Ah nehs...

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Foreigner forged MOM letters, cheated maid of over $2k with promise of S’pore jobs for her relatives​

The court heard that Indian national Charanjeet Singh and the victim, a 29-year-old Indian domestic worker, met in October 2024 at a temple in Singapore.

Summary

• Indian national Charanjeet Singh, 20, jailed 13 weeks for swindling a domestic worker of $2,135 by falsely promising jobs for her relatives.
• Singh used forged MOM documents to deceive the victim, claiming payments were for work pass applications, and then became uncontactable after full payment.
• The judge highlighted the impact on the domestic worker and the erosion of public trust due to the forgeries.

AI generated

Jul 29, 2025

SINGAPORE – Tricking a domestic worker into thinking he could help her relatives secure jobs in Singapore, a foreigner swindled her of more than $2,000 to pay for their purported work pass applications.

To keep up the ruse, Indian national Charanjeet Singh even sent the victim forged Ministry of Manpower (MOM) documents.

On July 29, Singh, 20, was sentenced to 13 weeks’ jail after pleading guilty to a cheating offence and two charges of using a forged document. Three other charges were taken into consideration for his sentence.


The court heard that Singh and the victim, a 29-year-old Indian domestic worker, met in October 2024 at a temple in Singapore.

Singh told her he had been working in Singapore for several years and offered to help her land a job with his employer, a cleaning services company.

In reality, that was his former co-tenant’s company. Singh was unemployed and staying in Singapore on a special pass after his employment with another firm had been terminated over salary disputes.

As the victim had one year remaining on her employment contract as a domestic worker, she asked if Singh could arrange for jobs in Singapore for her relatives in India instead.

Singh agreed and requested 250,000 Indian rupees (S$3,700) for each applicant, adding that the purported jobs involved packing and cleaning.

To assure the victim, he sent video recordings purportedly showing himself at work and the accommodation provided by the company.

The victim then asked Singh to proceed with job applications for three of her relatives, and paid him $2,135 between Nov 17 and Dec 1, 2024.

Singh sent the victim several forged letters from MOM over the next two months, including supposed in-principle approvals for her relatives’ work permits.

He did so by altering an original document he had obtained from his former co-tenant without the latter’s knowledge or consent.

The victim then asked her employer for help to verify one of the applications on MOM’s website.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Maximilian Chew said: “When the victim discovered that there was no such application and asked the accused about it, the accused lied to the victim that the approval was not shown on the website as full payment had not been made.

“The accused assured the victim that he would give her a password to access the information on MOM’s website after full payment was made.”

After the victim made full payment to Singh, he became uncontactable. She lodged a police report on Dec 26, 2024, and Singh was arrested on April 24.

DPP Chew noted that Singh “spun a web of lies” over two months to cheat the victim and asked for him to be jailed for 14 weeks.

Handing down the sentence, District Judge Koh Jiaying said the victim is a foreign domestic worker who would have been more impacted by the loss of money.

The judge also said his act of forging MOM documents could erode public trust in the government.

Singh said through an interpreter during his mitigation that he felt sorry for what he did.

The foreigner, who did not have a lawyer, said: “I’ve done a crime and I hope to be punished... only by being punished will I understand the consequences of my actions.”

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jul 29, 2025, 04:59pm

Woman covers face and flees after Stomper confronts her over alleged illegal food delivery at Tampines McDonald's​

Farah Daley
Submitted by Stomper
Manmeet, Coca, Joseph, Rohaizat
A man confronted a young woman outside McDonald's at Tampines West over what he believed to be a case of illegal food delivery.

Stomper Manmeet told Stomp that the incident occurred on July 28 at about 6.18pm.

He shared a video of the woman and her bicycle on TikTok.

Manmeet, who is retired and has been doing food delivery part-time, said he noticed the woman arriving on a rented bicycle and parking it at the designated food delivery pickup point.

"I approached her to ask her to park on the opposite side as she was blocking the area meant for delivery riders," he said. "She looked like a foreign customer, and the area was already crowded with bicycles from other delivery platforms.

According to Manmeet, the woman then entered McDonald's and showed a staff member a food delivery order at the rider pickup counter.


"I asked her if she was a customer, and she said she would just collect the order there. I questioned the staff and they confirmed she had shown a food delivery order."

Manmeet said he then asked the woman if she was a student and from India, to which she replied yes. She also told him she was collecting the order for a friend.

"When her order was ready, she took it and went back to her bike," he said. "Before she could leave, I grabbed her handlebar and told her what she was doing was illegal.

"She panicked, said sorry, and eventually left the scene, abandoning her rented bicycle.

"The McDonald's staff later told me it was a Foodpanda delivery order."

Manmeet said he later lodged a police report at Tampines Neighbourhood Police Centre.

He added that he has seen similar cases involving other foreign men and women, but this was the first time he had approached a foreign student.

In response to a Stomp query, the police confirmed a report was lodged.

His video has since garnered over 48,000 views and mixed reactions online.

Stomper Coca, expressed similar concerns to Manmeet: "I feel that this issue of foreigners doing food delivery illegally is getting out of hand. More should be done to contain the problem."

Others, however, criticised Manmeet's actions.

Stomper Joseph said: "This behaviour is deeply disturbing and may constitute harassment. There is no evidence the girl was violating any rules."

He added: "According to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), foreign students holding a valid Student's Pass from approved institutions are allowed to work up to 16 hours per week during school term and full-time during vacation, without a work permit. The student was simply doing her job - legally - and did not deserve to be humiliated or harassed."

However, according to Foodpanda, riders need to be Singaporeans or permanent residents and be at least 18 years old.

In November 2024, four foreigners were charged with working illegally as food delivery riders in Singapore without valid work passes, which carries a fine of up to $20,000, imprisonment of up to two years, or both.

MOM said that it had been engaging the major food delivery platforms to enhance their processes and prevent the misuse of accounts by unauthorised parties, as well as disseminating educational messages to advise riders against allowing foreigners to use or share their food delivery accounts.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Provision shop owner who raped 11-year-old gets more than 14 years’ jail​

The judge rejected Ramalingam’s requests to remove his electronic tag and forgo regular check-ins with the police.

Summary

• Ramalingam Selvasekaran, 58, was sentenced to over 14 years in jail for sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl in his shop in 2021.
• Despite maintaining innocence, Ramalingam was found guilty of rape and outrage of modesty. Justice Xu found the victim's testimony credible.
• Ramalingam's requests to alter his bail conditions were rejected. He also disputed returning $8 taken from his shop to the victim.

Jul 30, 2025

SINGAPORE - A provision shop owner gave a free drink to an 11-year-old girl who visited his store, and when she returned later that day to buy ice cream, he sexually assaulted her twice.

On July 30, Ramalingam Selvasekaran, 58, was sentenced to 14 years, three months and two weeks’ jail by the High Court.

As he cannot be caned, given that he is above the age of 50, the sentence includes additional jail time in lieu of 15 strokes of the cane.


The Indian national was found guilty of all three charges against him on July 7 – one count of rape and two counts of outrage of modesty – after a trial in which he represented himself.

During sentencing arguments on July 30, Ramalingam maintained his innocence and said he would be appealing against his conviction.

After he was sentenced and granted bail of $80,000 pending appeal, he bargained with the judge regarding his bail conditions.

Justice Aidan Xu rejected Ramalingam’s requests to remove his electronic tag and forgo regular check-ins at the Police Cantonment Complex.

Ramalingam also objected to Deputy Public Prosecutor Susanna Yim’s proposal to return to the girl $8 in cash while the court was determining the fate of various trial exhibits.

“The $8 was taken from my shop,” he said. The judge told the prosecution to look into the matter.

The offences took place between about 4.50pm and about 5.05pm on Oct 28, 2021, at his store in Jurong West.

Ramalingam, who was 55 years old at the time of the offences, was accused by the prosecution of leading the girl to the inner confines of his shop to touch her and make her perform oral sex on him.

Following the assaults, the girl sought help from a passer-by, who called the police.

At the end of the trial, which began on Jan 16, Ramalingam argued that the girl’s testimony should not be believed.

He said it was unbelievable that she would have gone to a stranger for help, when she could have gone to someone she knew.

He argued that it was suspicious that there was no police camera footage of her returning to her home after the incident.


He added that he could not have raped the victim as he was suffering from erectile dysfunction, and noted that his DNA was not found on her body.

In convicting Ramalingam on July 7, Justice Xu said the prosecution’s case has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge found no significant weaknesses in the girl’s recounting of events.

“The fact that she had not run off after the first act of molest, or that she did not resist the assaults, or inform her grandfather, were all to my mind sufficiently explained, particularly given that she was still young and immature,” he said.

Justice Xu pointed out that in Ramalingam’s earlier statements to the police, he stated he had hugged and kissed the victim and that she had performed oral sex on him.

Ramalingam’s later statements denying the commission of the offences were merely an attempt to resile from what he had admitted, the judge said.

Justice Xu said the absence of camera footage did not undermine her evidence.

While there was no dispute that Ramalingam suffered from erectile dysfunction, the judge said the prosecution’s expert witness gave a cogent explanation that oral rape remained possible.

The absence of Ramalingam’s DNA on the victim was at most neutral, and did not undermine the girl’s evidence that she had been sexually assaulted, said the judge.

 

[k1976]

Tenn. Man Charged with Raping Unconscious Woman In Front of Church — Just Before She Died​

Mohamed Mohamed is charged with rape in the alleged attack of a still-unidentified woman​

Ben Brachfeld
Sat, 16 August 2025 at 5:31 AM SGT2-min read

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department

NEED TO KNOW​

• A Tennessee man is charged with raping an unconscious woman in front of a church
• The woman died shortly after the alleged assault on Aug. 14
• The woman carried no ID and remains unidentified, pending an autopsy and fingerprint analysis

A Tennessee man is accused of raping a woman as she drifted in and out of consciousness by the front steps of a Nashville church — shortly before she died.

Mohamed Mohamed, 39, is charged with four counts of rape in relation to an alleged assault on an unconscious woman in front of the house of worship on Nolensville Pike in Nashville's Woodbine neighborhood Thursday evening, according to a press release from the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jail for dentist and engineer wife over shop theft while in transit at Changi Airport​

American couple Kapadia Husain Zoher and Kapadia Amatullah committed offences at Changi Airport while they were waiting for their connecting flight on June 23.

Summary

• A dentist and his engineer wife - both American nationals - committed the offences while in transit at Changi Airport in June.
• Kapadia Husain Zoher stole a Louis Vuitton card case holder worth nearly $600.
• He also stole a bottle of perfume worth around $160 at another store while his wife acted as a lookout.

AI generated

Aug 04, 2025

SINGAPORE – While in transit at Changi Airport, a dentist went to two stores to steal a luxury brand card holder and a bottle of perfume, which together cost more than $750. His engineer wife kept a lookout during one such incident.

American nationals Kapadia Husain Zoher, 35, and Kapadia Amatullah, 30, committed the offences while they were waiting for their connecting flight to India on June 23.

The married couple managed to board the Mumbai-bound plane but were caught before it took off.

On Aug 4, he was sentenced to 18 days’ jail after he pleaded guilty to a theft charge.

His wife, who pleaded guilty to a similar charge, was sentenced to a week in jail.

At around 5pm on June 23, Kapadia Husain Zoher entered a Louis Vuitton store at the airport’s Terminal 1, said State Prosecuting Officer (SPO) Ng Chee Wee.

The offender then took a card case holder worth around $600, slipped it into his pocket and left without paying for it.
CCTV cameras inside the store caught him committing the offence, the court heard.

The couple then went to Cosmetics & Perfumes by The Shilla at the airport’s Terminal 3 shortly before 5.40pm that day.

Kapadia Husain Zoher then took a bottle of Dior Sauvage perfume worth around $160 and slipped it into his pocket, while his wife acted as a lookout. They left the scene soon after without paying for it.

A CCTV camera inside the store also caught him stealing the item.

The police were notified and officers managed to establish his identity.

SPO Ng said: “(Kapadia Husain Zoher) had stolen the case holder out of greed. He had a habit of overspending, and he did not want to pay for the case holder.”

Both stolen items were recovered and returned to the respective stores.

For each count of theft, an offender can be jailed for up to seven years and fined.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Chief Justice names law graduate who wanted anonymity after being denied Bar admission​

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said open and public proceedings provide a forum for the character of potential lawyers to be scrutinised transparently.

Summary

• Chief Justice Menon identified Pulara Devminie Somachandra, a law graduate previously granted anonymity after being denied Bar admission.
• Anonymity was lifted based on the principle of open justice, prioritising transparency, public scrutiny and the high standards expected of lawyers.
• Somachandra's plagiarism incidents, non-disclosure, and mental health concerns were considered, with the court deeming the risk to her as not grave enough to warrant continued anonymity.

AI generated

Aug 08, 2025

SINGAPORE – Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon has named a law graduate who asked for anonymity after she was denied admission to the Bar over her failure to disclose past incidents of plagiarism.

The identification of Ms Pulara Devminie Somachandra came more than three months after Chief Justice Menon published a written decision in April with her identity temporarily withheld pending a psychiatric report.

On Aug 7, after considering the report, the Chief Justice republished his written grounds of decision in full, without redacting her name.

“The principle of open justice is the predominant and overriding interest in this case and there are insufficient grounds for departing from it,” he said in a separate judgment to explain why he lifted the anonymisation.

Open justice refers to the principle that court proceedings are generally conducted in public to promote transparency and ensure that justice must not only be done, but also should be seen to be done.

Chief Justice Menon said that in proceedings involving the legal profession, the default rule that the identities of litigants must be made public is of great importance.

“Open and public proceedings provide a forum for the character of applicants to be scrutinised transparently,” he said, adding that this is important as lawyers are tasked with the responsibility of assisting the court in the administration of justice.

“They also signal to the public that those who are admitted have been publicly assessed as morally competent to meet the high standards of probity expected of members of the legal profession.”

Therefore, he said, withholding an applicant’s name in admission applications would typically be warranted only if there is credible evidence that “grave and disproportionate” harm would follow if the person’s name is published.


In Ms Somachandra’s case, the facts fall short of establishing an imminent and credible risk of grave and disproportionate harm to her if the anonymisation were to be lifted, said Chief Justice Menon.

On her argument that lifting the anonymisation would mean that her past conduct would “come back to haunt her”, the Chief Justice emphasised that those who seek to be admitted to the Bar must put their character up for public scrutiny.

“Moreover, it is contrary to the notion of repentance and rehabilitation for Ms Somachandra to seek to sweep her past misconduct under the rug,” he said.

Ms Somachandra was 28 when the Chief Justice heard her admission application in October 2024.

The woman, who graduated in 2019 from a university in Britain, first attempted the Part A Bar exam in 2020 but failed two papers.

Graduates from approved foreign universities who seek admission to the Bar have to take the Part A exam before taking the Part B exam, which is also taken by graduates from local law schools.


She resat one of the papers later that year, submitting four answer scripts for it. The final answer script contained a significantly fuller answer to one question.

The answer scripts of Ms Somachandra and another candidate, identified only as Ms Tan, were flagged with 80 per cent similarity and 32 blocks of matching texts.

The Singapore Institute of Legal Education concluded that she had collaborated with Ms Tan.


She retook the papers she had failed and passed the Part A exam in 2022 on her fifth attempt. In 2023, she passed the Part B exam.

That year, she applied to be admitted to the Bar without declaring the Part A incident.

Around May 2024, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) contacted Ms Somachandra’s university while it was investigating a separate incident of possible plagiarism.

The university replied that she did not consent to the university providing the information.

After the AGC sought clarifications from her, she eventually consented to the release of the information.

The information showed that, on two occasions in 2018, her failure to attribute material from other sources was found to be “poor academic practice”, while a third incident in June 2019 was found to be “moderate plagiarism”.

In October 2024, after Chief Justice Menon heard her admission application, she asked for her identity to be redacted and submitted a memo from a psychiatrist.

The memo from Dr Lim Yun Chin stated that she had suicidal thoughts and that the publication of a non-anonymised judgment posed an “immediate risk” to her health and safety.

The Chief Justice directed her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH).


On April 21, he published his written grounds on an anonymised basis for a fixed interim period, saying that the unredacted form could be published later.

After considering the IMH report that was eventually submitted, Chief Justice Menon said it was significant that her major depressive disorder was found to be of mild severity and has remained stable for many months.

He did not place much weight on Dr Lim’s memo, saying the conclusions were drawn largely on the basis of Ms Somachandra’s self-reported symptoms.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer who sent misleading letters to 22 doctors fails in bid to quash $18,000 penalty​

The court said Mr V. K. Rai had breached professional conduct rules because he took unfair advantage of the recipients by misleading them about their own legal position.

Summary

• Lawyer V. K. Rai failed to overturn an $18,000 penalty for sending misleading letters to 22 doctors to pressure them for statements in a medical negligence suit.
• Justice Jeyaretnam upheld the penalty, stating Mr Rai had unfairly misled doctors about their legal obligations.
• Mr Rai's arguments, including lack of direct communication and High Court requirement, were rejected.

AI generated

Aug 13, 2025

SINGAPORE – A lawyer who sent misleading letters to 22 doctors to pressure them to give statements to his law firm has failed in his High Court bid to quash the $18,000 penalty that was imposed on him.

In a written judgment on Aug 12, Justice Philip Jeyaretnam upheld the penalty handed down earlier by a disciplinary tribunal.

The judge said Mr V. K. Rai had breached professional conduct rules because he took unfair advantage of the letter recipients by misleading them about their own legal position.


In May 2022, Mr Rai, of Arbiters Inc Law Corporation, was acting for a client in a medical negligence suit when he sent out identical letters to 22 doctors from Singapore General Hospital, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital. These doctors were not sued but were potential witnesses.

The wording of the letters created a misleading impression that the doctors were legally obliged to give a statement to Arbiters.

The letters stated the law firm was “required by the High Court” to record a statement from the doctors for the purpose of preparing an affidavit.

The doctors were told not to discuss their testimony with anyone, including their legal advisers and insurers. The letters also warned of “severe penal consequences” if the doctors did not comply.

In November 2022, the chairmen of the medical board of each hospital filed complaints to the Law Society of Singapore against Mr Rai.

The Law Society brought two charges against him, one for taking advantage of potential witnesses by making misleading statements and one for communicating directly with seven of the doctors when he knew they were represented by other lawyers.


Under etiquette rules, lawyers are not supposed to deal directly with the client of another lawyer behind his back.

A hearing before a two-member disciplinary tribunal began on May 30, 2024.

On Aug 21, 2024, after one of the members recused himself, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon appointed Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and Mr Chan Hock Keng to continue hearing the matter.

Mr Rai chose to remain silent when called to take the stand but made oral arguments as his own counsel. The Law Society, represented by Mr Pradeep Pillai and Mr Rashpal Singh, argued the tribunal must draw an adverse inference against Mr Rai due to his failure to give evidence.

In its report dated Jan 9, the tribunal agreed, saying Mr Rai would not have been able to substantiate his claims if he had testified.

The tribunal found that the Law Society had proved both charges, and concluded that a penalty of $18,000 was appropriate.


Mr Rai then applied to the High Court for a review of the tribunal’s decision.

He argued the tribunal’s finding was invalid because the Law Society never proved that the individual complainants had the authority to make the complaints on behalf of the hospitals.

Justice Jeyaretnam said this argument has no merit because the validity of the tribunal’s determination does not depend on who made the complaint or why they did so.


Mr Rai also argued he had not “communicated directly” with the doctors because the letters were not sent by him but by his associate, Mr Joavan Pereira.

The judge rejected this argument. The context of the etiquette rule indicates that “directly” referred to communicating with a represented party without going through their lawyer, he said.

Justice Jeyaretnam said evidence was presented that Mr Rai knew and approved of the letters; this was not rebutted as he chose not to testify. The judge added that Mr Rai was copied on the e-mails sent by Mr Pereira.

Mr Rai also argued that his client required the doctors to testify in court, and thus his firm was “required by the High Court” to record the doctors’ statements.

This simply was not true, said Justice Jeyaretnam.

A law firm which obtains a subpoena is not required by law or by the court to obtain a statement from the witness, the judge noted.

It is always possible for a witness under subpoena to give oral testimony without providing an affidavit, he added.

The judge noted that this misstatement was compounded by the further misstatement that not giving a statement could lead to “possible cost consequences”.

There is no precedent for an adverse costs order against a witness under subpoena who chooses to give evidence orally, he said.

“These misstatements appeared calculated to put pressure on the recipients to have their statements recorded by Mr Rai and his firm,” said the judge.

The medical negligence suit has been settled out of court.