Public Prosecutor v Tan Wen Jie

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Marvin Bay
• Judgment Date: 31 August 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGDC 183
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Arrest Case DAC-907773-2019 & ORS, Magistrate’s Appeals No MA-9090-2021-01
• Year: 2021
• Published date: 16 September 2021
• Hearing Date: 29 January 2021,12 March 2021,16 April 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chong Yong and Teo Siu Ming (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Beng Swee and Leonard Lee (CTLC Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law,Offences,Penal Code- Cheating of multiple government agencies,Regulation of Imports and Exports Act- 'Recycling' of deregistered cars through false documents,Cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code- Application of a sentencing framework analogous to that set out in Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor
• Citation: [2021] SGDC 183

District Judge Marvin Bay: INTRODUCTION

There are certain assumptions that persons using our public roads make in the course of their daily drives or commutes: Cars in our roads are almost invariably relatively new and have a comparatively short road life, as their tenures are limited by ten-year certificates of entitlement, the vast majority (with a few vehicle where owners have extended their vehicles’ lives by purchasing an additional extension COE) are aged ten years or under. Cars which have reached their COE run out date are always either scrapped or re-exported, and will no longer be seen on our roads. The vehicle population is thus constantly refreshed, and extant vehicles are more functionally reliable, and less prone to breakdowns. Cars in our roads all undergo mandated checks and can thus always be trusted to be safe and roadworthy. Cars are easily traceable as by their IUs and also identifiable by their unique chassis serial numbers. It would be difficult for persons without valid driving licenses to access a vehicle for driving, given that car rental companies will require proof on pain of legal consequences. It would be difficult for persons to obtain cars for criminal activities, as rental companies and registered car owners would fear legal consequences, including the potential confiscation to their vehicles, if the vehicles are involved in smuggling or even more serious crimes, such a moneylending harassment. In the event of any vehicular accident where one suffers personal injury or property damage, one should have no problem obtaining recourse by recovering from compensatory claims made to insurers, as all vehicles have registered owners who have taken up third party insurers.

All these assumptions would be severely challenged by the offences committed by the accused person; Tan Wei Jie (“Mr Tan”), a Singaporean aged 28, and a part-time student with the Singapore University of Social Science, who had conspired with another; Mr Lee Wui Liang, who was an unemployed Singapore citizen, aged 38, to repurpose vehicles that had been slated for deregistration or scrapping, and ‘recycle’ these back to our public roads by various processes of contrivances which included falsified Bills of Lading and Cargo Clearance Permits to give a false impression that the cars had been sent overseas for re-export to other jurisdictions.

The alluded concerns of the vehicles being used to commit offences alluded to above, was not a mere hypothetical possibility in this case. This is because the eventual users of the “recycled” vehicles were involved in different levels of misfeasance and criminality spanning a switching of IUs between two different vehicles, driving without third-party liability insurance, or even a driving licence, to unlicenced moneylender harassment. What is particularly startling is the fact that all these issues arose as a direct result of the release of just four such ‘recycled’ vehicles into our roads¹.

The charges

This set of proceedings brought by the State against the accused involve six proceeded charges who concern Mr Tan’s dealings with just three cars (SKV 1566G, SMC 7335T, and SGT 3296E) which he performed in abetment with Mr Lee Wui Liang (“Mr Lee”). For ease of reference, the vehicles will hereinafter be referred to by their three letter registration number prefixes of “SKV”, “SMC” and “SGT”). The six charges involved three sets of paired charges for one section 420 Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC”), and one charge under section 28(1) of the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“RIEA”), both read with section 109 of the Penal Code.

As the charges are similar, it would add unnecessary prolixity to these grounds to set out all six charges, I have therefore set out just a corresponding pair of PC and RIEA charges, which involve vehicle SKV. The section 420 Penal Code charge² reads: (Mr Tan stands) charged that (he), sometime in September 2018, in Singapore, did abet by engaging in a conspiracy with one Lee Wui Liang (“Lee”) to cheat the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (“LTA”), and in pursuance of such conspiracy, and in order to cheat LTA, an act took place, to wit, (he) caused a Bill of Lading and Cargo Clearance Permit relating to a BMW 320i bearing registration number SKV purporting to show that the said vehicle had been exported to be given to the LTA, when (he) and Lee knew that the said vehicle had not in fact been exported, and by such manner of deception, the LTA was induced to deliver a Preferential Additional Registration Fee rebate in respect of the said vehicle amounting to S$18,396 to Hua Yang Credit Pte Ltd, which act was committed in consequence of the abetment, and (he has) thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). [Emphasis added]

The charge under section 28(1) of the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act in relation to car SKV³ reads as follows: (Mr Tan stands) charged that (he), sometime in September 2018, in Singapore, did abet by engaging in a conspiracy with one Lee Wui Liang (“Lee”) to make a declaration which is false in a material particular to Singapore Customs (“Customs”) for the purpose of obtaining a Cargo Clearance Permit (“CCP”), and in pursuance of such conspiracy, an act took place, to wit, (he) caused a declaration to Customs via the ‘TradeNet’ system in an application for the CCP, which was false in a material particular in that it purported to declare that a BMW 320i bearing registration number SKV was meant for export, to be made, when (he) and Lee knew that the said vehicle was not meant for export, and (he has) thereby committed an offence under Section 28(1) of the Regulation of Imports and Exports Act (Cap 272A, Rev Ed 1996) read with Section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). {Emphasis added]

As indicated above, Mr Tan faced paired PC and RIEA charges for vehicles SMC⁴ and SGT⁵ for a total of six proceeded charges.

TIC charges

Mr Tan also consented to a further nine charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing, these comprised five section 420 Penal Code charges and four section 28(1) Regulation of Imports and Exports Act charges.

The Appeal

This appeal is against sentence. Mr Tan received a global sentence of 26 months’ and two weeks’ imprisonment derived from the run of three consecutive sentences. The constituent charges which ran consecutively would be two cheating charges; DAC-907773-2019 and DAC-913799-2020, where individual imprisonment terms of 11 months and 15 months were respectively imposed, along with a single charge under the RIEA (DAC-913798-2020), where a term of two weeks' imprisonment was imposed. The consecutive sentences are drawn, one each, from criminal acts connected with the three cars “SKV”, “SMC” and “SGT” featured in the proceeded charges. The three other proceeded charges were ordered to run concurrently.

Statement of Facts Background the scheme between the accused and Lee Wui Liang

In the Statement of Facts which Mr Tan accepted without qualification, he gave a detailed account the inception of the scheme. In setting out the Statement of Facts, I will paraphrase background or peripheral details but set out the more critical details, such as the exact manner of commission of the offences in quote form, to allow a full appreciation of the specific facts Mr Tan had actually pleaded guilty to.

The scheme had its beginnings in September 2018, when the accused and Lee Wui Liang (“Mr Lee”) conceptualised their conspiracy to profit from selling or renting de-registered cars. The nature of the conspiracy saw a division of labour where Mr Tan would handle documentation and processing roles, while Mr Lee concentrated on ‘hands-on’ work on the cars to effect the necessary modifications. To this effect, these were the distinct roles⁶ related to the acquisition of the cars: The accused would purchase cars with Certificates of Entitlement (“COE”) close to expiry from legitimate car dealers. He would re-sell these cars to various buyers, including Lee, for a profit. Lee would then modify the cars in quiet carparks. He would grind off the chassis and engine numbers, replace the licence plate with a cloned licence plate, and replace the in-vehicle unit (“IU”) with that belonging to another registered vehicle.

Modus operandi to prevent detection

To make the plan work, the ‘recycled’ cars would have to conform in description to actual extant vehicles. To this end, Mr Tan ensured that the registration number on the cloned licence plate would belong to an existing, still-registered car with a similar colour, make, and model. In furtherance of this goal to escape detection, Mr Tan took on the task of sourcing the replacement IUs and cloned licence plates that Mr Lee used. Mr Tan specifically admits that⁷: The accused and Lee made their respective contributions to the modification process to prevent the cars from being traced by their original registration number and identified as de-registered or traced back to them if they were used for illegal purposes. When the accused sold the cars to Lee, he was aware that Lee would do the above with them. [Emphasis added]

Monetisation of scheme by rental or sale of ‘recycled’ cars

After effecting the works mentioned above, the next step of the process was for the modified cars to be sold or rented to the end users. Mr Tan admits to knowing that “some of whom were aware that the modified cars were illegal as they were de-registered and had no road tax or insurance.” In this regard, Mr Lee would sell or rent the modified cars either directly using the online application “Carousell”, or through the enlistment of one Benjamin Tan Chong Peng’s (“Mr Benjamin Tan”) assistance. Mr Benjamin Tan would receive a commission from Mr Lee for his services. The...