Public Prosecutor v Wang Hongqiang [2026] SGDC 267

Mr Wang Hongqiang (“Mr Wang”) is a 38-year-old People’s Republic of China national. He last arrived in Singapore via Woodlands Checkpoint and was issued a Visit Pass on 8 December 2024, which permitted him to remain in Singapore until 7 January 2025. When the Visit Pass expired, Mr Wang remained in Singapore unlawfully, and was subsequently arrested on 24 April 2025.

He pleaded guilty to one charge under s 15(3) punishable under s 15(3)(b) of the Immigration Act 1959 (2020 Rev Ed) for remaining in Singapore without reasonable cause for a period of 3 months and 17 days (107 days) after the expiry of his Visit Pass. He also admitted and consented to three charges being taken into consideration (“TIC”) for the purposes of sentencing, all relating to offences under s 5(1) punishable under s 5(3)(a) of the Payment Services Act 2019 for carrying on the business of providing a cross-border money transfer service in Singapore without a licence.

The Prosecution sought a sentence of 6 weeks’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane, while Mr Wang pleaded for a sentence of 3-4 weeks’ imprisonment with no caning.

I sentenced Mr Wang to 5 weeks’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane.

weeks’ imprisonment was appropriate.

(a) The sentence accounted for the following:

(i) The duration of Mr Wang’s overstaying at the point of arrest: 3 months and 17 days (107 days).

(ii) Mr Wang’s unchallenged assertion that he remained unemployed during the period of overstaying, as he was ill at the time – according to the Medical Memo produced, he had “a near fainting with black stool again” and a “possible bleeding upper gastrointestinal tract”. For clarity, I did not consider Mr Wang’s raising of his medical condition to be a qualification of his plea, as his solicitors confirmed during the hearing that: (A) Mr Wang’s medical condition was raised to support his assertion that he remained unemployed; and (B) Mr Wang agreed that his medical condition did not give him reasonable cause to remain in Singapore. Moreover, I noted that Mr Wang had approached a “tourist agency” to try to extend his Visit Pass on 9 January 2025 (shortly after it expired), but was unsuccessful in doing so.

(iii) An appropriate uplift to account for Mr Wang’s TIC charges.

(iv) An appropriate reduction, as Mr Wang indicated his intention to plead guilty at Stage 3 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas and is entitled to a reduction of up to 10% of the sentence.

(b) The sentence was consistent with the following precedents relied on by the Prosecution:

(i) Public Prosecutor v Kong Pui Ching [2014] SGDC 46, where the offender was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $1,500 (in default 3 weeks’ imprisonment) after pleading guilty to a charge for overstaying for 4 months and 17 days (139 days) after her Visit Pass expired, with no TIC charges to account for. A fine in lieu of caning was imposed under s 15(3)(b) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed) as the offender was a woman.

(ii) Public Prosecutor v Nicole Louise Sobotker [2020] SGDC 75, where the offender was sentenced to 5 weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $2,000 (in default 8 days’ imprisonment) after pleading guilty (on the day of trial) to a charge for overstaying for 6 months and 27 days (208 days) after her Visit Pass expired, with no TIC charges to account for. A fine in lieu of caning was imposed under s 15(3)(b) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed) as the offender was a woman.

(iii) Public Prosecutor v Ly Van Phuc [2019] SGDC 278, where the offender was sentenced to 8 weeks’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane after pleading guilty to a charge for overstaying for 11 months and 15 days (349 days) after his Visit Pass was cancelled, with no TIC charges to account for.

3 strokes of the cane was mandated in Mr Wang’s case under s 15(3)(b) of the Immigration Act 1959 (2020 Rev Ed), and his solicitors agreed that there was no legal basis for the court to order otherwise.

Mr Wang appealed against his sentence, and was granted a stay of sentence and bail pending the appeal.