Public Prosecutor v Yeong Poh Chin [2026] SGDC 183

Introduction

Ms Yeong Poh Chin (“Ms Yeong”) was a money mule. Between October 2021 and January 2022, she facilitated the retention and control of criminal benefits for an acquaintance named “Harry” (“Handler”) by allowing her bank accounts to be used to receive and transfer scam proceeds.

She has pleaded guilty to one charge under s 44(1)(a) punishable under s 44(5)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) (“CDSA 2000 Ed”), being an amalgamated charge pursuant to s 124(2) punishable under s 124(8)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPC”) (“Amalgamated Charge”). The facts relating to the Amalgamated Charge are discussed at [7(a)] and [7(b)] below.

She also admitted and consented to three additional charges being taken into consideration (“TIC”) for the purposes of sentencing:

(a) One charge under s 5(1) punishable under s 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) for facilitating the business of moneylending in Singapore by relinquishing her login credentials to her existing POSB Bank account and its ATM card to an unknown person.

(b) One charge under s 5(1) punishable under s 5(3)(a) of the Payment Services Act 2019 (No. 2 of 2019) for carrying on the business of providing a payment service in Singapore by allowing her existing DBS Bank account to be used to receive and transfer payments.

(c) One charge under s 51(1)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (2020 Rev Ed) (“TIC CDSA 2020 Ed Charge”). The facts relating to the TIC CDSA 2020 Ed Charge are discussed at [7(c)] below.

The Prosecution seeks a sentence of 18-22 months' imprisonment, while Ms Yeong has pleaded for a sentence of not more than 8 months’ imprisonment in light of alleged mental conditions that she argues diminish her culpability (see [9]-[24] below).

I find that a sentence of 17 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment is appropriate.

Facts pertaining to the Amalgamated Charge and the TIC CDSA 2020 Ed Charge

In September 2021, Ms Yeong was introduced to the Handler through a former colleague. As she was facing financial difficulties at the time, she accepted the Handler’s offer of payment to use one of her existing bank accounts (“First Existing Account”) to receive and transfer money from the Handler’s alleged cryptocurrency business.

After some time, the First Existing Account was frozen by the police. Despite being suspicious of the Handler’s activities, Ms Yeong decided to use other bank accounts to assist the Handler due to her ongoing financial difficulties:

(a) In October 2021, she opened a new RHB Bank account (“New RHB Account”) and provided the account details to the Handler. The New RHB Account was frozen by the police when $10,000 traced to scam proceeds was detected in November 2021, after Ms Yeong had already executed transfers of the money to other accounts.

(b) Around December 2021, she provided the details of her existing OCBC Bank account (“Existing OCBC Account”) to the Handler. The Existing OCBC Account was frozen by the police when $27,000 traced to scam proceeds was detected, after Ms Yeong had already executed transfers of the money to other accounts.

(c) Around January 2022, she opened a new CIMB Bank account (“New CIMB Account”) and provided the account details to the Handler. $8,000 traced to scam proceeds was detected, after Ms Yeong had already executed transfers of the money to other accounts.

The conduct relating to the New RHB Account and Existing OCBC Account is the subject of the Amalgamated Charge, while the conduct relating to the New CIMB Account is the subject of the TIC CDSA 2020 Ed Charge.

Ms Yeong received $5,000 for assisting the Handler.

Ms Yeong’s alleged mental condition

Ms Yeong asserts that she suffers from mental conditions that have a contributory link to her commission of the offences under the Amalgamated Charge.

She relies on two Medical Reports prepared by Dr Lim Yun Chin (“Dr Lim”), who conducted a psychiatric assessment of her. Both the Prosecution and Defence counsel confirmed during the hearing that they wished to proceed based on the evidence as it stood and that no further Medical Reports were required.

The approach towards determining the impact of an offender’s mental condition on sentencing

In Public Prosecutor v Soo Cheow Wee and another appeal [2024] 3 SLR 972 (“Soo”), the General Division of the High Court determined that mental conditions which are proven and causally linked to the commission of an offence will typically reduce the offender's culpability and constitute a mitigating factor. The following five specific inquiries were established to assist in determining the impact of an offender’s mental condition on sentencing:

(a) The existence, nature and severity of each mental condition.

(b) Where there are multiple mental conditions, the interaction between them, and in particular, the synergistic manner in which different mental conditions may come together and operate on the accused person's mind.

(c) Whether a causal link can be established between the conditions and the commission of the offence.

(d) The extent to which the offender had insight into his mental conditions and their effects.

(e) Whether the overall circumstances are such as to diminish the offender's culpability, and if so, to what extent.

The five inquiries in Soo were referred to by the Court of Appeal in CNK v Public Prosecutor [2024] 2 SLR 450 (“CNK”), which states that “the first four inquiries may be seen as signposts that lead the court to answer the fifth”.

The medical reports

The only evidence of Ms Yeong’s alleged mental conditions is set out in Dr Lim’s Medical Report dated 19 December 2023 (“2023 Report”) and Dr Lim’s further Medical Report dated 27 October 2025 (“2025 Report”).

The 2023 Report was prepared at the request of Ms Yeong’s former lawyers, who sought a psychiatric assessment after she was charged with the Amalgamated Charge and the three TIC charges. After detailing the relevant background information, the 2023 Report states:

The 2025 Report was prepared after the General Division of the High Court’s guidance in Soo, and in response to specific queries concerning the causal link between Ms Yeong’s mental conditions and the offences under the Amalgamated Charge. The 2025 Report states:

Ms Yeong relies on the 2023 Report and the 2025 Report to argue that she suffered from five “conditions” that diminish her culpability:

(a) Below-average intellectual functioning and slow learner status (“Intellectual Deficiency”).

(b) Significant emotional and psychological distress (“Emotional Distress”), as she was generally unhappy and dissatisfied with life; had a pessimistic and hopeless view of the future; and suffered from self-doubts, feelings of uselessness, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.

(c) Thought dysfunction and disconnection from reality (“Thought Dysfunction”), as she reported prominent ideas of persecution (such as believing that others wanted to harm her), and had possible somatic delusions.

(d) Dependent personality traits and social isolation (“Dependent Personality”), as she displayed immense deference to her father’s wishes and brother’s needs at great cost to herself, and showed a pattern of relying on “significant male others” to make decisions on her behalf.

(e) Possible diagnoses associated with disorders involving depression, ideas of persecution and psychosis, as well as a schizotypal personality problem (“Possible Diagnoses”).

Ms Yeong’s alleged mental conditions do not diminish her culpability

Intellectual Deficiency, Emotional Distress, Thought Dysfunction and Dependent Personality

Ms Yeong has raised four “conditions” (her Intellectual Deficiency, Emotional Distress, Thought Dysfunction and Dependent Personality ) that appear to be personality traits, characteristics or symptoms of a possible mental condition (or disorder) rather than recognised mental conditions in their own right. I therefore agree with the Prosecution that these four “conditions” do not appear to constitute mental conditions under Soo.

In any event, Ms Yeong has failed to establish a causal link between these “conditions” and the commission of the offences under the Amalgamated Charge, and her culpability is not diminished.

The existence and nature of the four “conditions” are set out in the 2023 Report, and the 2025 Report states that these “conditions” are not treatable. However, there is insufficient evidence concerning the severity of these “conditions”, the interaction between them, or the causal link to the commission of the offences under the Amalgamated Charge.

(a) Ms Yeong relies on the 2023 Report and the 2025 Report to assert that “her mental ability would have diminished her culpability”.

(b) However, the 2023 Report and the 2025 Report do not address the following:

(i) The extent to which these “conditions” affected Ms Yeong individually or collectively.

(ii) Whether these “conditions” (individually or collectively) deprived her of the ability to understand and make decisions.

(iii) The extent to which these “conditions” (individually or collectively) impaired her decision-making in respect of the offences under the Amalgamated Charge.

(c) In this regard, it is apt to point out that the 2023 Report and the 2025 Report state Dr Lim’s conclusions without setting out the underlying evidence and analytical process, such as by showing how the “conditions” specifically affected Ms Yeong at the time the offences were committed (Soo at [93]). In the absence of such explanation, the Medical Reports contain seemingly contradictory statements: the 2023 Report states “she had suspicions that what she was doing might get her into trouble” and “she knew what she was doing and can distinguish between right and wrong”; yet the 2025 Report states “it is unlikely that she [had] adequate insight into her judgment and reasoning at the time of the alleged offences”.

(d) Further, while the 2023 Report indicates that “[Ms Yeong] showed a pattern of relying on significant male others to make decisions on her behalf” (such as her father or brother), there is no indication that the Handler was a “significant male other” who could be considered to have the same effect on her.

Moreover, the sentencing consideration of rehabilitation does not displace the consideration of deterrence in Ms Yeong’s case. Ms Yeong has indicated that her rehabilitation support structure comes from iC@re Hub, which is prepared to offer her support and shelter. However, the efficacy of this intended support system is doubtful, as the offences under the Amalgamated Charge were committed while she was staying with iC@re Hub and despite warnings to Ms Yeong from iC@re Hub’s director that the Handler might be a scammer.

Possible Diagnoses

The Possible Diagnoses do not constitute a mental condition under Soo.

Ms Yeong relies on a statement in a Psychological Assessment Report prepared by a clinical psychologist stating “The MMPI-2-RF results revealed that Ms Yeong endorsed items that indicated possible diagnoses associated with disorders involving depression, ideas of persecution and psychosis, as well as a schizotypal personality problem”.

While Dr Lim referred to the Psychological Assessment Report when preparing the 2023 Report, she did not specifically address the Possible Diagnoses raised by the clinical psychologist and did not diagnose Ms Yeong with any of the suggested conditions.

Consequently, the Possible Diagnoses constitute nothing more than speculative conditions. They are not a diagnosed mental condition and should not be accorded any weight (Soo at [54]).

The applicable sentencing approach for the Amalgamated Charge

The Amalgamated Charge requires consideration of the sentencing framework (“Huang Framework”) in Huang Ying-Chun v Public Prosecutor [2019] 3 SLR 606 (“Huang”) within the broader sentencing approach (“Prakash Framework”) for amalgamated charges in Prakash s/o Mathivanan v Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2025] 4 SLR 1386 (“Prakash”).

The Prakash Framework involves three steps:

(a) Step 1: Identify the punishment prescribed for the base offence in view of the offence-specific factors and the relevant sentencing framework.

(b) Step 2: Determine the appropriate indicative starting point sentence based on a holistic assessment of the offender's culpability over the entire course of conduct, having regard to the doubled sentencing limit and the relevant evidence.

(c) Step 3: Consider the relevant offender-specific aggravating and mitigating factors before making necessary adjustments to the indicative starting point sentence.

The Huang Framework applies to offences under s 44(1)(a) of the CDSA 2000 Ed, and involves five steps to be considered at Step 1 of the Prakash Framework:

(a) Step 1A: Identify the level of harm and culpability by considering the offence-specific factors. Relevant factors include:

Harm

Culpability

(i) The amount cheated.

(ii) The involvement of a syndicate.

(iii) The involvement of a transnational element.

(iv) The seriousness of the predicate offence.

(v) The harm done to confidence in public administration.

(i) The degree of planning and premeditation.

(ii) The level of sophistication.

(iii) The duration of offending.

(iv) The offender's role.

(v) An abuse of position and breach of trust.

(vi) The mental state of the offender.

(vii) Whether the commission of the offence was the offender’s sole purpose for being in Singapore.

(viii) The offender’s knowledge of the underlying predicate offence.

(ix) The prospect of a large reward.

(b) Step 1B: Identify the applicable indicative sentencing range (for a post-trial conviction) based on the matrix of harm and culpability levels determined at Step 1A.

(c) Step 1C: Identify the appropriate starting point within the indicative sentencing range, having regard once again to the level of harm and culpability.

(d) Step 1D: Adjust the starting point to account for offender-specific aggravating and mitigating factors. Relevant factors include:

Aggravating Factors

Mitigating Factors

(i) Offences taken into consideration for sentencing purposes.

(ii) Relevant antecedents.

(iii) An evident lack of remorse.

(i) A guilty plea.

(ii) Voluntary restitution.

(iii) Cooperation with the authorities.

(e) Step 1E: Make further adjustments to account for the totality principle if the offender has been convicted of multiple charges.

For completeness, the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines for Scams-Related Offences (“Scam Guidelines”) do not apply because: (a) Ms Yeong’s conduct does not fall within the archetypal case since she did not hand over control of the New RHB Account or the Existing OCBC Account to the Handler; (b) the Scam Guidelines were introduced after Ms Yeong committed her offences; and (c) the Scam Guidelines do not specifically refer to s 44(1)(a) of the CDSA 2000 Ed. Nevertheless, due to similarities between Ms Yeong’s conduct and the conduct described in the Scam Guidelines, I find the following factors from the Scam Guidelines relevant to the Amalgamated Charge (in addition to factors covered under the Huang Framework):

(a) Whether the offender opened a new bank account.

(b) Whether more than one bank account was involved.

(c) Whether the offender committed the offence despite previously being informed that his bank account(s) had been misused.

(d) Whether funds flowing through the account were linked to vulnerable scam victims.

Ms Yeong is sentenced to 17 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment

Step 1 – The punishment prescribed for the base offence under s 44(1)(a) of the CDSA 2000 Ed

Ms Yeong’s offending conduct under the Amalgamated Charge took place over approximately 2 months, and involved $37,000 in scam proceeds.

Steps 1A to 1C

An offence under s 44(1)(a) of the CDSA 2000 Ed carries a maximum fine of $500,000, a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, or both.

The relevant offence-specific factors in the present case show that the harm was slight and the culpability was at the lower end of medium:

Harm

(Slight)

Culpability

(Medium – Lower End)

(a) The total amount of scam proceeds is $37,000 ($10,000 for the New RHB Account and $27,000 for the Existing OCBC Account).

(b) Some scam proceeds are linked to a vulnerable person.

(a) The offending conduct took place over around 2 months.

(b) Ms Yeong blindly followed instructions from the Handler.

(c) A new bank account was opened.

(d) Multiple bank accounts were involved.

(e) The offending conduct occurred after the First Existing Account was frozen and despite Ms Yeong’s suspicions of the Handler’s activities.

(f) The offence was committed for financial gain.

The indicative sentencing range for the base offence under the Huang Framework is 10-30 months’ imprisonment (for a post-trial conviction), with an appropriate starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment for Ms Yeong.

This starting point sentence is not inconsistent with the outcome in Public Prosecutor v Putra Alfian Bin Ahmad Said [2024] SGDC 190 (“Putra”), which Ms Yeong relied on in her Mitigation Plea.

(a) In Putra, the offender was a money mule who withdrew $211,260 in scam proceeds from two DBS accounts to extinguish a $3,500 debt to an unlicensed moneylender, and received additional daily payments of $100-$150. The District Court sentenced him to 28 months’ imprisonment for an offence under s 51(1)(a) punishable under s 51(5)(a) of the CDSA 2020 Ed (that is identical in substance to a charge under s 44(1)(a) of the CDSA 2000 Ed), which was reduced to 21 months on appeal by the General Division of the High Court.

(b) The relevant offence-specific factors in Putra are as follows:

Harm

Culpability

(i) $211,260 in scam proceeds were withdrawn.

(ii) The involvement of a syndicate.

(iii) The involvement of a transnational element – the offender received instructions from Malaysian and Singapore phone numbers.

(iv) The predicate offence related to cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed).

(i) The offending took place over approximately 2 weeks.

(ii) The offender made multiple cash withdrawals and handovers to various unknown individuals.

(iii) The charge was based on the more culpable fault element of the offender knowing that he was facilitating the retention or control of benefits from criminal conduct (“Knowledge Fault Element”), as opposed to merely having reasonable grounds to believe so (“Reasonable Grounds Fault Element”).

(iv) The offender received a financial benefit – his $3,500 debt with the unlicensed moneylender was extinguished and he received daily payments of $100-$150.

(c) Based on the offence-specific factors:

(i) The District Court considered the harm to be moderate (bordering severe) and the culpability to be medium, and derived a starting point sentence of 40-45 months’ imprisonment.

(ii) On appeal, the General Division of the High Court considered the harm to be at the low end of moderate and the culpability to be at the low end of medium, and derived a starting point sentence of 32-35 months’ imprisonment.

(d) The starting point sentences were reduced to 28 months’ imprisonment by the District Court and to 21 months’ imprisonment by the General Division of the High Court on account of the relevant offender-specific factors. A summary of the offender-specific factors is as follows:

Aggravating Factors

Mitigating Factors

(i) There was no recovery of the scam proceeds.

(i) The offender pleaded guilty at Stage 1 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas (“PG Guidelines”).

(ii) The offender’s relative youth – he was 22-23 years old at the time of offending.

(e) The offence-specific factors in Putra are contrasted with those in Ms Yeong’s case (see [31] above):

(i) The level of harm in Putra is higher, as it involved a larger amount, a syndicate and a transnational element which the Prosecution concedes is not present in Ms Yeong’s case. Even after accounting for the fact that some scam proceeds in Ms Yeong’s case are linked to a vulnerable person, the harm is slight.

(ii) The culpability of the offender in Putra is at least equivalent or lower.

(A) There are two common factors: (1) both offenders were money mules who followed instructions given to them; and (2) both offenders committed the offences for financial gain.

(B) There is one more aggravating factor in Putra: the offence in Putra was based on the more culpable Knowledge Fault Element, whereas Ms Yeong’s case involves the Reasonable Grounds Fault Element.

(C) There are a few more aggravating factors in Ms Yeong’s case: (1) Ms Yeong’s offending took place over 2 months compared to the 2 weeks in Putra; (2) Ms Yeong opened a new bank account; and (3) Ms Yeong persisted in offending even after the police had frozen her accounts (see [7] above).

(D) I therefore cannot accept Ms Yeong’s argument that her culpability should be considered low, and find that it is more appropriately pegged at the lower end of medium.

(iii) Consequently, the starting point sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment that I have derived for the base offence is in accordance with the Huang Framework.

Steps 1D and 1E

Step 1D of the Huang Framework will be considered at Step 3 of the broader Prakash Framework to avoid double-counting of the offender-specific aggravating factors, while Step 1E is not applicable since Ms Yeong faces a single charge.

Step 2 – The indicative starting point sentence for the Amalgamated Charge

Under s 124(8)(a)(i) of the CPC, Ms Yeong is subject to double the punishment of the base offence under s 44(1)(a) of the CDSA 2000 Ed.

There are three relevant offence-specific factors to account for (see [7] above):

(a) The duration of Ms Yeong’s offending conduct over approximately 2 months.

(b) The offending conduct regarding the Existing OCBC Account occurred after the New RHB Account was frozen.

(c) The harm caused by Ms Yeong’s offending conduct: $37,000 in scam proceeds.

While these factors have been considered at Step 1, it is permissible to revisit them at Step 2 (Prakash at [44]).

Accordingly, an uplift of 2 months to the Step 1 starting point of 16 months’ imprisonment for the base offence is appropriate, and a suitable indicative Step 2 starting point sentence for the Amalgamated Charge is 18 months’ imprisonment (for a post-trial conviction).

Step 3 – Adjustments to the indicative starting point sentence

The indicative Step 2 starting point sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment (for a post-trial conviction) should be adjusted to 17 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment to account for the following:

(a) An uplift of 4 months to account for:

(i) The three TIC charges (see [3] above).

(ii) A relevant antecedent for a money laundering offence – she was convicted in January 2020 and sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment for an offence under s 5(1) punishable under s 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) for assisting in the business of moneylending in Singapore by allowing one of her bank accounts to be used for fund transfers and cash withdrawals.

(b) A reduction of around 4 months and 2 weeks as Ms Yeong indicated her intention to plead guilty at Stage 2 of the PG Guidelines.

Contrary to Ms Yeong’s argument in her Mitigation Plea, such sentence is not inconsistent with the sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment in Putra. While the starting point sentence in Putra was higher (at 32-35 months’ imprisonment), the reduction granted by the General Division of the High Court was of a greater proportion because: (a) the offender in Putra pleaded guilty at Stage 1 of the PG Guidelines and was entitled to a 30% reduction, unlike Ms Yeong who pleaded guilty at Stage 2 of the PG Guidelines and was entitled to a 20% reduction; (b) the General Division of the High Court took into account the offender’s relative youth (see [33(d)(ii)] above); and (c) the offender in Putra did not have TIC charges or antecedents to account for.

For completeness, Ms Yeong’s personal circumstances (such as the alleged hardship she faced after her parents and her husband passed away, her brother’s alleged abuse of her financial generosity towards him, and her own alleged financial losses as a victim of scams), as well as her suicidal ideation arising from having to return to prison, are not mitigating factors.

Conclusion

Ms Yeong is sentenced to 17 months’ and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.