Public Prosecutor v Natrisha Nathania Binte Jamaludin [2026] SGMC 24

District Judge Crystal Tan:

Introduction

This case falls into a transitional group of youth offenders whose offences are scams-related but were committed before the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences (“Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences”) were published on 21 August 2024 and the offences do not fall under the scams-related offences that are expressly stated in the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences.

On 8 April 2025, the Accused pleaded guilty to one charge under Section 3(1)(a) read with Section 12 of the Computer Misuse Act 1993 (“CMA”) (to be referred to as “the proceeded charge”):

The Accused also consented for one charge under Section 417 of the Penal Code 1871 (“PC”) to be taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing (to be referred to as “TIC”):

Prosecution sought for reformative training to be imposed whilst Counsel submitted for probation or alternatively, a community-based sentence such as short detention order instead of a short imprisonment term or reformative training.

The Court sentenced the Accused to a community sentence comprising of a short detention order of seven days, to perform 60 hours of community service order within 12 months and to undergo Day Reporting for a period of 3 months (to be referred together as “the community sentence”).

On 20 January 2026, the Prosecution filed an appeal against the community sentence. Bail pending appeal was granted to the Accused and the Accused’s community sentence was stayed.

Facts

The Accused admitted to the Statement of Facts without qualification.

Briefly, from the Statement of Facts, the Accused was 18 years old at the time of offence.

On 9 February 2023 at about 11.28 pm, a 24-year-old male Malaysian filed a police report (to be referred to as “the complainant”). The complainant had a video call of a sexual nature with a female he got to know online and he subsequently learnt that it was recorded. An unknown party threatened to distribute this recording to the complainant’s contact list if he did not meet their demands of monies. The complainant transferred $3000 to CIMB Bank account [xxx] (“the CIMB account”). The Accused was the bank account holder of the CIMB account.

The complainant was pressured to transfer more money and $50 was demanded from him in exchange for the unknown person deleting each person off his contact list, which the unknown party would otherwise forward the recording to. Out of fear, the complainant transferred more money to other accounts provided by the unknown party until the complainant did not have any monies left.

Investigations revealed that sometime before 3 February 2023, the Accused came across a Telegram advertisement for a fast cash opportunity. The Accused contacted the Telegram user and the said user promised that she would be paid $600 to $700 for providing her bank account credentials. The Accused opened two accounts with CIMB Bank, one for her savings and another CIMB account which she intended to relinquish.

After the CIMB account was opened, the Accused provided its account number and login credentials to the said Telegram user sometime around 3 February 2023. In so doing, the Accused did cheat CIMB Bank Berhad (“the Company”), in particular, by deceiving the Company into believing that she would be the sole operator of the CIMB account, which she knew to be false, and by such deception, she intentionally induced the Company to open the CIMB account without conducting due diligence on its ultimate beneficial owner, which the Company would not have done if it had not been so deceived, and which act is likely to cause harm to the reputation of the Company.

The Telegram user promised the Accused would receive the cash promised but no such money was ever received by the Accused. The Telegram user’s account was deleted sometime thereafter. Since the CIMB account was relinquished to the Telegram user, $31,058.72 has flowed into the said account, while $31,057.52 has flowed out of the said account.

By providing an unknown Telegram user with the account number and login credentials of the CIMB account sometime around 3 February 2023 in Singapore, the Accused abetted by intentionally aiding the said user to knowingly cause a computer of the Company to perform a function for the purpose of securing access without authority to the bank services involving the CIMB account, and in particular, the data held in the Company’s computer in respect of the said account, which unknown persons were not authorised to access.

After the Accused pleaded guilty, she made restitution of $3000 to the complainant.

Antecedents

The Accused is untraced.

Parties’ Submissions

Prosecution’s Address on Sentence

The Prosecution submitted for reformative training. The Prosecution submitted that although the Accused committed the offence at 18 years old, her offence remains “a serious one”. There are “no exceptional circumstances” that would justify a departure from [7] of the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences.

The Prosecution emphasised that deterrence was key due to the prevalence and increase in such offences and that the sentences imposed by the Court should be punitive enough and commensurate with the harm. Furthermore, there was also the “psychological effects” on the victim besides the monetary harm that he suffered.

Having surveyed the 6 cases highlighted by the Court (which are discussed in further detail at [84]-[88] below), the Prosecution submitted that even when the suitability reports found that the offender had “a low risk of re-offending and minimal needs requiring intervention”, this “has not prevented the Court from imposing reformative training” for such offences. The Prosecution also highlighted the following points in respect of the cases:

(a) In Public Prosecutor v Nor Eshan Ashryan bin Norsuasta [2025] SGDC 14 (“Nor Eshan Ashryan”) at [34], creating a new bank account for the purpose of relinquishment is more aggravated than handing over a pre-existing bank account and an offender’s culpability in creating a new bank account for the said purpose is “not minimal” ;

(b) The Accused’s case was unlike Public Prosecutor v JDI [2024] SGMC 91 (“JDI”) where probation was imposed. In JDI, no offence was stated to have been committed from the relinquishment of the offender’s Singpass credentials but in the Accused’s case the complainant was a sextortion victim. The Accused had one TIC charge but JDI did not. The Accused was older than the accused in JDI and should have known better. Further, only $2,208.24 flowed into and out of the bank account created in JDI;

(c) In respect of Public Prosecutor v JDT [2024] SGDC 143 (“JDT”), the Prosecution has appealed against the community-based sentences imposed and JDT appears to be an isolated case. In the absence of any High Court case which affirms JDT, the Court ought to be slow to rely on JDT.

The Prosecution also highlighted the case of Soong Hee Sin v Public Prosecutor [2001] SLR(R) 465 and submitted for the Court to attribute little to no mitigating weight to the voluntary compensation of $3000.

In response to the Defence’s submission for a short detention order as an alternative sentencing option, the Prosecution highlighted Chen Song v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2024] SGHC 129 at [153] (“Chen Song”) and submitted that it was not suitable because deterrence is not outweighed by rehabilitation in the Accused’s case.

The Prosecution stressed that scams continue to be a pressing concern and that sufficiently deterrent sentences are crucial for layman, including young people, to change their risk assessment.

Defence’s Mitigation and Submission on Sentence

Counsel submitted for probation or alternatively, a community-based sentence such as short detention order instead of a short imprisonment term or reformative training.

Counsel highlighted Public Prosecutor v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1999] 1 SLR 138 (“Maurice Mok”) and submitted that rehabilitation is the dominant consideration for youth offenders. Considering the Accused’s low culpability, Counsel submitted for his client to undergo probation instead of reformative training for the following reasons:

(a) Probation does not stand as a criminal conviction on the offender’s record;

(b) Placing young offenders on probation enables them to continue with their education or employment, which will allow them to turn over a new leaf and become a responsible member of society;

(c) Reformative training would have a devastating effect on a young offender’s ability to further their education or continue employment;

(d) The Accused has no previous antecedents and rehabilitation should hold greater weight;

(e) The Accused cooperated fully with authorities and she committed the offence as a result of her “youthful folly” ;

(f) The probation report is “positive in many aspects” and shows that the Accused has a low risk of re-offending and is well-behaved while staying with both her adoptive and biological parents ;

(g) The Accused has been able to comply with the time restrictions since 21 April 2025 and demonstrated an ability to lead a disciplined life. She also has a supportive family background and has the propensity to be rehabilitated without the need for reformative training ;

(h) The Accused made full restitution to the victim.

Counsel also highlighted JDT and submitted that based on the findings in Fahd Siddiqui v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 66 (“Fahd Siddiqui”), the Accused’s offence would not warrant for rehabilitation within the rigorous and structured environment of reformative training for a minimum period of six months. Considering the Accused’s young age, the lack of aggravating factors and existence of several mitigating factors, Counsel submitted that it would be “sufficient cause” for the Accused to be sentenced to a community-based sentence instead of reformative training or a short imprisonment term.

Decision on Sentence

Sentencing framework for youth offenders

The High Court in Public Prosecutor v Mohammad Al-Ansari Bin Basri [2008] 1 SLR(R) 449 at [77]-[78] (“Mohammad Al-Ansari”) set out the following “analytical framework” for sentencing young offenders involved in serious offences:

This analytical framework was adopted in Public Prosecutor v Koh Wen Jie Boaz [2016] 1 SLR 334 at [28] and accepted by the Court of Appeal in See Li Quan Mendel v Public Prosecutor [2020] 2 SLR 630 at [12].

In finding that the principle of rehabilitation is generally the predominant consideration for youth offenders, the High Court in Mohammad Al-Ansari at [32] considered former Yong Pung How CJ’s pronouncement in Maurice Mok at [21] placing rehabilitation at the forefront for youth offenders:

The High Court in Mohammad Al-Ansari at [30] characterised rehabilitation as similar to specific deterrence in that it aimed to “discourage the commission of future offences by the offender” and seeks to reform the offender so that he or she will no longer want to commit criminal offences by removing the factors which contributed to the criminal offending. In contrast, general deterrence aims to deter “like-minded members of the general public by making an example of the particular offender” (see Mohammad An-Ansari at [52]).

The High Court in Mohammed Al-Ansari at [66]-[67] also stressed the need to consider the unique facts of each case in determining the appropriate sentence when considering the balance to be struck between rehabilitation and deterrence:

Applicability of Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences

The Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences recommend a sentencing approach for the following scams-related offences :

(a) section 51(1) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (“CDSA”);

(b) section 51(1A) of the CDSA;

(c) section 8A of the CMA;

(d) section 8B of the CMA;

(e) section 420 of the PC where the deception is communicated over the phone or online through a communication platform (such as WhatsApp) or website and induces the victim into delivering a pecuniary or financial benefit.

In 2023, the CDSA and CMA were amended to introduce new offences to “combat the growing menace posed by scams-related offences” due to scams being a “major and fast-growing concern”. Though the offence in the proceeded charge does not fall under the scams-related offences expressly covered under the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences, the mischief targeted is the same:

Under the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences, custodial sentences are the recommended sentencing norm because scams-related offences are “prevalent and increasing” and the sentences must be “punitive enough and commensurate with the harm suffered by the victims of scams-related offences”. The Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences stress that the harm can be “devastating” and extend to “significant psychological harm” that goes beyond the “scammed victim and families” as it can also lead to public trust in financial institutions and the use of electronic transactions to be eroded.

Prosecution especially relied on the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences at [7(c)]:

There is no High Court guidance yet regarding the applicability of the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences to offences that do not fall under the scams-related offences the Guidelines are expressly intended to cover. Generally, the approach appears to have been to find the Guidelines relevant (see Nor Eshan Ashryan at [32] and JDT at [34]). There has also been a decision which declined to apply the Prosecution’s proposed starting point imprisonment sentences and prescribed uplifts for scam-related offences charged under section 3(1) CMA and section 417 PC which were adapted from the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences (see Public Prosecutor v Siraj Munir Bin Mohamed Basheer [2025] SGMC 13 at [3]).

In the Accused’s case as stated in [1], the Accused’s offending was committed before the publication of the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences and the offences did not fall under what was expressly covered. However, while keeping in mind these considerations, the Court did find the Guidelines relevant in the sense that it is relevant to consider the need for deterrence and the public interest in suppressing scams because this would apply to the nature of the proceeded charge.

Even if the Court agrees with the Prosecution that the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences are relevant, this doesn’t automatically resolve the issue of what would be the appropriate sentence for the Accused in this case as the Prosecution seems to suggest in their submissions by stating that there is nothing exceptional to justify departing from paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences.

However, as stated in [34] above, the Guidelines state that “fines, probation and community sentences are generally not appropriate” but this does not mean they cannot be appropriate. The Guidelines also state imprisonment or reformative training “whichever is more appropriate, should be considered” but this also does not mean that imprisonment or reformative training must be imposed. The Court will still have to apply the analytical framework in Mohammad Al-Ansari and consider based on the unique facts and circumstances of the case, what would be the appropriate sentence that balances the interests of rehabilitation (if it remains relevant) and the needs of deterrence, keeping in mind the arguably greater need for deterrence for scams-related offences in light of the Guidelines.

Therefore, based on the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences, what the Court needs to keep in mind when considering the appropriate sentence to balance the principles of rehabilitation (if relevant) and deterrence is that sufficient weight needs to be attributed to the needs of deterrence because of the “public interest in suppressing scams”.

Pre-sentencing reports

The Court now turns to a consideration of the various pre-sentencing reports for the Accused. The Court has called pre-sentencing reports for probation, reformative training, community service order and day reporting order.

Probation Officer’s Report

In the Probation Officer’s Report (“POR”), the Accused was assessed to be suitable for probation. The Accused’s “risk of re-offending is low compared to other female offenders”. The Accused’s risk factors for her involvement in current offences “reflect poor critical thinking skills, poor decision-making skills and risk-taking behaviour”. She had irregular attendance at the Institute of Technical Education (“ITE”) and her parents were unable to guide her to attend ITE or constructively engage her after her graduation.

However, the POR also stated these strengths/protective factors such as “adherence to her trial time restriction since 21 Apr 2025 which shows her capacity for a disciplined lifestyle, when motivated” and familial support such as both her adoptive parents and biological mother reported that she was “well-behaved” when staying with them which “suggest some receptivity to caregivers’ guidance”.

In terms of the Accused’s attitude towards the offence, the Accused had reported that she committed the offence to “earn her own spending money as she wanted to be independent and not rely on her parents”, “she did not know her actions was illegal” and she “felt bad for the victim who was extorted as he lost a large sum of money”. The Investigation Officer also reported that the Accused was “cooperative and forthcoming”.

Pre-sentencing report for Reformative Training

In the pre-sentencing report for reformative training (“RT report”), the Accused was assessed to be suitable for reformative training. The RT Report stated that there was “stability” in the Accused’s family environment and she received “adequate support” from her adoptive parents. Her peers were positive influences and were not involved in illegal activities. The Accused did not present with “behaviours associated with an antisocial pattern or personality” and displayed a “calm demeanour and a positive attitude towards authority”. The Accused “acknowledged her poor decision to create a bank account for others and reflected that her low self-esteem had made her vulnerable during the time she committed the offences”. She was unaware of the severity of the offences and had only wanted money to prove she could afford the “same expenses” as her secondary school schoolmates but “did not want her adoptive parents to worry for her”.

The RT report concluded that the Accused “presented with minimum needs for intervention” and the intervention could focus on “making better decision through increasing her decision-making skills and developed her self-esteem to increase her self-worth and self-image”. If sentenced to reformative training, the RT report recommended for Level 1 intensity of rehabilitation (6 months).

Community Service Order Suitability Report

The Community Service Order Suitability Report (“CSO report”) found the Accused suitable for community service order. The CSO report assessed the Accused to be “a well-mannered and respective individual who was remorseful for her actions” and her “prompt responses to communication reflect her cooperative attitude”. The Accused’s “readiness to complete CS hours on weekdays before her school commenced in Apr 2026 reflects her commitment to CSO”. The CSO report recommended for the Accused to perform 60 hours of community service within 12 months.

Day Reporting Order Suitability Report

The Suitability Report for Day Reporting Order (“DRO report”) recommended for Day Reporting Order. The DRO report assessed the Accused to be “forthcoming and responsive”. Based on the MSF probation officer’s account, the Accused was presently undergoing “trial” probation and has been compliant to a 10 pm time restriction and was responsive to the officer. The Accused was placed in the “low risk/needs of criminal re-offending” and “low risk of reoffending”.

The Accused was assessed to benefit from intervention and support in securing and maintaining employment. Her risk of re-offending is “mitigated by protective factors” such as her “positive interpersonal relationships with her adoptive aunt, family of origin and her boyfriend, and her pursuit of further education to increase her employability”. The DRO report assessed that she would be suitable for Day Reporting Order for a recommended period of minimum three months with the following conditions :

(a) being placed on electronic monitoring scheme and to remain indoors from 10 pm to 6 am;

(b) to report to the Day Reporting Officer assigned, at such time and place as may be directed by the Day Reporting Officer; and

(c) to attend counselling at such time and place as may be directed by the Day Reporting Officer.

Consideration of appropriate sentence in light of the need for rehabilitation and deterrence

Based on the pre-sentencing reports, rehabilitation remains the dominant sentencing consideration for the Accused as a youth offender in this case and has not been displaced. Hence, the Court needs to consider the unique facts of the Accused’s case to determine the most appropriate sentence for the Accused considering the dominant principle of rehabilitation while balancing the needs of deterrence in light of the severity of the nature of the proceeded charge.

In the Accused’s case, the Court agreed with the Prosecution’s submissions that probation would not give sufficient weight to deterrence in light of the nature of the proceeded charge and was thus not an appropriate sentencing option for the Accused.

The Prosecution submitted that reformative training would be the appropriate sentence balancing rehabilitation and deterrence in this case for the Accused.

Under section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“CPC”), the court may impose a sentence of reformative training in lieu of any other sentence “if the court is satisfied, having regard to the person’s character, previous conduct and the circumstances of the offence, that to reform the person and to prevent crime,” the person should undergo a period of training in a reformative training centre.

At this point, it would be useful to consider the case of JDT which compared reformative training and community-based sentences in considering which would be an appropriate sentence to balance the interests of rehabilitation and needs of deterrence for similar scam-related offences in the context of youth offenders.

In JDT, the accused faced five charges, viz, three charges under section 417 of the PC and two charges under section 3(1) read with section 12 of the CMA. She pleaded guilty to two charges under section 417 of the PC and consented for the remaining three charges to be TIC-ed. She committed the offences when she was 16 years old. The Court imposed a community sentence comprising a day reporting order, a community service order and a short detention order. JDT opened three bank accounts and handed control of 2 of them to her friend. Sums totalling $64,654.13 were transferred through the two bank accounts, including $64,500 from a 68-year-old scam victim.

The Court in JDT at [47] assessed the accused to have “very good prospects at rehabilitation in the community” and “did not require ‘a rigorous and structured environment’ such as RTC for her rehabilitation”. The Court found in JDT at [48] that “a properly calibrated sentence that would balance the needs of rehabilitation and deterrence for this young offender, on the facts of the case, was neither probation nor RT, but a community sentence comprising a DRO, CSO and SDO”:

The Court in JDT at [49]-[51] highlighted the cases of Public Prosecutor v Abdul Qayyum bin Abdul Razak and another appeal [2020] SGHC 57 (“Abdul Qayyum”), Fahd Siddiqui and Sim Wen Yi Ernest v Public Prosecutor [2016] 5 SLR 207 (“Sim Wen Yi Ernest”) to support its conclusion that “a community sentence which includes an SDO can meet the sentencing objectives of rehabilitation and deterrence” and a combination of community sentences consisting of a Day Reporting Order, Community Service Order and Short detention order would be “the appropriate sentence to balance the need for rehabilitation and deterrence” in JDT.

The effectiveness of community-based sentences and its deterrent effect

Therefore, before considering what would be the appropriate sentence based on the relevant circumstances in the Accused’s case, the Court has to consider the effectiveness of community-based sentences in meeting the requirements of rehabilitation and deterrence and if sufficient weight to deterrence can be given through community-based sentences.

In Abdul Qayyum at [1], the accused pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful assembly under section 143 of the PC. He was 20 at the time of the offence and had joined a group of friends to attack a victim who suffered a cut below his eye. The Chief Justice at [14] of Abdul Qayyum overturned the accused’s sentence of one months’ imprisonment and imposed a combination of community-based sentences as follows:

(a) A Day Reporting Order of 12 months;

(b) Community Service Order of 120 hours; and

(c) A short detention order of 7 days.

The Chief Justice found at [11] of Abdul Qayyum that it was appropriate to treat the accused in Abdul Qayyum as a youthful offender with rehabilitation remaining the primary concern. The Chief Justice also stated at [12] of Abdul Qayyum the following reasons for the community-based sentences:

(a) Day Reporting Order would afford the accused “a structured framework within which he must report to the Day Reporting Officer periodically and attend programs directed at particular issues that he will need to work on”;

(b) The accused had remained crime free since the commission of the offence about 21 months ago and had kept regular employment ;

(c) He had a young family that was largely intact with a supportive wife and this provided him a strong reason to want to reform himself;

(d) He had secured a rental flat to provide a stable home for his family.

Further, the Chief Justice stated in Abdul Qayyum at [14] that a short detention order of seven days would be imposed to “address the need for deterrence” and “this was sufficient to enable him to experience a taste of the loss of liberty that would be the consequence if he fails to change his life”.

Thus, Abdul Qayyum had recognised that a combination of community-based sentences can be effective to target a youth offender’s risk factors for re-offending with a short detention order especially addressing the need for deterrence since it entails a loss of liberty.

In Fahd Siddiqui, the accused pleaded guilty to a charge under section 6(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 for corruptly attempting to obtain gratification in the form of sexual services from a social escort and he also had a similar charge being TIC-ed. He committed the offences when he was 20 years old in his capacity as a full-time Police National Serviceman of the Singapore Police Force. The High Court stated in Fahd Siddiqui at [15] that as the accused was a police officer who misused his police powers to corruptly attempt to obtain gratification, “deterrence and retribution must feature as equally important sentencing considerations alongside the rehabilitation of young offenders”.

The High Court in Fahd Siddiqui at [17] overturned the District Court’s sentence of reformative training for the accused as “there was nothing to suggest that there was a need to reform and rehabilitate the appellant ‘within a rigorous and structured environment’ for a minimum period of six months”. The High Court noted in Fahd Siddiqui at [17] that the accused was assessed to have a low risk of reoffending and had positive achievements in school and national service, including strong familial support. The High Court in Fahd Siddiqui at [18] considered a short detention order to be “more appropriate” but as that was not a sentencing option available for the offence in Fahd Siddiqui, the High Court instead imposed an imprisonment term of seven days.

Similar to Abdul Qayyum, the High Court in Fahd Siddiqui recognised that a short detention order is able to meet the needs of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation for youth offenders.

In Sim Wen Yi Ernest, the accused pleaded guilty to three charges, viz, one charge of importing airsoft pistol under section 13(1)(b) read with section 13(2)(a) of the Arms and Explosives Act (Cap 13, 2003 Rev Ed) (“the AEA”), one charge of having possession of an airsoft gun under section 13(1)(a) read with section 13(4) of the AEA and one charge of voluntarily causing hurt using an airsoft gun under section 324 of the PC. On appeal, the High Court altered the section 324 PC charge to an offence under section 337(a) of the PC. The High Court in Sim Wen Yi Ernest at [28] found probation not suitable as a measure of general deterrence was necessary.

The High Court in Sim Wen Yi Ernest at [29] noted the following aggravating factors present in the accused’s case, viz, (i) the acts were deliberate and persistent, (ii) public disquiet was caused, and (iii) the offences were difficult to detect. The accused’s culpability remained high and the “broader harm in terms of the risk and potential danger and serious injury could not be ignored” (see Sim Wen Yi Ernest at [29]).

Although the accused was not a youth offender, the High Court in Sim Wen Yi Ernest at [32] considered that “his likelihood of reoffending was low” and although a “calibrated mix of deterrence and rehabilitation was … a necessary element of the appropriate sentence”, a combination of community-based sentences was found suitable. The High Court in Sim Wen Yi Ernest at [40] emphasised that the suitability of the various types of community-based sentences depends on the “type of offender and the type of offence” and this required “an open-textured assessment that is highly contextualised and the court must have regard to all the facts of the case”.

The High Court thus found in Sim Wen Yi Ernest at [42] that while “general deterrence remained relevant, it could be achieved with a carefully calibrated mix of CBS options. In any case, a short custodial sentence in the form of SDO would likely be sufficient to keep him away from crime in the future”. The High Court highlighted in Sim Wen Yi Ernest at [44] that a short detention order “carries a punitive and deterrent element”. The High Court thus imposed a sentence of short detention order of one week and 150 hours of community service hours to be completed within six months for the reduced section 337(a) PC charge.

Similarly, the High Court in Sim Wen Yi Ernest recognised the deterrent effect present in a short detention order. This was also re-emphasised again in Public Prosecutor v Teo Chang Heng [2018] 3 SLR 1163 at [12] and [15] (“Teo Chang Heng”). The accused in Teo Chang Heng pleaded guilty to a charge of damaging a vehicle belonging to his spouse which was being driven by his spouse’s boyfriend under section 426 of the PC. The High Court upheld his community sentence of a 10 days’ short detention order and 120 hours community service order.

The High Court in Teo Chang Heng at [15] stated that it did not agree that considerations of general deterrence “dictate that an imprisonment term must be imposed, trumping any CBS options”:

Thus, based on the consideration of the above cases, the Court is of the view that depending on the unique facts and circumstances of the case, a combination of community-based sentences can be an appropriate sentence to balance the interest of rehabilitation for a youth offender and the needs of deterrence.

The relevant circumstances in the Accused’s case

Comparing JDT and the Accused, the Accused had committed the offence at 18 years old, but she only opened one bank account for relinquishment and a much smaller sum of $31,058.72 flowed through that single account. Only $3000 was linked to scam proceeds and the Accused had made full restitution to the victim in this case. Thus, the Court viewed the severity of offending and culpability of the Accused as lower than the accused in JDT.

All the pre-sentencing reports assessed the Accused to have a low risk of re-offending and minimum needs for intervention. She was assessed to be forthcoming and cooperative with adequate familial support and protective factors. In fact, from the pre-sentencing reports, her main risk factors for her criminal offending appeared to be low risk factors such as proper engagement post-graduation and low self-esteem. The Court assessed the Accused to have very strong prospects for rehabilitation.

The Court accepted the Prosecution’s submission that the Accused’s act of creating a bank account to relinquish is more aggravating than giving up a pre-existing account and this is also reflected itself in the Accused’s TIC charge. However, the Court noted that unlike the rest of the other youth offender cases cited in [84]-[88], the harm was much lower (except for JDI) and the Accused had made full restitution of $3000 to the scam victim in this case. This is consistent with the Accused’s remorse and cooperativeness noted in the pre-sentencing reports. The Court disagreed with the Prosecution that no or little mitigating weight should be attributed to the restitution, since it is in the public interest to give consideration to restitution that reduces loss for the victims (see Gan Chai Bee Anne v Public Prosecutor [2019] 4 SLR 838 at [63]).

Hence, considering all the relevant circumstances, including the circumstances of the offence and offender, the restitution, including the reports stating low risk of reoffending and minimum needs for intervention, the Court did not find reformative training an appropriate sentencing option and found it disproportionate to the Accused’s offending and culpability in this case.

Based on the wording of section 305 of the CPC, the Court was not satisfied that based on the Accused’s character, previous conduct and the circumstances of the offence that the Accused needed to undergo the rigorous and structured environment of reformative training in the reformative training centre in order for the Accused to reform and to prevent crime. Instead, the Court was of the view that a combination of community sentences similar to JDT would be most appropriate to balance the needs of deterrence and rehabilitation in the Accused’s case.

The Court understands the strict stance the Prosecution has taken. On a broad societal level, scams-related offences are an increasingly pervasive problem with serious consequences and the Prosecution’s stance in applying the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences strictly to youth offenders is understandable. Underlying this stance is not wanting to dilute the deterrent effect of sentencing on youth offenders and the view that community-based sentence does not factor sufficient deterrence for such youth offenders.

The Prosecution highlighted Chen Song at [153] and submitted that community-based sentences were not suitable because deterrence is not outweighed by rehabilitation in the Accused’s case. The Court of Three Judges in Chen Song at [164] stated that short detention order was not suited for Erh’s case because he was an adult offender and “rehabilitation did not outweigh the principles of deterrence and retribution in the present given the nature of the present offence, in particular, the serious injury suffered by the victim”.

The Court of Three Judges in Chen Song did not reject short detention order presumptively as a sentencing option but had stated at [154] that the “imposition of a SDO for driving offences necessitates a consideration of all the factors of the case to determine if rehabilitation takes precedence over the other sentencing principles”. This is consistent with the above cases at [58]-[70]. At the heart of the analysis of what is an appropriate sentence in each case requires a consideration of all the unique factors and circumstances of each case to ascertain which sentencing option will most appropriately reflect the sentencing principles that are required by the facts of each case.

However, as addressed above, the Court sees the combination of community sentences as an effective way to balance the deterrent and rehabilitative needs that are present in the specific circumstances of the Accused’s case. The Court does not see deterrence as outweighing rehabilitation in the Accused’s case as the predominant consideration of rehabilitation for the Accused has not been displaced and the circumstances of the offending are not to such a degree as to outweigh the interests of rehabilitation. Further, the Court is of the view that the inclusion of the short detention order in the combination of community-based sentences will attribute sufficient weight to the deterrence that is necessary for the proceeded charge.

The Court also sees the Accused’s case exceptionally as belonging to a transitional group of cases (as highlighted in [1] above) involving youth offenders who committed scams-related offences before the publication of the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences and the offences do not fall under the scams-related offences that are expressly intended for the Guidelines to apply. Since future cases that fall under the Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences cannot fall under this transitional group of cases, the Court is of the view that this case will not “dilute” the deterrent message that the Prosecution intends to send for the offences under the Guidelines since this case would have limited applicability to such future cases.

Finally, the Court needs to assess the case on an individual level as well, considering the circumstances of the offender and offending in order to impose an appropriate sentence that is reflective of the seriousness of the offence and proportionate to the culpability of the offender. The Court is of the view that on examining the relevant circumstances in the Accused’s case, especially the findings in the pre-sentencing reports in relation to the re-offending risk and the minimum needs for intervention for the Accused, reformative training would be disproportionate to the Accused’s offending and culpability.

Hence, after taking into account the Accused’s remand period of 1 week for the preparation of the reformative training suitability report, the Court considers it appropriate to sentence the Accused to the community sentence as follows:

(a) Short detention order of seven days;

(b) 60 hours of community service order within 12 months; and

(c) To undergo Day Reporting for a period of 3 months (with the conditions stated in [48]).

Comparison with other reported cases

At this stage, the Court would like to indicate its gratitude to both parties for their submissions addressing the 6 cases highlighted by the Court.

Each case must be examined on its own unique confluence of facts and what the Court sets out to do is to explain how the Court has placed the Accused’s case in context with these other reported cases and why the Accused’s sentence is consistent with the sentences imposed in those cases.

First, for JDI, the offender pleaded guilty to an offence of disclosing his Singpass credentials without authority under section 8(1)(a) of the CMA. He was 17 year old when he committed the offence. A UOB bank account was opened from his Singpass credentials and a total of $2,208.24 was deposited into and withdrawn from it. JDI was sentenced to probation. The Court agreed with the Prosecution that the Accused’s case was more aggravated than JDI and probation would not sufficiently reflect the deterrence that was needed in the Accused’s case and thus, unlike JDI, it did not impose probation for the Accused.

Second, reformative training was imposed in these four cases:

(a) In Nor Eshan Ashryan, the accused pleaded guilty to 3 charges, viz, two charges under section 3(1) read with section 12 of the CMA and one charge of voluntarily causing hurt under section 323 of the PC. The accused also consented for 2 charges under section 417 of the PC and 1 charge of section 380 of the PC to be TIC-ed. The accused committed the offences when he was 17 years old.

(i) In Nor Eshan Ashryan at [38], the Court was of the view that reformative training would best meet the needs of the case because the “nature, number and gravity of the offences committed by the Accused signalled a need for a degree of deterrence within the overarching focus and emphasis on rehabilitation”;

(ii) The Accused’s case can be distinguished from Nor Eshan Ashryan as the range and severity of offending and harm caused was much greater than in the Accused’s case. The Accused only faced one proceeded charge and one TIC charge in relation to the creation of one bank account to be relinquished. Only $3000 of the $31,058.72 that were transferred in and out of the Accused’s account was linked to scam proceeds. In Nor Eshasn Ashryan, the accused created two bank accounts to relinquish and for the DBS bank account opened by the accused, it was used to receive a total of $34,898 in scam proceeds and was linked to four police reports;

(iii) The Court in Nor Eshan Ashryan highlighted at [37] that the accused’s reformative training suitability report stated that the accused has “antisocial attitudes that condoned the use of violence” and identified this as “an area requiring intervention as the Accused clearly lacked insight into the wrongfulness of his violent behaviour”. In contrast, the Accused presented with minimum needs for intervention;

(b) In Public Prosecutor v Seyfqan Nazeer Caffoor [2025] SGMC 26 (“Seyfqan Nazeer”), the accused pleaded guilty to 1 charge under section 3(1)(a) read with section 12 of the CMA and consented to 1 charge under section 417 of the PC to be TIC-ed. The accused was 19 years at the time he committed the offence.

(i) In Seyfqan Nazeer at [41], the Court found that the “nature and gravity of the offence committed by the Accused signalled a need for a degree of deterrence within the overarching focus and emphasis of rehabilitation”;

(ii) Similarly, the Accused’s case can be distinguished from Seyfqan Nazeer as the severity of offending and harm caused was much greater than in the Accused’s case. A second CIMB account was created from the accused’s first account that was given to the unknown person and this second CIMB account was used to receive scam proceeds of $199,552.40 from a 66-year-old victim. The first CIMB account had $36,462.52 flowed through, of which $28,060 were related to scams. These were much larger sums than in the Accused’s case;

(c) In Public Prosecutor v Syahmi Hamzah Bin Mohamed Saddiq [2025] SGDC 125 (“Syahmi Hamzah”), the accused pleaded guilty to two charges, viz, one charge of dishonest misappropriation under section 403 of the PC and one charge of disclosing Singpass access code under section 8(1)(a) of the CMA. 1 charge under section 3(1)(a) read with section 12(1) of the CMA and 1 charge under section 417 of the PC were TIC-ed. The accused committed the section 8(1)(a) CMA charge when he was 19 years old.

(i) In Syahmi Hamzah at [48], the Court stated that the “culpability of the Accused and the facts and circumstances surrounding the CMA offence were much too serious for the Court to prefer a term of probation to a term of reformative training”;

(ii) Similarly, the Accused’s case can be distinguished from Syahmi Hamzah as the range and severity of offending and harm caused was much greater than in the Accused’s case. 5 bank accounts were opened from Syahmi Hamzah’s Singpass credentials and a total of $233,502.10 flowed through the 5 bank accounts, of which $102,168.74 was transferred into these 5 bank accounts by 42 victims of job, investment and e-commerce scams;

(d) In Public Prosecutor v Jai Ganesh s/o Chandra Mogan [2025] SGDC 72 (“Jai Ganesh”), the accused pleaded guilty to three charges, viz, one charge under section 417 of the PC, one charge under section 3(1) CMA and one charge under section 380 of the PC. He consented for three other charges to be TIC-ed.

(i) The Court in Jai Ganesh at [47]-[48] imposed reformative training as “considering the gravity of the offences and the defendant’s pattern of reoffending, a strong measure of general deterrence, as well as specific deterrence, was needed”;

(ii) Similarly, the Accused’s case can be distinguished from Jai Ganesh as the range and severity of offending and harm caused was much greater than in the Accused’s case. Jai Ganesh handed over two bank accounts and significant funds flowed through the bank accounts. The Court in Jai Ganesh at [44] stated that a “staggering amount of at least $10,183,605.90 flowed through the UOB bank account; and at least $1,960,000 flowed through the OCBC bank account”;

(iii) This was also a case where Jai Ganesh had reoffended despite being warned for his earlier offences. The Court noted in Jai Ganesh at [46] that the accused had re-offended twice despite receiving two separate warnings and this “pattern of reoffending demonstrated a degree of recalcitrance”. In contrast, the Accused in this case had only offended once.

Finally, as addressed above at [72]-[76], the Court found the Accused’s case most similar to JDT in terms of severity of offending and culpability of the offender. In fact, the Court viewed the severity of offending and culpability of the Accused as lower than the accused in JDT. Thus, the Court was of the view that similar to JDT, a combination of community-based sentences would be most appropriate to balance the needs of deterrence and rehabilitation in the Accused’s case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, after taking into account the Accused’s remand period of 1 week for the preparation of the reformative training suitability report, the Court sentenced the Accused to the community sentence as follows:

(a) Short detention order of seven days;

(b) 60 hours of community service order within 12 months; and

(c) To undergo Day Reporting for a period of 3 months.

The Court is of the view that reformative training will be disproportionate to the Accused’s offending and culpability and the community sentence as set out in [89] above will be a proportionate sentence that more appropriately reflects the needs for deterrence and rehabilitation in the Accused’s case.

Crystal Tan District Judge

DPP Joelle Loy (Attorney-General’s Chambers) for the Public Prosecutor;

Ong Kai Min Kelvin (Wang Kaimin) (Contigo Law LLC) for the Accused.