Public Prosecutor v Le Thuy Trieu

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kow Keng Siong
• Judgment Date: 13 September 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] SGDC 191
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 902207 of 2023
• Hearing Date: 13 September 2024
• Citation: [2024] SGDC 191
• Year: 2024
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ganeshvaran s/o Dhanasekaran and Muhammad Izzat (Immigration & Customs Authority)
• Defendant Counsel: James Joseph (Prestige Legal LPP)
• Published date: 20 September 2024

District Judge Kow Keng Siong: Introduction

At the end of a trial, I convicted Ms Le Thuy Trieu (“the Accused”) on a charge under s 57C(2) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed): Public Prosecutor v Le Thuy Trieu [2024] SGDC 126 (“Conviction GD”).

After the conviction, the Prosecution recommended a sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment and $6,000 fine. The Defence sought a lenient sentence.

I eventually imposed a sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment and $4,000 fine i/d 20 days’ imprisonment. In this judgement, I will explain my reasons for imposing this sentence. (The references used in this judgement are the same as those in the Conviction GD.)

Relevant considerations

Section 57C(2) makes it an offence for any person to arrange or otherwise assist in arranging a marriage between two other persons with the intention of assisting one of the parties to the marriage to obtain an immigration advantage (“marriage of convenience”).

Offence-specific factors

In Mehra Radhika v Public Prosecutor [2015] 1 SLR 96 (“Mehra Radhika”) at [24] and [25], the High Court identified six offence-specific factors which are relevant to the sentencing under s 57C(2). They are as follows: Whether the offence was committed in circumstances that reveal that active steps were taken to avoid detection of the offence. Whether the offence was a one-off incident or part of a wider illicit commercial operation. The specific role played by the offender. The specific motive with which the offender committed the offence. Whether the offender had recruited accomplices to assist in the commission of the offence. Whether the offender had pressured or exploited any of the other parties involved in the marriage of convenience.

Custodial threshold

According to the High Court, the custodial threshold will generally be crossed if any of the following offence-specific factors are present (Mehra Radhika at [58]): Active steps were taken to conceal the offence. The offender played a major role in the commission of the offence as opposed to a minor or merely ancillary role. The offence was committed as part of a commercial enterprise that was active in the commission of such crimes as opposed to being a one-off incident. The offender was motivated by profit, in which case a fine should additionally be imposed (“disgorgement fine”). The offender has recruited others (beside the “spouse”) in the course of committing the offence. There has been any exploitation or pressure applied to any of the participants involved in the commission of the offence.

Offender-specific factors

In my view, I am of the view that the offender-specific sentencing factors that are typically considered for other offences should also apply to s 57C(2). These factors include the following: Aggravating factors Offences taken into consideration. Relevant antecedents. Evident lack of remorse. Mitigating factors Guilty plea. Voluntary surrender of criminal proceeds. Co-operation with authorities. Offender’s personal attributes, e.g., his mental condition. Offender’s young age. Judicial mercy. Undue delay in investigation and prosecution. See Sentencing Frameworks in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2022) at [4.86(b)] and at Annex H; Sentencing Principles in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2019) at Cap 22 and Cap 24.

Applying the considerations Custodial threshold crossed

Applying the considerations in [6] above, the custodial threshold is clearly crossed in the present case. First, the Accused had played a major role in the commission of the offence. Specifically, she was the one who (i) had suggested the idea of Vuong entering a marriage of convenience to prolong her stay in Singapore, (ii) had approached Hoo to enter into a marriage of convenience with Vuong, (iii) had arranged the registration of the marriage with the Registry of Marriages, and (iv) had passed...