Public Prosecutor v Yap Chee Yen

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Soh Tze Bian
• Judgment Date: 19 June 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGDC 219
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC 020671/2013 & others, Magistrate’s Appeal No. 130/2014/01
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 25 May 2016
• Hearing Date: 18 February 2014,06 March 2014,17 December 2013,02 October 2013,11 April 2014,13 November 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deputy Public Prosecutor, Ms Magdalene Huang
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Derek Kang & Mr Loh Kia Meng (Rodyk & Davidson LLP)
• Citation: [2014] SGDC 219

District Judge Soh Tze Bian: Charges

The accused person (AP), a 36-year old male Singaporean, was at the material time of the offences, a relationship manager with Clariden Leu Limited (“Clariden”), which has since merged with Credit Suisse AG. He faced a total of 30 charges, being 13 charges for forgery for the purpose of cheating under s 468 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (PC), 1 charge for cheating under s 417 of the PC, and 16 charges for transferring benefits of his criminal conduct under s 47(1)(b) punishable under s 47(6) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) (CDSA). He pleaded guilty to 8 charges, namely, 5 charges under s 468 PC and 3 CDSA charges and consented to the remaining 22 charges (comprising 8 s 468 charges, 1 s 417 charge, and 13 CDSA charges) to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing (TIC charges) . The 8 proceeded charges were as follows: In DAC 20670/2013, the AP, sometime on or about 10 August 2010, in Singapore, did forge a certain document, namely, a funds transfer fax instruction for the transfer of USD 208,000 from one Feng Shuwei’s account number [XXX] with Clariden to one Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited account number [XXX] in the name of Threesixfive Capital Ltd, to wit, by appending a signature purported to be made by the said Feng Shuwei on the said funds transfer fax instruction, with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said Feng Shuwei had appended the signature and intending that the said funds transfer fax instruction shall be used for the purpose of cheating Clariden, and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under s 468 PC with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. In DAC 20671/2013, the AP, sometime on or about 10 August 2010, in Singapore, did forge a certain document, namely, a funds transfer fax instruction for the transfer of USD 223,651.58 from one Sengman Tjahja’s account number [XXX] with Clariden to one Clariden account number [XXX] in the name of Feng Shuwei, to wit, by appending a signature purported to be made by the said Sengman Tjahja on the said funds transfer fax instruction, with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said Sengman Tjahja had appended the signature and intending that the said funds transfer fax instruction shall be used for the purpose of cheating Clariden, and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under s 468 PC with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. In DAC 20672/2013, the AP, sometime on or about 7 February 2011, in Singapore, did forge a certain document, namely, a funds transfer fax instruction for the transfer of USD 632,000 from one Sengman Tjahja’s account number [XXX] with Clariden to one Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited account number [XXX] in the name of Threesixfive Capital Ltd, to wit, by appending a signature purported to be made by the said Sengman Tjahja on the said funds transfer fax instruction, with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said Sengman Tjahja had appended the signature and intending that the said funds transfer fax instruction shall be used for the purpose of cheating Clariden, and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under s 468 PC with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. In DAC 20674/2013, the AP, sometime on or about 7 September 2011, in Singapore, did forge a certain document, namely, a funds transfer fax instruction for the transfer of SGD 220,000 from one Sengman Tjahja’s account number [XXX] with Clariden to one Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited account number [XXX] in the name of Threesixfive Capital Ltd, to wit, by appending a signature purported to be made by the said Sengman Tjahja on the said funds transfer fax instruction, with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said Sengman Tjahja had appended the signature and intending that the said funds transfer fax instruction shall be used for the purpose of cheating Clariden, and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under s 468 PC with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. In DAC 20676/2013, the AP, sometime on or about 6 October 2011, in Singapore, did forge a certain document, namely, a funds transfer fax instruction for the transfer of USD 180,000 from one Sengman Tjahja’s account number [XXX] with Clariden to one Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited account number [XXX] in the name of Threesixfive Capital Ltd, to wit, by appending a signature purported to be made by the said Sengman Tjahja on the said funds transfer fax instruction, with the intention of causing it to be believed that the said Sengman Tjahja had appended the signature and intending that the said funds transfer fax instruction shall be used for the purpose of cheating Clariden, and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under s 468 PC with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine. In DAC 20690/2013, the AP, on or about 14 March 2011, in Singapore, did transfer property, namely a sum of USD 200,000, which property in whole directly represents his benefits from criminal conduct, namely, forgery for the purpose of cheating under s 468 of the PC, when he issued an Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd (“OCBC”) cheque number 000005 from OCBC bank account number [XXX] maintained by Threesixfive Capital Ltd and deposited the said cheque into his Citibank Singapore Limited bank account number [XXX], and he has thereby committed an offence under s 47(1)(b) punishable under s 47(6) CDSA with a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both. In DAC 20694/2013, the AP, on or about 13 September 2011, in Singapore, did transfer property, namely a sum of SGD 220,000.00, which property in whole directly represents his benefits from criminal conduct, namely, forgery for the purpose of cheating under s 468 of the PC, to wit, he issued an Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd (“OCBC”) cheque number 000052 from OCBC bank account number [XXX] maintained by Threesixfive Capital Ltd and deposited the said cheque into his Citibank Singapore Limited bank account number [XXX], and he has thereby committed an offence under s 47(1)(b) punishable under s 47(6) CDSA with a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both. In DAC 20695/2013, the AP, on or about 10 October 2011, in Singapore, did transfer property, namely a sum of USD 180,000, which property in whole directly represents hus benefits from criminal conduct, namely, forgery for the purpose of cheating under s 468 of the PC, to wit, he caused an Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd (“OCBC”) cheque number 000012 from OCBC bank account number [XXX] maintained by Threesixfive Capital Ltd to be issued and deposited into a Clariden bank account number [XXX] maintained by Wai Lin McWhinney, and he has thereby committed an offence under s 47(1)(b) punishable under s 47(6) CDSA with a fine not exceeding $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.

Statement of Facts

The statement of facts (SOF) which the AP had admitted without qualification stated as follows:

“The Accused

1 The Accused is Yap Chee Yen, a 36-year old male Singaporean, and holder of NRIC No. SXXXXXXXC. At the material time of the offences, he was a relationship manager with Clariden Leu Limited (“Clariden”), which has since merged with Credit Suisse AG.

The Accused’s Job Scope

2 The Accused’s job responsibilities at Clariden included acquiring clients on behalf of Clariden, advising clients on investments, as well as maintaining relationship with clients.

First Information Report

3 On 11 January 2012, through its Managing Director/Head, Clariden lodged a police report at the Commercial Affairs Department of Singapore against the Accused. It was alleged that there were suspicious transfers in clients’ accounts belonging to the Accused’s portfolio.

The Accused’s Modus Operandi in Relation to the Forgery Offences

4 Investigations revealed that the Accused had made unauthorised funds transfers from two of his clients’ accounts between 12 October 2009 and 7 October 2011. The total amount involved is USD 1,692,901.59 and SGD 371,622.00 (total of about SGD 2,487,748.99 using an exchange rate of USD1 = SGD1.25). 5 The two said clients are one Sengman Tjahja (“Sengman”) and one Feng Shuwei (“Feng”), who held account numbers [XXX] and [XXX] respectively. 6 The Accused prepared the unauthorised funds transfer instructions by cutting the client’s signature from previous records of transfer instructions at his office work desk at Clariden. He then pasted the piece of “cut” signature onto the funds transfer instruction that he had prepared earlier. Thereafter, he faxed the funds transfer instruction from one fax machine in the office to another fax machine in the office to make the document look like an original fax instruction from the client. Then, he would pass the fax instruction to his assistant to process and approve. 7 The Accused was aware that he needed to make a call back to the client to confirm the funds transfer fax instructions when the amount of funds to be transferred was large. However, for these unauthorised transfers, he did not do so and proceeded to sign and acknowledge on the fax instructions that a call back confirmation to the respective clients had been done. 8 The Accused used the funds he had fraudulently obtained through these offences for his personal expenses, such as for the purchase of a luxury watch, purchase of a vehicle and investment in shares.

...