Public Prosecutor v Zhang Ming and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Kok Shu-en |
Judgment Date | 18 January 2023 |
Neutral Citation | [2023] SGDC 10 |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | District Arrest Case No 904849 of 2021 & Ors, Magistrate’s Appeals No 9251 & 9252 of 2022 - 01 |
Published date | 27 January 2023 |
Year | 2023 |
Hearing Date | 08 December 2022,20 December 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | DPP Edwin Soh |
Defendant Counsel | Anthony Lim (Anthony Law Corporation) and Ramesh Tiwary (Ramesh Tiwary) |
Subject Matter | Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Sentencing,Criminal Law,Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act |
Citation | [2023] SGDC 10 |
The first accused person Zhang Ming (“Zhang”) is a 39 year old Singapore permanent resident, and the second accused person Yin Junjun (“Yin”) is a 39 year old People’s Republic of China national.
Each accused person faced a total of 6 charges involving identical subject matters. They both pleaded guilty to 3 charges:
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
The accused persons gave their consent for the remaining 3 charges to be taken into consideration (“TIC”) for the purposes of sentencing.
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
I sentenced each of the accused persons to a total sentence of 33 months imprisonment. The accused persons are dissatisfied with the sentences imposed and have both filed appeals.
FactsIn early 2021, Zhang was introduced to a person known to him as ‘Ah Xiang’, who was purportedly in the business of online gaming and soccer betting. Ah Xiang asked Zhang if he would use his bank account to receive and transfer out funds to other bank accounts. Zhang was told that the funds to be received and transferred would amount to tens of thousands each day. Zhang told Ah Xiang that he was not prepared to use his own bank account for these transfers, as he thought his account might be frozen if there were large amounts of money flowing in and out.
Ah Xiang knew that Zhang worked at an agency for foreign workers and suggested that Zhang use the bank accounts of foreign workers to conduct the transfers of funds instead. He told Zhang that he would be paid S$200 in commission for every S$10,000 that he helped receive into a bank account.
Zhang discussed Ah Xiang’s proposal with his brother-in-law, Yin. Zhang and Yin agreed that they would use the bank accounts of foreign workers who were leaving Singapore to conduct the inward receipt and outward transfer of funds as directed by Ah Xiang. Zhang and Yin started collecting ATM cards and internet banking credentials for bank accounts belonging to foreign workers who were leaving Singapore and shared the details of these bank accounts with Ah Xiang via Telegram.
Ah Xiang would alert Zhang and Yin via a Telegram chat group each time transfers of funds were made into the bank accounts. On the three 3 proceeded charges, the amounts that were received in the bank accounts controlled by Zhang and Yin are as follows:
| |
| |
| |
| |
After the funds were received in the bank accounts, either Zhang or Yin (who both had control over the bank accounts) would withdraw the monies received via ATM machines in cash and then make arrangements to transfer the monies to cryptocurrency wallets or foreign bank accounts, in accordance with Ah Xiang’s instructions.
Investigations revealed that the sums received in the bank accounts were in fact the proceeds of crimes, specifically cheating offences under section 420 of the Penal Code. Both Zhang and Yin had reasonable grounds to believe that the monies that they received in the bank accounts directly represented, in whole, another person’s benefits of criminal conduct.
Zhang and Yin’s activities came to light after they were arrested on 20 June 2021 after being stopped in at a police roadblock. Zhang was the driver of the vehicle, while Yin was the passenger. In the vehicle, the police officers found cash totalling S$406,850 and 71 ATM bank cards. The accused persons were unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for why they were in possession of the cash and ATM cards. This formed the subject of the TIC charge under section 35 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act that each accused person faced.
AntecedentsBoth Zhang and Yin were traced with antecedents that were not relevant to their present case. They each had a previous conviction for drink driving. Zhang was previously also placed on drug supervision for the consumption of methamphetamine and amphetamine.
Prosecution’s sentencing submission In seeking a global sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment for each accused person, the Prosecution highlighted the following offence-specific aggravating factors, which the High Court in
The Prosecution noted that the accused persons had not made any restitution.
The Prosecution cited precedent cases involving offences under section 47 of the CDSA. The offenders in those cases were sentenced to varying imprisonment terms. The table setting out the details of the precedents that the Prosecution tendered to Court is at Annex A.
Defence’s sentencing submission and mitigation The Defence sought a global sentence of 18 to 24 months’ imprisonment against each accused person. In their submissions, they urged the Court to consider the following factors, which were also based on the sentencing factors set out by the High Court in
The Defence also cited a few precedents, including the case of
| |
| |
| |
| |
Based on the proposed indicative sentencing ranges in
Pursuant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial