Lim Chin Yen v Public Prosecutor

Choo Han Teck J:

[1] The appellant was convicted of two charges of cheating, an offence punishable under s 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) and seven charges of attempted cheating, punishable under s 420 read with s 511 of the Penal Code, at the end of a trial. She was sentenced to a total of ten months’ imprisonment. She appealed against her conviction and sentence.

[3] The appellant was the sole proprietor of Review Communications. She was also a director and shareholder of MediaBank Asia Pte Ltd (“MediaBank”). Both Review Communications and Mediabank share the same premises. The nine charges relate to applications for the LETAS grant by nine different applicants. Review Communications was the consultant company in all these cases. In eight of the charges, the appellant was accused of making false declarations, stating that the project in question had been completed, overstating the scope of the project in question, and declaring that no refund of any moneys had been made. In relation to the remaining charge, she falsely declared that she had not refunded any money to the applicant.

[5] The evidence established clearly the actus reus required for the offence of cheating. That said, the remaining issue would be whether the requisite mens rea, of dishonesty, was present. In this respect, there was nothing to refute the clear inference to be drawn from the acts of the appellant, namely, that she had intended to cause SPRING Singapore to pay out various sums of money under the LETAS scheme which it would not otherwise have done. Counsel for the appellant, Mr Gwee, attempted to portray the appellant as a simple-minded person who had no intention to commit the offence of cheating. The objective facts indicate otherwise; in particular, the complex modus operandi. The appellant had clearly intended to manipulate the system in an illegitimate way. There was thus no basis for me to interfere with the conviction.

[6] Having regard to sentencing precedents, the elaborate nature of the scheme, the significant role of the appellant, and the various mitigating factors, I am of the opinion that the sentence imposed by the District Judge was not manifestly excessive.