Public Prosecutor v Ahmed Jubaer Uddin [2026] SGDC 274

Mr Ahmed Jubaer Uddin (“Mr Ahmed”) had been working in Singapore for more than a decade when he decided to earn some extra income by assisting an unlicensed moneylender to harass borrowers.

On 3 December 2024, Mr Ahmed was contacted and tasked by the unlicensed moneylender (who he only knew as “Tan”) to purchase five bicycle locks, proceed to various residential units, lock the gates of these units using the bicycle locks and place debtor’s notes on them, in exchange for payment. He accepted the job, purchased the bicycle locks, and enlisted the help of an acquaintance to ferry him around Singapore to perform the assigned task. He ultimately did not receive any payment for committing the offences.

Mr Ahmed was arrested on 5 December 2024 and subsequently released on bail on 19 December 2024.

He pleaded guilty to two charges under s 47(2)(a) read with s 47(1)(b), punishable under s 47(2)(a) read with s 47(3)(b)(i) of the Moneylenders Act 2008 (2020 Rev Ed) (“MLA”) for acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender to commit acts likely to cause annoyance to the occupants residing in the following residential units:

(a) A flat in Toa Payoh in respect of a loan purportedly taken by a borrower (“Toa Payoh Charge”). Sometime before 3.18pm, Mr Ahmed locked the gate of the unit with a bicycle lock and placed (affixed) a debtor’s note on the gate, while the borrower’s father was present in the unit.

(b) A flat in Ang Mo Kio in respect of a loan purportedly taken by a borrower (“Ang Mo Kio Charge”). Sometime after 6.48pm, Mr Ahmed locked the gate of the unit with a bicycle lock and placed (affixed) a debtor’s note on the gate, while the borrower and his mother were present in the unit.

He also admitted and consented to three charges being taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing (“TIC Charges”), which related to acts he committed on behalf of the unlicensed moneylender at three remaining flats located in Bedok, Jalan Berseh and Owen Road.

The Prosecution sought a sentence of 9-10 months’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane for each proceeded charge, with both imprisonment sentences to run concurrently. The Defence sought a sentence of 6-8 months’ imprisonment and 2 strokes of the cane for each proceeded charge, with both imprisonment sentences to run concurrently.

I sentenced Mr Ahmed to 10 months’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane for each proceeded charge, with both imprisonment sentences running concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane.

The prescribed punishment for the Toa Payoh Charge and Ang Mo Kio Charge is a mandatory imprisonment term of up to 5 years and a discretionary fine of $5,000-$50,000 (under s 47(2)(a) of the MLA), and a mandatory 3-6 strokes of the cane as damage was caused to the property (under s 47(3)(b) of the MLA). In this regard, under s 47(7)(b) of the MLA, a person is deemed to have caused damage to the property by “affixing, posting up or displaying on the property any poster, placard, bill, notice, paper or other document”.

An individual sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane was suitable for both the Toa Payoh Charge and Ang Mo Kio Charge.

(a) Mr Ahmed appeared to have committed the offences out of genuine financial need as he was providing financial support to his wife, child and sick parents in Bangladesh. His conduct therefore fell within the first of two categories of offenders for non-fire harassment cases with property damage identified by the High Court in Public Prosecutor v Quek Li Hao [2013] 4 SLR 471 (“Quek Li Hao”):

(i) The “Genuine Financial Need Category” for offenders who turn to loan sharks not to pay off their gambling debts but because of genuinely desperate needs such as sudden sickness and prolonged retrenchment, which attracts a benchmark sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane (seemingly in the context of an offender who pleads guilty).

(ii) The “Greed and Self-interest Category” for offenders who are less deserving of sympathy such as youth harassers lured by the easy money and the thrill, and gamblers who harassed for the easy money they can obtain to repay their gambling debts, which attracts an uplift of 3-6 months to the benchmark sentence for the Genuine Financial Need Category.

(b) The offences resulted in people being locked in their units, leaving them vulnerable in the event of an emergency (Public Prosecutor v Kuan Ah Ming [2020] SGDC 51 (“Kuan Ah Ming”) at [60]).

(c) Steps appeared to have been taken to minimise the damage caused to the property, as it was apparent from the photographs submitted by the Prosecution that the debtor’s notes were affixed using masking tape, and could be easily removed. In line with Quek Li Hao, this warranted a small discount of 1-2 months to the benchmark sentence.

(d) There were three TIC Charges, which I accounted for evenly over the Toa Payoh Charge and the Ang Mo Kio Charge.

(e) Further, 3 strokes of the cane was the mandatory minimum at law, and there was no legal basis for Mr Ahmed’s argument for 2 strokes.

(f) In deriving the individual sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment, I was cognisant that lower sentences have been imposed by the District Court for the same offence in previous cases, such as in the two cases referred to by the Prosecution – 8 months’ imprisonment in Public Prosecutor v Muhamad Syafiq bin Mohamad Shah [2018] SGDC 144 (“Muhamad Syafiq”) and 6 months’ imprisonment in Kuan Ah Ming. Nevertheless, these decisions were distinguishable for the following reasons:

(i) First, the stage at which the offenders in Muhamad Syafiq and Kuan Ah Ming indicated their intention to plead guilty was not apparent from the judgments. In this regard, I noted that Mr Ahmed only indicated his intention to plead guilty around a week before the commencement of trial (ie. at Stage 3 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas).

(ii) Second, the circumstances of the two precedent cases differed from Mr Ahmed’s case in material aspects.

(A) In Muhamad Syafiq, the offender (who pleaded guilty) faced three charges for acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender to lock the gates of residential units with bicycle locks and place debtor’s notes on the gates, and was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment for each charge (with two of the three sentences running consecutively for an aggregate of 16 months’ imprisonment), which the District Court calibrated to account for some measure of leniency because the offender was 21 years old at the time of the offence. Consequently, the sentence in Muhamad Syafiq had to be seen in light of the offender’s relative youth at the time of offending.

(B) In Kuan Ah Ming, the offender (who pleaded guilty) faced two charges for acting on behalf of an unlicensed moneylender to lock the gates of residential units with bicycle locks and place debtor's notes on the gates, and was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for each charge (with both sentences running consecutively for an aggregate of 12 months’ imprisonment). The District Court indicated that a term of “eight months’ imprisonment for each charge would have ordinarily been appropriate”, but reduced it to 6 months on account of the totality principle. Consequently, the sentence in Kuan Ah Ming had to be seen in light of the District Court’s application of the totality principle and the overall criminality involved.

(g) For completeness, the hardship caused to Mr Ahmed and his family due to his incarceration was not a mitigating factor (Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 at [10]).

I ordered the imprisonment term for the Toa Payoh Charge and the Ang Mo Kio Charge to run concurrently, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane. In line with the general rule of consecutive sentences for unrelated offences (Public Prosecutor v Raveen Balakrishnan [2018] 5 SLR 799 at [41]), the sentences could have been ordered to run consecutively since the offences under the two charges involved different times, locations and victims. However, I noted the Prosecution’s submission to have the sentences run concurrently, and decided to run the sentences concurrently on account of the totality principle in light of the prevailing circumstances. This yielded an aggregate of 10 months’ imprisonment (which can be described as a sentence leaning on the side of leniency) and 6 strokes of the cane.

The sentence was backdated to 5 December 2024 (the date of arrest) to take into account the period of custody and exclude the period on bail.

Mr Ahmed has appealed against his sentence.