[GUESS NATIONALITY] Two men convicted of sexually assaulting woman in hotel; judge rejects consensual sex defence

Nanodick

Stupidman
Loyal
Joined
Aug 20, 2022
Messages
20,162
Points
113

Two men convicted of sexually assaulting woman in hotel; judge rejects consensual sex defence​

The defence argued that the victim was conscious and consented to the acts, but could not remember doing so due to partial alcohol-induced memory loss.
Two men convicted of sexually assaulting woman in hotel; judge rejects consensual sex defence

File photo of the Supreme Court in Singapore.

Lydia Lam
22 Jul 2025 03:52PM (Updated: 22 Jul 2025 06:06PM)

SINGAPORE: Two men have been convicted of raping or sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room, with the judge rejecting their argument that the sex had been consensual.

The first man, 50, was an ex-colleague of the victim. He was convicted of one charge each of molestation, sexual assault and obstructing justice.

The second man, 51, had been friends with the first accused for about 20 years and they had previously engaged in a threesome together. He was convicted of six charges including rape, sexual assault, possessing an intimate image and obstructing justice.

The pair, both foreign nationals, cannot be named due to a gag order by the court preventing the publication of key information including their professions, nationalities and other details that might identify the victim.

The woman had passed out after drinking with the two men, both veterans in her industry, on Feb 26, 2023. This was after the ex-colleague invited her to his hotel room ahead of a planned dinner that never happened.

THE WOMAN'S ACCOUNT​

The woman testified that she had agreed to go up to the hotel room to drop off some sparkling water her ex-colleague had asked her to buy.

She also saw it as a networking opportunity. When she got there, she was offered alcohol and drank it while having casual conversation such as chatting about hawker places in Singapore.

She said she was asked to drink her glass of gin mix in a "bottoms up" fashion to catch up since the two men had already been drinking all afternoon.

When she did so, the older man told her: "When you bottom up, if you don't look the person into the eye, you'll have seven years' bad sex."

The woman testified about feeling surprised at this as it was the first time she heard such a thing. She described feeling uncomfortable when the discussion turned sexual and she was asked intimate questions about her boyfriends past and present.

She said she did not leave the room as she thought it would be impolite, and did not see any risk of harm as she had a prior professional and amicable relationship with one of them.

As the drinking went on, her ex-colleague said the restaurant they had booked for dinner had probably given the reserved table away. She said they could go elsewhere but preferred to go to the original eatery.

Around this time, the woman said the men asked her "white wine or red wine?" before plying her with alcohol.

After this, her hands started shaking from the amount of alcohol she had consumed and she vomited on the bed before losing consciousness. She began drifting in and out of consciousness and this was her last clear memory.

She next remembered vomiting into the sink before sexual acts occurred. She recalled saying "no, no, no" many times but could not move or open her eyes.

When she woke up at about 7.45am on Feb 27, 2023, she found blood stains on her underwear and felt weird, suspecting she had been raped. She went to a hospital to get herself medically checked and the hospital later lodged a police report.

The prosecution had argued at trial that the two men sexually assaulted the victim knowing full well that she did not consent.

The older man took a photo of the woman while she was naked, and without her knowledge, and the two men conspired to obstruct justice by deleting incriminating messages, said the prosecution.

The men had admitted to the sexual acts in video-recorded interview statements to the police, and forensic evidence supports the victim's account, said the prosecutors.

They added that the men had offered no explanation why the woman would otherwise have accused them of rape.

JUDGE ACCEPTS VICTIM'S ACCOUNT​

The men contested the charges, but Justice Hoo Sheau Peng found that the prosecution had proved its case, in a judgment released on Tuesday (Jul 22).

She found the victim firm in her evidence, providing a textured narration of events and not attempting to embellish evidence for bits she found "patchy".

Justice Hoo agreed with the prosecution that the woman's conduct at the time was consistent with her account.

First, after fully regaining consciousness and forming the view that she had been raped, the victim checked the bin for condoms and repeatedly asked one of the men what had happened.

When she returned to the hotel room, she searched online for what to do if she had been raped, the legal consequences of rape, as well as the police's phone number in Singapore.

She also visited the hospital once she could to make sure her body was "alright" and made a conscious effort not to wash up in order to preserve evidence.

She also tried arranging to meet her ex-colleague to hear his explanation of the night's events.

Justice Hoo said the woman's actions all cohere logically with her account of the events, and this is significant as it strikes at the defence's arguments that the woman's account was reconstructed and not based on her recollection.

The woman's evidence also cohered with other evidence such as the statements of the two men, closed-circuit television footage from the hotel and the woman's medical examination.

MEN'S ACCOUNTS "INCREDIBLE": JUDGE​

In contrast, Justice Hoo found the ex-colleague's account of the sexual activities "incredible". The man had said that not a single word was uttered by any of them throughout the long series of acts, despite saying earlier that the trio had engaged in a "hearty and long conversation".

Justice Hoo also found the deleted texts the ex-colleague had sent to his accomplice an indication of his guilt.

She found that the accomplice had shown himself "not to be a credible witness", saying his account of events in a few instances "was simply beyond belief".

After the incident, the ex-colleague made Google searches on his laptop for prompts including "do fingers in (vagina) leave dna", "what leaves dna in vagina after sexual activity" and "does shower after sex reduce dna testing".

The accomplice had also performed searches online after the incident, such as "trick questions in rape cases" and "polygraph test tips", and visited a webpage titled "Interview Strategies for Sexual Assault and Rape Investigations".

"These online searches betray the accused persons' guilty minds," said the judge, adding this was further evidenced by their "incredible explanations for the searches".

The victim's ex-colleague was represented by a team from Withers KhattarWong led by Mr Chenthil Kumarasingam, who argued that the acts had occurred with the victim's consent, or that the man was mistaken as to the consent.

Mr Kumarasingam had argued that if the woman felt uncomfortable when the conversation turned sexual, she would have said so or left the room.

Justice Hoo said this ignores the seniority of the two men in the profession in relation to the victim. It also ignores the fact that her ex-colleague was formerly her superior, and that she respected him and treated him as an elder member in a family.

The older man was defended by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Johannes Hadi. Mr Thuraisingam argued that the victim was not unconscious during the sex acts. Instead, she was conscious and consented to the acts, but could not remember doing so due to partial alcohol-induced memory loss.

Both men's defence teams argued that the woman had forgotten about the consent she had given to the sexual acts due to the alcohol she had consumed.

Justice Hoo rejected this, finding the victim to be an unusually convincing witness, and that there was clearly no valid consent on her part to any sexual activity.

She also rejected the men's respective accounts of the events surrounding the sex. She said the accounts were "replete with issues" and that the men had failed to show that the woman validly consented to, or appeared to have consented to the acts.

There was no valid consent, or possible appearance of consent, to the sexual activities, she concluded.

The men will be sentenced at a later date.
 

Here is the earlier report from last year! more details!

Two men on trial for raping or sexually assaulting woman in hotel room​

The woman allegedly woke up naked in the hotel room with no recollection of the events before, asking the man beside her what had happened to her.
Two men on trial for raping or sexually assaulting woman in hotel room

The Supreme Court in Singapore. (File photo: CNA/Try Sutrisno Foo)






Lydia Lam

02 Sep 2024 06:59PM(Updated: 03 Sep 2024 04:56PM)
Bookmark
WhatsAppTelegramFacebookTwitterEmailLinkedIn

SINGAPORE: A woman made plans to meet a former colleague when they were both in Singapore, but the dinner never materialised.

Instead, she allegedly passed out after drinking with her ex-colleague and his friend in a hotel room and woke up in pain, suspecting she had been raped.

ADVERTISEMENT

The two foreign men went on trial on Monday (Sep 2) for charges of rape or sexual assault, molestation and obstructing justice by deleting messages to each other.

A gag order on their identities and the victim's identity meant that key information identifying the men were redacted from court documents, including their names, their professions, their nationalities and other details that might identify the victim.

The prosecution had tried to get the court to lift the gag order on the two men's identities last week, but ultimately failed.

The first accused, a 49-year-old man, is contesting three charges of molestation, sexual assault and obstructing justice.

The second accused, a 50-year-old man, is on trial for six charges including rape, molestation, possessing an intimate image and obstructing justice.

The pair have been friends for about 20 years. They appeared in court in person, wearing suits.


The court heard that the alleged victim had previously worked under the first accused, A, and continued to stay in touch occasionally. She did not know the second accused, B, personally but was aware of his "professional reputation".

A is represented by Mr Chenthil Kumarasingam and Ms Harjeet Kaur Dhaliwal from Withers KhattarWong, while B is represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Johannes Hadi from Mr Thuraisingam's law firm.

THE CASE​

According to a set of facts agreed on by the prosecution and defence, the alleged victim asked A when he was flying to Singapore on Feb 23, 2023.

She said she would also be in the country and wondered if they were taking the same flight. A suggested meeting for dinner in Singapore and plans were later made.

On Feb 24 and Feb 25, A and B checked into different rooms at the Carlton Hotel in Bras Basah. A was to meet the alleged victim for dinner on Feb 26, 2023.

According to the prosecution's case, A and B drank alcohol in B's room that afternoon and shared a portion of viagra.

Between 5.11pm and 6pm, B's friend, known only as Ms J, a 52-year-old foreigner working in Singapore, joined them.

Ms J had met B on a dating application in 2022 and had a "casual intimate relationship" in the past.

Ms J kissed B on the bed while A was seated in the corner of the room, a fact the prosecution and defence agree on.

The prosecutors then contend that the two men alluded to having a "threesome" sexual encounter with Ms J, but she rejected them and left for her own dinner appointment at around 6pm.

Meanwhile, the alleged victim was supposed to meet A for dinner at a restaurant. However, A asked her to buy three to four cans of tonic and head to his hotel room, the prosecutors contend.

The alleged victim then bought sparkling water from Raffles City and met A at Carlton Hotel's lift lobby, where he took her up to the room.

According to the prosecution's opening statement, the alleged victim will testify that A introduced her to B.

The men then invited the alleged victim to drink some alcohol, encouraging her to "bottoms up" and drink each glass at one go, the prosecutors alleged.

The alcohol content of the gin and white wine poured into the glasses was 47.3 per cent and 13 per cent respectively.

The conversation turned risque and bawdy, the prosecution claimed.

THE WOMAN'S ALLEGATIONS​

The woman intended to head for dinner after finishing the drinks, but her last clear memory was having a half-glass of white wine at about 6.25pm. After this, she passed out.

She allegedly has no memory of what happened next and drifted in and out of consciousness, unable to open her eyes.

However, she alleged that someone removed her clothes and she was violated on various parts of her body, with her saying "no" many times.


She also recalled vomiting in the toilet while someone held her from behind, and lying naked on the floor of the cubicle while someone showered her.

Closed-circuit television footage showed that A left the hotel room at around 8.20pm.

At about 1am on Feb 27, 2023, the alleged victim woke up and realised she was naked on the bed with someone, the prosecution said.

She felt sore in her whole body and had a headache and difficulty breathing. She asked for the time and who the person beside her was, and B allegedly identified himself.

The alleged victim woke up again at 3am, beside B, the prosecutors alleged. She dressed herself, asking B what happened and why she was naked. She also told B that she felt she had been raped, the prosecution said in their opening statement.

According to the facts agreed on by the prosecution and defence, the woman left the hotel room with B at about 3.45am on Feb 27, 2023. A returned to the hotel soon after and called the operator, requesting fresh linen and towels.

Housekeeping then brought fresh linen to the room and removed some linen and trash.

The two men met later that morning in the hotel lobby. At about 12.43pm, A sent a message to the alleged victim stating: "Hey how are you feeling this morning? Not going to be drinking for a while now?"

The woman replied: "(redacted), can you explain to me what happened last night?"

A replied: "Yes, definitely. Do you want to meet for coffee later?"

The woman said "later this afternoon", stating that she was "still weak".

She went to Raffles Hospital for an examination as she wanted to know if she had been sexually assaulted. She was referred to KK Women's and Children's Hospital, which reported the case to the police.

The two men met for lunch at a restaurant in Raffles City before returning to the hotel, where they were arrested by the police later that afternoon.

B is accused of deleting communications he had with A, along with an image he had allegedly taken of the woman lying naked on the shower floor, sometime before the police arrested him.

As part of its case, the prosecution will be asking to admit statements made by the two men in the form of audiovisual recordings, where they allegedly admitted to the acts.

The alleged victim was the first on the stand for the prosecution. However, she did not want to testify in open, public court, so the prosecution successfully applied for her to testify in camera.

The media was therefore not allowed in for her evidence.

The court also applied a shielding measure - with a large board in place to block her view of the two men, and their view of her.

The prosecution will also be calling witnesses from Carlton Hotel, doctors and a senior consultant at the department of urology of Changi General Hospital.


A senior consultant from the Institute of Mental Health's Department of Forensic Psychiatry, will testify for the prosecution that the alleged victim's estimated blood alcohol content meant that she was likely intoxicated, disinhibited and with impaired judgment at the time.

The trial continues.

The penalties for rape and sexual assault by penetration are a jail term of up to 20 years and a fine or caning.
 
The pair, both foreign nationals, cannot be named due to a gag order by the court preventing the publication of key information including their professions, nationalities and other details that might identify the victim.

PAP kangaroo courts giving those infamous 'gag orders' again. All in the name of 'protecting the victim'. :laugh:

If you actually believe this, scammers out there will love you. :cool:
 
The woman testified that she had agreed to go up to the hotel room to drop off some sparkling water her ex-colleague had asked her to buy.

She also saw it as a networking opportunity. When she got there, she was offered alcohol and drank it while having casual conversation such as chatting about hawker places in Singapore.
Do you believe this woman?
 
A is represented by Mr Chenthil Kumarasingam and Ms Harjeet Kaur Dhaliwal from Withers KhattarWong, while B is represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Johannes Hadi from Mr Thuraisingam's law firm.

All kekling lawyers = all kekling clients
 
A woman decided to go up to hotel room with 2 men to ‘drop off water’. Thinks it’s a good ‘networking opportunity’. lol
 
Back
Top