After what he did he still trying his luck. Should have enhanced his sentence. He misled some of his clients and they paid a heavy price. Not only that he kept a diary.
Online vice ring: Pimp loses appeal
Amanda Lee
Jun 28
SINGAPORE - Was Tang Boon Thiew, the man behind the online vice ring which has implicated more than 20 men, a "villainous" pimp who took advantage of an underage girl or a mere scapegoat?
This was a question his lawyers put before the High Court yesterday, as they appealed against the "manifestly excessive" sentence imposed on Tang. In January, the 39-year-old was sentenced to 58 months in jail and a S$90,000 fine after he pleaded guilty to 20 charges of living off the earnings of prostitutes, procuring women for prostitution and abetting clients who wanted paid sex with a minor.
While Tang acknowledged his wrongdoings, his lawyer, Mr Shashi Nathan, argued that the punishment should also be fair. "In the last year, issues of fidelity, the protection of young girls and women and, ultimately, the reputation of families, have come to the forefront. Is the Prosecution harnessing the appellant (Tang) with the yoke of all these issues?" he asked.
One issue raised during the appeal was whether Tang had exploited the Internet to commit the offences. Mr Nathan argued that Senior District Judge See Kee Oon had "erred in accepting the Prosecution's position" that Tang had "misused the Internet in the commission of the offences". While the Internet was used to advertise, make arrangements with prospective clients and recruit escorts, Mr Nathan argued that arrangements with the clients and the escorts were largely done through Tang's mobile phone.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Mark Tay countered that the Internet was an "essential conduit" in Tang's offences, as it allowed him to recruit prostitutes, advertise the sexual services of those recruited and provide a contact point for would-be clients without risking physical interaction between such clients and Tang.
Justice Chan Seng Onn, who presided over yesterday's hearing, dismissed the appeal. He did not state his reasons or indicate if he would be giving a written judgment at a later date. AMANDA LEE
Online vice ring: Pimp loses appeal
Amanda Lee
Jun 28
SINGAPORE - Was Tang Boon Thiew, the man behind the online vice ring which has implicated more than 20 men, a "villainous" pimp who took advantage of an underage girl or a mere scapegoat?
This was a question his lawyers put before the High Court yesterday, as they appealed against the "manifestly excessive" sentence imposed on Tang. In January, the 39-year-old was sentenced to 58 months in jail and a S$90,000 fine after he pleaded guilty to 20 charges of living off the earnings of prostitutes, procuring women for prostitution and abetting clients who wanted paid sex with a minor.
While Tang acknowledged his wrongdoings, his lawyer, Mr Shashi Nathan, argued that the punishment should also be fair. "In the last year, issues of fidelity, the protection of young girls and women and, ultimately, the reputation of families, have come to the forefront. Is the Prosecution harnessing the appellant (Tang) with the yoke of all these issues?" he asked.
One issue raised during the appeal was whether Tang had exploited the Internet to commit the offences. Mr Nathan argued that Senior District Judge See Kee Oon had "erred in accepting the Prosecution's position" that Tang had "misused the Internet in the commission of the offences". While the Internet was used to advertise, make arrangements with prospective clients and recruit escorts, Mr Nathan argued that arrangements with the clients and the escorts were largely done through Tang's mobile phone.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Mark Tay countered that the Internet was an "essential conduit" in Tang's offences, as it allowed him to recruit prostitutes, advertise the sexual services of those recruited and provide a contact point for would-be clients without risking physical interaction between such clients and Tang.
Justice Chan Seng Onn, who presided over yesterday's hearing, dismissed the appeal. He did not state his reasons or indicate if he would be giving a written judgment at a later date. AMANDA LEE
