- Joined
- Mar 16, 2017
- Messages
- 603
- Points
- 43
The Case Against Claris Ling Min Rui
This is not a matter of youthful indiscretion or a “one-off mistake.” It is a deliberate series of calculated, malicious actions that demand the full weight of the law.
To summarise:
1. Engaging in Prostitution via Sugarbook
By openly soliciting on Sugarbook, she engaged in commercial sex work. While the act itself sits in a legal grey zone, the use of online vice platforms falls under immoral traffic and solicitation offences, which Singapore law does not tolerate.
2. Attempted Extortion
After providing her “services,” she demanded more money from the man under threat of filing a rape report. This is extortion under Penal Code s.383, a serious criminal offence carrying heavy penalties.
3. Providing False Information to the Police
She knowingly lied in her police statement. This is an offence under Penal Code s.182, which criminalises the act of misleading law enforcement.
4. Filing a False Rape Report (Fabricating Evidence)
Beyond lying, she went further to allege rape, a fabricated charge that, if believed, could have destroyed the man’s life, reputation, and freedom. This falls squarely under Penal Code ss.192–194, among the most serious offences relating to false evidence.
5. Criminal Defamation
Accusing a man of rape falsely constitutes defamation of the highest order, given that such an allegation carries lifelong stigma even if disproven. This is criminal defamation under Penal Code s.499.
6. Public Mischief / Wasting State Resources
By lodging a false police report, she wasted the time and resources of the police and investigative units. This is a direct offence under Penal Code s.177/182.
7. Pattern of Deceit
Taken together, her actions show a deliberate scheme:
* To sell sex at an exorbitant price.
* To extort more through threats.
* To weaponise the rape allegation when resisted.
* To exploit both the legal system and societal sympathy for victims.
And yet, despite this laundry list of crimes, the judge is actually considering probation. Probation, for a scheming prostitute who almost destroyed an innocent man’s life? That’s not mercy, that’s mockery.
At this point, one has to ask: are we looking at a court of justice, or a kangaroo court bending over backwards because of gender?
If a man had done even half of what she did, he would be rotting in jail. Why should she walk away with a slap on the wrist?
This is not a matter of youthful indiscretion or a “one-off mistake.” It is a deliberate series of calculated, malicious actions that demand the full weight of the law.
To summarise:
1. Engaging in Prostitution via Sugarbook
By openly soliciting on Sugarbook, she engaged in commercial sex work. While the act itself sits in a legal grey zone, the use of online vice platforms falls under immoral traffic and solicitation offences, which Singapore law does not tolerate.
2. Attempted Extortion
After providing her “services,” she demanded more money from the man under threat of filing a rape report. This is extortion under Penal Code s.383, a serious criminal offence carrying heavy penalties.
3. Providing False Information to the Police
She knowingly lied in her police statement. This is an offence under Penal Code s.182, which criminalises the act of misleading law enforcement.
4. Filing a False Rape Report (Fabricating Evidence)
Beyond lying, she went further to allege rape, a fabricated charge that, if believed, could have destroyed the man’s life, reputation, and freedom. This falls squarely under Penal Code ss.192–194, among the most serious offences relating to false evidence.
5. Criminal Defamation
Accusing a man of rape falsely constitutes defamation of the highest order, given that such an allegation carries lifelong stigma even if disproven. This is criminal defamation under Penal Code s.499.
6. Public Mischief / Wasting State Resources
By lodging a false police report, she wasted the time and resources of the police and investigative units. This is a direct offence under Penal Code s.177/182.
7. Pattern of Deceit
Taken together, her actions show a deliberate scheme:
* To sell sex at an exorbitant price.
* To extort more through threats.
* To weaponise the rape allegation when resisted.
* To exploit both the legal system and societal sympathy for victims.
And yet, despite this laundry list of crimes, the judge is actually considering probation. Probation, for a scheming prostitute who almost destroyed an innocent man’s life? That’s not mercy, that’s mockery.
At this point, one has to ask: are we looking at a court of justice, or a kangaroo court bending over backwards because of gender?
If a man had done even half of what she did, he would be rotting in jail. Why should she walk away with a slap on the wrist?
