No jail because Peter Khoo showed ‘genuine remorse’ *SHAKE HEAD*

[laksaboy]

Don't expect justice from the Singapore kangaroo courts.

 

[laksaboy]

Bro, who's the duke of sengkang?

I think Sinkieland should have its own nobility. Princes, dukes, marquess, earls, viscounts, barons etc.

This place is just a monarchy pretending to be a democracy/constitutional republic.

 

[Charlie99]

He cannot be the only one who showed 'genuine remorse' but I know many in the same boat. They were not spared but had to be incarcerated. It pays to be on the 'right' side with the 'right' connections. The DJ could have easily sentenced him to a day's jail which means time in the lock-up until end of the day. That, imo, is the more appropriate sentence. If the Tang chap from CK Tang bought a kidney to sustain his life and yet kena one day jail, Peter's case deserves more time in jail.

One day in jail should be the minimum.

 

[makapaaa]

Just like the decadent Ching dynasty?

 

[sense]

In light of various existing case laws, this is an obvious sign of a Kangaroo courts, see next few postings.

 

[sense]

(a) Section 406 cases

Amounts below $10,000

PP v Lee Lay Huat John

MA 179/93/01

Cash of $5,500 misappropriated — Pleaded guilty — Previous convictions for cheating

Facts: Offender pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal breach of trust under s 406. The property
misappropriated was cash of $5,500. Offender had been approached by the complainant who entrusted
him with the sale of his son’s car. The car was successfully sold and the buyer gave the offender an
$8,000 deposit. Out of this $8,000 received, the offender gave the complainant three cheques, including
two postdated cheques for $2,500 and $3,000 respectively. Both these postdated cheques were
dishonoured on presentation. In mitigation, offender stated that he had childhood poliomyelitis as well
as hypertension. He was wheelchair bound. It was revealed that between 1977 and 1991, he had been
convicted of various cheating charges on six occasions, and had always been fined and/or given one
day’s imprisonment. The District Judge also noted that he had originally claimed trial and had only
decided to plead guilty after the complainant had almost finished his evidence. He made full restitution,
but only just before sentencing.

Sentence imposed by trial court: One year’s imprisonment.
Results of appeal: Offender’s appeal dismissed.

 

[sense]

Quek Thiam Seng@ Lim Cheok Seng v PP

MA 94/94/01

Cash of $3,586.90 misappropriated — Pleaded guilty

Facts: Offender pleaded guilty to a charge of misappropriating $3,586.90. He was a sales executive. He
collected the said amount after deliveries of the company’s products ordered by several customers and
misappropriated the money to pay his debts. He made full restitution. He had a previous conviction for
failing to change address.

Sentence imposed by trial court: Two months’ imprisonment.

Results of appeal: Offender’s appeal dismissed.

 

[sense]

Chew Beng Huat v PP

MA 250/94/01

Cash of $3,992.20 misappropriated — Pleaded guilty — Previous clean record

Facts: Offender pleaded guilty to a charge under s 406, of criminal breach of trust of cash $3,992.20.
He committed the offence while employed as a general manager at the victim company. He was then
responsible, inter alia, for the collection of cash on behalf of the company. On the occasion in question,
he collected $3,992.20 from a firm with whom his company was doing business; and instead of handing
it over to the company, he used the money to settle his own household expenses. In the same month in
which the offence was committed, he left the company without paying the sum back at all. He made full
restitution before sentencing. Previous clean record.

Sentence imposed by trial court: Six weeks’ imprisonment.

Results of appeal: Offender withdrew appeal.

 

[sense]

Chua Lian Thong v PP

MA 317/96/01

Cash of $2,250 misappropriated — Pleaded guilty

Facts: Offender, an operations executive, misappropriated $2,250. $1,470 was entrusted to him to pay
the workers. The remaining $780 was collected by the offender from a client of the company. He made
full restitution before he surrendered. He had a previous conviction under s 5(1) read with s 7 of
Protected Areas and Protected Places Act.

Sentence imposed by trial court: Two weeks’ imprisonment and fined $3,000.

Results of appeal: Offender’s appeal dismissed.

 

[sense]

Lee Peng Tiak v PP

MA 163/97/01

Cash of $5,531 misappropriated — Pleaded guilty — Previous convictions but nothing similar

Facts: Offender pleaded guilty to a charge under s 406, of criminal breach of trust of cash of $5,531.
Offender was working as a secondhand car dealer. The complainant, who was the offender’s friend,
sold his car through the offender. Offender told the complainant that he would arrange for the car loan
and asked the complainant to hand the monthly car loan instalment payments to him. The complainant
handed over four such monthly payments amounting to $5,531 in total. Offender did not in fact arrange
for any car loan and used all the money from the complainant to pay for his own debts. The car was
subsequently repossessed. Offender promised to repay the complainant but did not do so for more than
four years. The complainant eventually made a police report. Offender had previous convictions for
wagering and for harbouring an illegal immigrant.

Sentence imposed by trial court: Four months’ imprisonment.

Results of appeal: Offender’s appeal dismissed.

 

[sense]

PP v Abdul Latif bin Mohamad

MA 160/99/01

Cash of $1,200 misappropriated — CISCO officer — Pleaded guilty

Facts: Offender was a CISCO officer with ten years’ service and attached to the cash processing centre
as a ‘central banker’. He was entrusted with cash collected from all DBS Banks’ branches and he had
to consolidate the cash into one polythene bag. Within a period of three months, he pilfered cash on 12
occasions amounting to $1,200. In mitigation, it was said that he was a conscientious employee and
committed the offence out of financial difficulties to settle the medical bills of his wife and three
children who were taken ill one after the other. He made full restitution and pleaded guilty.

Sentence imposed by trial court: Fined $10,000 (in default five months’ imprisonment).

Results of appeal: Six months’ imprisonment (fine ordered to remain).

 

[sense]

Lim Kok Hwee v PP

MA 47/2001/01

Sum of S$4,992.87 (US$3,180.17) misappropriated — Freelance agent — Pleaded guilty — Previous
convictions for property offences

Facts: Offender pleaded guilty to one charge under s 406 of misappropriating a sum of S$4,992.87
(US$3,180.17). Another similar charge involving a sum of S$3,240.84 (US$1,940.62) was taken into
consideration. Offender was a freelance agent with the victim company which had entrusted him with
the task of collecting the monies due from its customers. Offender had converted some of the monies
collected to his own use. Restitution was made just before sentencing. Offender, aged 31 years, had
antecedents for housebreaking and theft by night, theft, and theft in dwelling, for which he had
previously been sentenced to a total of four years’ imprisonment.

Sentence imposed by trial court: Eight months’ imprisonment.

Results of appeal: Offender’s appeal dismissed.

 

[sense]

Lim Henry @ Lim Boon Kwang Henry v PP

MA 75/2002/01

Sum of $5,000 misappropriated — Employee — Pleaded guilty — Unrelated antecedents

Facts: Offender pleaded guilty to a charge under s 406 of misappropriating a sum of $5,000. The
offender was employed as Head of Projects with a construction company. In 1996, the offender was in
charge of the renovation of a flat. The offender accompanied the client to the bank for her to withdraw
$5,000 as payment for the cost of materials for the renovation. However, the offender used the money
for his own purposes. After about four months he resigned from the company. The offence was
discovered when the company demanded payment from the client subsequently. The offender had two
motoring antecedents and three antecedents of acting as a director whilst an undischarged bankrupt. He
was fined for all the offences. The offender made full restitution. He was charged about five years later.
The reason for the delay is not known.

Sentence imposed by trial court: Nine months’ imprisonment.

Results of appeal: Offender’s appeal allowed. Sentence reduced to six months’ imprisonment.

 

[sense]

Zarinah Binte Jemani v PP

MA 94/2002/01

Sum of $1,500 misappropriated — Cashier — Pleaded guilty — Prior clean record

Facts: Offender pleaded guilty to one charge under s 406 of misappropriating a sum of $1,500. Whilst
employed as a cashier at a retail shop, she pocketed cash amounting to $1,500 collected from
customers. The offence was committed over a one-year period. She made full restitution. She had a
prior clean record. She was 33 years of age with four children.

Sentence imposed by trial court: Three weeks’ imprisonment.

Results of appeal: Offender withdrew appeal.

 

[sense]

Amounts above $100,000

Ang Chee Huat v PP

MA 48/96/01

Two charges — Cash of $281,326.20 and US$30,000 misappropriated — Convicted after trial —
Previous clean record

Facts: The victim was an American national. The offender and victim were good friends. The victim
decided to relocate his company’s operations in Malaysia. He was told that a sum of RM$500,000 was
required as paid-up capital to set up the company for the purpose of applying for pioneer status and
corporate tax incentives. He remitted a certain sum of money for that purpose to the offender and later
asked for them to be refunded. He alleged that the offender had failed to return a sum of $281,326.20
and US$30,000. The offender was found guilty of misappropriating the said sums after a trial. He had a
clean record.

Sentence imposed by trial court: 33 months’ imprisonment.

Results of appeal: Offender withdrew appeal against conviction. Appeal against sentence dismissed.

 

[Charlie99]

In light of various existing case laws, this is an obvious sign of a Kangaroo courts, see next few postings.

Under the common law system, I believe that the District Judge is bound by the various prior decisions / case law.

Based on those reported cases, with respect, I submit that the recent decision appears to be very very lenient.

 

[sense]

Satnam Singh v PP

MA 174/96/01

Property misappropriated consisted of 84 gold pieces valued at US$200,000 — Pleaded guilty — Previous clean record

Facts: Offender pleaded guilty to a charge under s 406 read with s 109, of abetting criminal breach of
trust of 84 gold pieces valued at US$200,000. Offender was approached by one Zinit who told him that
she and her son had been entrusted by the complainant to deliver the gold pieces to India. Zinit
informed the offender that she and her son did not intend to deliver the gold, but wanted instead to sell
it for their own profit. She asked the offender to arrange for the sale and disposal of the gold pieces
through his contacts in India. The offender agreed and did so. He was promised $20,000 as payment for
doing so; and the payment was later made to his brother in India. None of the gold pieces were ever
recovered. Previous clean record.

Sentence imposed by trial court: 24 months’ imprisonment.

Results of appeal: Offender’s appeal dismissed.

 

[sense]

PP v Loke Kim Eng

DAC 18368/2002 & Ors

81 charges of misappropriating cash totalling S$209,380, US$2,174 and RMB34,500 — Four counts
of cheating and four counts of obtaining credit whilst an undischarged bankrupt — Victims were
young foreign students — Pleaded guilty — Antecedents

Facts: Offender pleaded guilty to 14 charges of CBT, four counts of cheating under s 420 and two
counts of obtaining credit whilst being an undischarged bankrupt under s 141(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy
Act. 67 charges of CBT, two charges under s 141(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act and one offence of
failing to report change of residence under s 13(1)(b) of the National Registration Act were taken into
consideration. Over a period of six months, the offender misappropriated S$209,380, US$2,174 and
RMB34,500 obtained from 81 young foreign students from the Peoples’ Republic of China and Japan.
These students had entrusted the offender with their monies as advance rental payments, rental
deposits, for school and course enrolments, as donations to support their applications to schools as well
as monies for security bonds. The total amount which she cheated the victims of was $10,700 and she
borrowed S$27,400, US$600 and RMB4,000 without disclosing that she was an undischarged bankrupt.
The total amount involved for all the charges was S$247,480, US$2,774 and RMB38,500. The offender
was aged 34 years old with four young children. In 1998, the offender received 12 months and ten
weeks’ imprisonment for three cheating offences.

Sentence imposed by trial court: Three to 18 months’ imprisonment on the 20 charges, with five
sentences ordered to run consecutively. Total of 72 months’ imprisonment. There was no appeal against
sentence.

 

[sense]

PP vs Peter Khoo

Khoo pocketed $196,500, including $83,500 in bribes from Mr Liaw and $23,095 in CapitaLand vouchers.

Sentence imposed by trial court: fined him $100,000, on top of an $83,500 penalty.

 

[Vigilante]

Blantant abuse of the justice system! He ought to be retrial and it surprises me why prosecution did not appeal.