS OF THE CASE

These are the facts of the case as gleaned from the Statement of Facts². The accused, Tan Cheng Hock Johnny, is a 55 year old male Singaporean, the complainant, Chong Kim Fah, age 66, resides at Block 534 Bedok North Street 3 #09-824 (hereinafter: ‘Block 534 Bedok North’), and has been staying at the address for 10 years. He rented a room to the accused in early 2012. The unit was subsequently affected by harassment activities from unlicensed moneylenders. These included writings to the wall which made reference to the accused. It transpired that the accused had borrowed some $5000 from 4 to 5 different moneylenders. The complainant told the accused to move out, and the accused moved out ‘sometime in July 2012’.

After moving out in July 2012, the accused moved to a halfway house, but did not report his change of address. Sometime in August 2012, he continued to borrow further sums from a group of 4 to 5 unlicensed moneylenders giving the address at Block 534 Bedok North as his residence, despite having moved out.

The accused would meet up with runners working for unlicensed moneylenders and hand them his NRIC which reflected his place of residence as Block 534 Bedok North address. Alternatively, he would verbally inform other unlicensed moneylenders that he resided at the said address, upon which the loans would be extended to him.

He admitted without qualification that he knew the contact information he provided as to his address was false, and also that he would have reasonable cause to believe that the address provided would be consequently liable to harassment activities by the unlicensed moneylenders, if he defaulted in his payments.

The block was subsequently struck on two separate occasions. The first was on the evening of 20 October 2012, when a group of unlicensed moneylenders or persons acting on their behalf did use the address for the purpose of committing acts of harassment against the complainant and occupants of the premises by writing ‘9-824 98976603’ on the wall of the 9th, 10th and 11th floor staircase landing using indelible ink on the door of the said unit. Earlier, on 9 October 2012, a neighbouring unit had also been harassed when the walls at the lift lobby had been defaced by the writing of messages directed at the complainant’s unit, together with the attachment of the accused’s photo. In this instance, black paint had been splashed on the 9th floor staircase landing of the said unit.

ANTECEDENTS

This accused has no antecedents.

PROSECUTION’S ADDRESS ON SENTENCE

The prosecution supplied a table of precedents and recommended a sentence of 4-5 months. The learned deputy pointed to certain aggravating factors in this case. The accused had borrowed from multiple moneylenders, taking a number of loans, leading to higher propensity of harm. He was of the view that a higher sentence was therefore called for.

MITIGATION PLEA

In his written mitigation plea³, the accused pleaded for a light sentence, stating that he was ‘remorseful for what I had done to the owner of the flat by not changing my address and furthermore borrowed money from few unlicensed moneylender(sic)’. He explained that he had resided at a halfway house and the director had not allowed him to change his address to that place ‘due to the abovementioned reason’. He also quite understandably ‘faced a hard time getting my relative and friends to change my address to their place’. The latter was quite a bizarre point. Given his statement that he actually resided at a halfway house, it would be hardly mitigatory to state that he had tried but failed to enlist his kin and friends help to falsely declare, presumably to both the authorities and the unlicensed moneylenders he patronised, that he had lived with them. This seems to be a startling admission of the accused’s callous disregard for the truth, not to mention wanton unconcern for the consequences that would have been visited to these persons if they had unwittingly acceded to his request.

DECISION OF THE COURT

Section 28C provides that any person who, in connection with a loan by an unlicensed moneylender to him or any other person, gives any contact information which he knows or believes to be false to the moneylender or a person acting on behalf of the moneylender, commits an offence, if the licensed moneylender or person acting on his behalf commits the proscribed acts of harassment under section 28(1)(a) or 28(1)(b)⁴ of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed). The punishment prescribed for the offence is mandatory imprisonment not exceeding 12 months.

Crimininalisation for false contact information leading to harassment

This section is relatively new, being brought in along with a raft of amendments to the Moneylenders Act in 2010. The case of Tan Boon Yong v Comptroller of Income Tax [1993] 1 SLR(R) 208; [1993] SGCA 8, has established the principle that parliamentary reports may be looked at if reference to the reports would greatly facilitate the court in determining the intention of Parliament in introducing an amendment to an existing Act⁵.

Generally, it is clear that the amendments are intended to bolter sanctions in the Act targeting unlicensed moneylenders, popularly referred to as loansharks, and their supporting structure. As articulated by Assoc Professor Ho Peng Kee, the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, this had been necessary as loanshark operation have grown, hydra-like, in diversity, scale and sophistication. More worryingly, the allure of easy profit from exorbitant interest rates was seen to be attracting the increasing participation of underworld elements and overseas syndicates ⁶:

Loansharks also constantly evolve their modus operandi to elude detection and apprehension. For example, some leaders leverage on technology to direct their syndicates’ operations from overseas, making investigation and arrests even more difficult. With online tools becoming more sophisticated, we are likely to see a corresponding increase in the complexity and repertoire of technological options employed by these criminals. By their nature, loanshark harassment cases are not easy to solve. Unless the perpetrators are caught in the act, there are often few leads that the Police can follow-up on. This is especially so in situations involving innocent victims of harassment who have no idea who the loansharks are.

As loanshark syndicates evolve their modus operandi to take on more characteristics of organised criminal groups, it is no longer sufficient to deal with loansharking as discrete acts of runners and harassers. We need measures that can cripple them, that is, disgorge them of their ill-gotten gains, choke the supply of funds and availability of foot soldiers, target the irresponsible borrowers and take loansharks out of the system for as long as we need to. Thus, this Bill allows us to deal with loanshark syndicates as criminal organisations, extend beyond the frontline to target financiers and...