- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,070
- Points
- 0
She told her psychiatrist: “Without my branded goods, I am nothing.”
Her husband claimed that her motto in life was: “Cheap stuff is never good”.
So Samantha Chiam Hwee Theng (above), 30, splurged. And when she couldn’t finance her purchases anymore, she stole.
Between 2006 and 2009, the personal secretary repeatedly forged her boss’ signature to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars.
On Feb 17, 2009, she forged his signature on a cheque for US$500,000 (S$615,000).
She then shopped at luxury boutiques, spending at least $10,000 at Louis Vuitton and $30,000 at Chanel each time.
She amassed an extravagant collection of branded goods, including 200 pairs of shoes, 80 bags, jewellery and luxury watches.
Chiam bought more luxury items than she could use. So she displayed them in a case at her flat, some with price tags still attached.
There were times she lost track of her possession and ended up buying what she had already owned. She gave these double purchases away as gifts to her friends and colleagues.
Chiam, whose highest educational qualification was her N levels, embezzled over $1.3m from her employer.
Yesterday, District Judge Low Wee Ping jailed her four years and 11 months on nine counts of forgery – 24 other similar charges and one charge of converting benefits of criminal conduct were taken into consideration during sentencing.
As she sat in the dock, Chiam, with her dishevelled hair tied into a ponytail at the nape of her neck, was in a very different situation from the lavish lifestyle she was trying to live.
Chiam had forged the signature of her boss, Mr Wu Chin Wei, 38, on his cheques to withdraw money. Mr Wu is a director of Triple Electronic, a company selling electronic parts.
When he discovered the missing money on July 30, 2009, he confronted Chiam. He lodged a police report when she admitted to having withdrawn it. Chiam surrendered to the police the following month.
In her mitigation plea, her lawyer, Mr Andrew Tan, said that Chiam was remorseful and had made restitution for $100,000 to Mr Wu, as well as surrendered bags of goods valued at about $450,000.
He added that Chiam, who came from a single-parent family, suffered from a compulsive and impulsive disorder, described as “shopaholic disorder”, from her early 20s.
According to Dr Lim Yun Chin, who was engaged by the defence to assess Chiam’s disorder, she was deprived of material possessions and stole when she was in secondary school so that she could be accepted by her peers.
She wanted things she couldn’t afford, and her stealing behaviour was motivated by her need to be “on a par with” her peers, who had the latest pencil cases, bags and clothes.
Her stealing habits stopped when she entered the workforce because she was able to afford her own purchases by then.
However, she still wanted to be admired by others and felt compelled to shop, regardless of whether she needed the items or not.
She would also lose control while shopping, often spending more than she could afford.
As a result, Chiam exceeded the limit on her credit cards and had to borrow money from her friends to settle her bills.
Describing Chiam’s obsession with shopping, Mr Tan said: “She coveted to be admired and accepted by others.
“That initiated her to her lifestyle of giving gifts freely to her relatives, friends and associates. She also decorated her house beautifully. Her purchases were all branded and luxury items.”
Dr Lim said that Chiam had lied to her husband and her mother that she had gotten her shopping money from stocks, shares and her online business.
Chiam, who has three daughters – three-year-old twins and a five-year-old – had even neglected her housework and her children’s welfare so she could shop.
Once, she was so carried away with shopping that she failed to take her sick daughter to the doctor.
Chiam’s husband said his wife couldn’t resist limited-edition items. She would buy them, only to chuck them aside after that.
She would also throw things out when she ran out of storage space. Once, she spent about $1,800 on groceries at Carrefour, realising only later that she had bought more than she needed.
The prosecution’s psychiatrist, Dr Jerome Goh Hern Yee, said that Chiam’s offences were motivated by social needs and her desire for her family’s acceptance and respect.
Dr Goh told the court that those suffering from an impulse control disorder would make “senseless, poorly-made choices”, and would seek instant gratification, for example, shoplifting when the impulse hits.
In contrast, Chiam’s shopping was neither senseless nor driven by impulses.
She had logical motivation for her purchases as these gave her status and validation, and her offences were motivated by a desire to have sufficient funds to finance her expenditure, and could not be attributed to the effects of any mental disorder.
In sentencing Chiam, Judge Low said there was no causal link between the shopaholic disorder and the offences committed.
However, he felt that the disorder had some mitigating factor for Chiam. He added: “I proceeded to give a 20 per cent discount for what would have been the benchmark sentence, considering the amount of the cheques that were forged.”
For each count of forgery, Chiam could have been jailed 10 years and fined.
