District Court of Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Chua Peng Jun
[2020] SGDC 166

Criminal law – Offences – Penal Code – Criminal breach of trust and cheating

Evidence – Witnesses – Impeaching witnesses’ credibility

Evidence – Calling for the defence at the close of Prosecution’s case – Remaining silent after defence is called

Criminal procedure & Sentencing – Sentencing – Principles

[LawNet Editorial Note: An appeal to this decision has been filed in MA 9428/2020/01.]

24 July 2020

District Judge Edgar Foo:

Introduction/Background

1 Chua Peng Jun, a 27 year old male Malaysian National (“the Accused”), faced a total of 22 charges:

(a) 1 count of criminal breach of trust as an employee under section 408 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed);

(b) 19 counts of cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Ed);

(c) 1 count of attempted cheating under section 420 read with section 511 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed); and

(d) 1 count of conspiracy to cheat with one Shan Tai Yee Sion (“Shan”) under section 420 read with section 109 of the Penal code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

2 The details of the charges were as follows:

S/No.	Charge No.	Offence		Brief Description
1	DAC 941236-2016	Sec 408 Cap 224		That the Accused, between 6 September 2016 and 4 October 2016, at Royal Automotive Pte Ltd (“RAPL”) at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, while being employed as a servant, to wit, a sales executive of RAPL, and being entrusted in such capacity with property, to wit, $32,833 in cash collected from customers of RAPL, had committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating that property.
2	DAC 912648-2017	Sec 420 Cap 224		That the Accused, on 19 July 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Loh Bee Ling, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving her into believing that her delivery to the Accused of $20,000 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced her to deliver $20,000 in cash to him,.
3	DAC 912649-2017	Sec 420 Cap 224		That the Accused, on 19 September 2016, in Singapore, did cheat one Loh Bee Ling, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving her into believing that her delivery to the Accused of $11,924 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced her to deliver $11,924 by way of cash deposit into UOB account no. 645-379-719- 5 which was opened in the Accused’s name.
4	DAC 912650-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 7 August 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Hisyamuddin Bin Senan, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $20,000 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $20,000 in cash to the Accused.
5	DAC 912651-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 4 September 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Hisyamuddin Bin Senan, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $4,211 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $4,211 in cash to the Accused.
6	DAC 912652-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 11 September 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Hisyamuddin Bin Senan, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $9,677 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $9,677 in cash to the Accused.
7	DAC 912653-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 28 September 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Muhammad Rizwan Bin Kamaludin, a customer of RAPL,to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $10,000 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $10,000 in cash to the Accused.
8	DAC 912654-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on or about 22 July 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Choo Ann Lock, Marvin, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $40,000 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $40,000 in cash to the Accused.
9	DAC 912655-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 14 September 2016, RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Chong Yah Kok, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $17,555 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver property, to wit, $17,555 in cash to the Accused.
10	DAC 912656- 2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 26 October 2016, in Singapore, did cheat one Chong Yah Kok, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $43,944 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $43,944 by way of fund transfer into UOB account no. XXX which was opened in the Accused’s name.
11	DAC 912657- 2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on or about 5 August 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Nur Amirah Binte Muhayat, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving her into believing that her delivery to the Accused of $2,468 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced her to deliver $2,468 in cash to the Accused.
12	DAC-912658-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 21 September 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Ng Poh Wen, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $7,567 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $7,567 in cash to the Accused.
13	DAC 912659-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 5 September 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Syed Kassim S/O Mohamed Jamaludeen, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $9,400 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $9,400 in cash to the Accused.
14	DAC 912660-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 23 August 2016, at or about 9.15pm, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Ku Chee Chiang William, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $47,944 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $47,944 in cash to the Accused.
15	DAC 912661-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on or before 29 October 2016, in Singapore, did cheat one Ku Chee Chiang William, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that a car which he purchased had chassis no. RU1-1206909 and engine no. L15B-4406908, which fact the Accused knew to be false, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $982.03 to Direct Asia Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd in his purchase of motor insurance for the said car.
16	DAC 912662-2017		Sec 420 read with Sec 511 Cap 224	That the Accused, on or after 27 October 2016, in Singapore, did attempt to cheat one Yip Yong Yew, a customer of RAPL, and in such attempt, did an act towards the commission of the offence, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $29,444 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had attempted to dishonestly induce him to deliver $29,444 to the Accused
17	DAC 912663-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 27 October 2016, at or about 6.30pm, at an OCBC branch at 1 Harbourfront Walk, #02-99, Harbour Front Centre, Singapore, did cheat one Yip Yong Yew, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $49,444 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $49,444 in cash to the Accused.
18	DAC 912664-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on or about 14 August 2016, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Lim Phuay Chuen, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $30,000 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $30,000 in cash to the Accused.
19	DAC 912665-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 8 October 2016, RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Lim Phuay Chuen, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $50,000 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $50,000 in cash to the Accused.
20	DAC 912666-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 20 October 2016, at or about 8.30pm, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Tan Chwee Hong, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $43,444 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $43,444 in cash to the Accused.
21	DAC 912667-2017		Sec 420 Cap 224	That the Accused, on 20 July 2016, at or about 10.00pm, RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon, Singapore, did cheat one Ng Boon Siang, a customer of RAPL, to wit, by deceiving him into believing that his delivery to the Accused of $5,321 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused intended to retain that sum for his personal use, and by such manner of deception, the Accused had dishonestly induced him to deliver $5,321 in cash to the Accused.
22	DAC 912668-2017		Sec 420 read with Sec 109 Cap 224	That the Accused, on or about 29 October 2016, in Singapore, together with Shan Tai Yee Sion, did engage in a conspiracy, to wit, to cheat Lee Jong Chin and dishonestly induce a delivery of property, and in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, on 30 October 2016, at or about 12.00pm, at RAPL at 31 Woodlands Close #01-28 Woodlands Horizon Singapore, Shan Tai Yee Sion did deceive Lee Jong Chin into believing that Lee Jong Chin’s delivery to Shan Tan Yee Sion of $29,944 for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL, when the Accused and Shan Tai Yee Sion intended to retain that sum for their personal use, and by such manner of deception, dishonestly induced Lee Jong Chin to deliver $29,944 in cash to Shan Tai Yee Sion, which act was committed in consequence of the Accused’s abetment.

3 The Accused had claimed trial to all 22 charges. After 17 days of hearing, at the conclusion of the trial, I found the Accused guilty and convicted him of all the 22 proceeded charges.

4 After hearing the Prosecution’s address on sentence and the Defence’s mitigation plea, I imposed the following sentences on the Accused:-

S/No.	Charge No.	Sentence
1.	DAC 941236-2016	12 months’ imprisonment (consecutive)
2.	DAC 912648-2017	10 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
3.	DAC 912649-2017	5 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
4.	DAC 912650-2017	10 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
5.	DAC 912651-2017	3 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
6.	DAC 912652-2017	5 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
7.	DAC 912653-2017	5 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
8.	DAC 912654-2017	14 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
9.	DAC 912655-2017	8 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
10.	DAC 912656-2017	15 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
11.	DAC 912657-2017	2 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
12.	DAC 912658-2017	4 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
13.	DAC 912659-2017	5 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
14.	DAC 912660-2017	16 months’ imprisonment (consecutive)
15.	DAC 912661-2017	1 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
16.	DAC 912662-2017	6 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
17.	DAC 912663-2017	16 months’ imprisonment (consecutive)
18.	DAC 912664-2017	12 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
19.	DAC 912665-2017	16 months’ imprisonment (consecutive)
20.	DAC 912666-2017	15 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
21.	DAC 912667-2017	3 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
22.	DAC 912668-2017	12 months’ imprisonment (concurrent)
Total Sentence:		60 months’ imprisonment

5 The Accused being dissatisfied with my decision, had filed his Notice of Appeal against conviction and sentence. Accordingly, I set out my reasons for both the conviction and sentence.

Parties’ evidence and exhibits

a. Prosecution’s evidence and exhibits

6 The Prosecution had called on 22 witnesses in their case against the Accused. They were:

(a) PW1 – Toh Tuck Wai, the maker of police report dated 6 November 2016 (Exhibit P1);

(b) PW2 – Tan Chwee Hong, the victim in DAC 912666-2017 and whose $23,444 was misappropriated by the Accused in DAC 941236-2016;

(c) PW3 – Ng Poh Wen, the victim in DAC 912658-2017;

(d) PW4 – Chong Yah Kok, the victim in DAC 912655-2017, DAC 912656-2017 and whose $9,389 was misappropriated by the Accused in DAC 941236-2016;

(e) PW5 – Choo Ann Lock Marvin, the victim in DAC 912654-2017;

(f) PW6 – Yip Yong Yew, the victim in DAC 912662-2017 and DAC 912663-2017;

(g) PW7 – Hisyamuddin Bin Senan, the victim in DAC 912650-2017, DAC 912651-2017 and DAC 912652-2017;

(h) PW8 – Nur Amirah Binte Muhayat, the victim in DAC 912657-2017;

(i) PW9 – Syed Kassim S/O Mohamed Jamaludeen, the victim in DAC 912659-2017;

(j) PW10 – Ku Chee Chiang William, the victim in DAC 912660-2017 and DAC 912661-2017;

(k) PW11 – Lim Phuay Chuen, the victim in DAC 912664-2017 and DAC 912665-2017;

(l) PW12 – Ng Boon Siang, the victim in DAC 912667-2017;

(m) PW13 – Loh Bee Ling, the victim in DAC 912648-2017 and DAC 912649-2017;

(n) PW14 – Lee Jong Chin, the victim in DAC 912668-2017;

(o) PW15 – Muhammad Rizwan Bin Kamaludin, the victim in DAC 912653-2017;

(p) PW16 – Alfred Toh Yong Sian, Senior Investigation Officer;

(q) PW17 – Stride Peter Anthony, Vice President of Casino Finance, Marina Bay Sands Casino Singapore;

(r) PW18 – Muhayat Bin Atris, father of PW8;

(s) PW19 – Chang Tuck Kam, Assistant Director of Security, Resorts World Sentosa;

(t) PW20 – Syed Khairil Bin Syed Saleh, director of RAPL;

(u) PW21 – Syed Faisal Bin Syed Saleh, operation manager of RAPL; and

(v) PW22 – Sharifah Lubna Binte Syed Saleh, finance manager of RAPL

7 In addition to the 22 witnesses, the Prosecution had also tendered 84 exhibits in support of their case against the Accused.

8 The Prosecution’s evidence could be summarised as follows:-

i. PW1 –Toh Tuck Wai

9 PW1 was a customer of RAPL. He had purchased a Honda Vezel motor car from RAPL in May 2016 for $93,000 and he was promised delivery of the car in August to September 2016^{[note: 1]}. The Accused was the sales person who had attended to PW1^{[note: 2]}. When PW1 booked his car in May 2016, he paid RAPL an initial payment of $46,000 on 30 May 2016^{[note: 3]}. In October 2016, PW1 saw a red Honda Vezel, which was parked, inside RAPL’s showroom and he was informed by the Accused that the car on display was the car that he had ordered^{[note: 4]}. The Accused subsequently asked PW1 to pay another sum of $47,348, which he paid on 24 October 2016^{[note: 5]}. Although PW1 had paid for the car in full, he was not given delivery of the car^{[note: 6]}. When PW1 tried to inquire with RAPL as to when he would get delivery of his car, he was informed by RAPL that they were having cash flow problem and even though his car was in the showroom, they were unable to register the car for him, as they did not have the money to do so. By November 2016, many customers of RAPL who had paid money to RAPL were not able to get their cars from RAPL. As such, PW1 decided to lodge a police report (Exhibit P1) together with some other customers to seek help from the police^{[note: 7]}. In mid-November 2016, PW1 was informed by PW21 that RAPL could assist to register his car if he was prepared to top up a further payment of $50,000 to $60,000^{[note: 8]}. PW1 decided to do make this additional payment in order to get his car rather to lose all the money that he had already paid to RAPL. Therefore, he proceeded to make this payment to RAPL and he managed to get the car registered and delivered to him after that^{[note: 9]}.

ii. PW2 – Tan Chwee Hong

10 PW2 had wanted to buy a Toyota Sienta car. She had gone to RAPL’s showroom in Woodlands in September 2016 with the intention of buying a car and the Accused was the sales person who had attended to her^{[note: 10]}. Subsequently, after agreeing on the price for the Toyota Sienta car, PW2 entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1198 with RAPL on 2 October 2016 to purchase the Toyota Sienta car for a price of $86,888 (“PW2’s Sales Agreement)^{[note: 11]}. PW2 informed the Accused that she did not require any financing in order to buy Toyota Sienta the car and the Accused told her that she would have to pay a down payment equivalent 50% of the Toyota Sienta car amounting to $43,444^{[note: 12]}. PW2 paid the Accused a sum of $10,000 on 2 October 2016 - $5,000 by way of Nets payments into RAPL’s account^{[note: 13]} and another $5,000 by way of cash payment to the Accused^{[note: 14]}. PW2 paid the Accused another $33,444, which was the balance of the 50% of the down payment for the Toyota Sienta car, by way of cash payment in the evening of 4 October 2016^{[note: 15]}. After PW2 had paid the $33,444 to the Accused, she requested the Accused for a receipt for her payment and the Accused issued her with a RAPL’s invoice no. RA-PO 0109 as evidence of her payments totalling $43,444^{[note: 16]}. RAPL invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was signed by the Accused and it had RAPL’s company stamp endorsed on it^{[note: 17]}. At the hearing, the Prosecution had also tendered another RAPL invoice no. RA-PO 0208 for the sum of $20,000: $5,000 by Nets payment on 2 October 2016 and $15,000 cash payment on 4 October 2016^{[note: 18]}. PW2 confirmed that she had never received RAPL invoice no. RA-PO 0208 from the Accused^{[note: 19]}. PW2 also testified that other than RAPL invoice no. RA-PO 0109, the Accused did not give her any other acknowledgment documents for her payment of the 50% down payment for the Toyota Sienta car^{[note: 20]}.

11 PW2 also testified that apart from 50% down payment that she had paid the Accused, she also paid the Accused a further $43,444 being the remaining price of the Toyota Sienta car on 20 October 2016. PW2 paid this amount to the Accused by way of cash payment. When PW2 paid the balance $43,444 to the Accused, the Accused drew out a Sales Balance Sheet in PW2’s presence to prove to PW2 that she had made full payment for the Toyota Sienta car^{[note: 21]}. Both PW2 and the Accused also placed their signatures on the Sales Balance Sheet to acknowledge that PW2 had paid the Accused the balance sum $43,444^{[note: 22]}. The Accused also wrote on the Sales Balance Sheet that he had received the sum of $43,444 by way of cash payment from PW2 on 20 October 2016^{[note: 23]}.

12 The Accused informed PW2 that she would get delivery of the Toyota Sienta car between 7 to 10 December 2016^{[note: 24]} and her impression was that she would get her car by the agreed dates^{[note: 25]}.

13 On or around 9 November 2016, PW2 heard news on television Channel 8 that RAPL had accepted a lot of money from customers and they were unable to deliver the cars to their customers^{[note: 26]}. She also saw an article in the Chinese newspaper about RAPL not being able to deliver cars to their customers^{[note: 27]}. PW2 tried to text and telephone the Accused but she could not get through to him^{[note: 28]}. PW2 did not contact any other representative from RAPL at that point of time because she had only dealt with the Accused^{[note: 29]}. PW2 then decided to contact PW20, who was the director and boss of RAPL to try to find out what was happening. PW2 and her husband met up with PW20 in November 2016 and she was informed by PW20 that the Accused had taken money from RAPL and that PW2 was not the only victim^{[note: 30]}. PW20 also requested PW2 to re-contract and that was why PW2 had entered into a second contract with PW20 on 17 November 2016. PW20 wrote the new date on page 2 of PW2’s Sales Agreement. PW20 also requested PW2 to give him more time and he told PW2 that he would bid for the COE in the second round of February 2017 and he would deliver the car by March 2017 to deliver her car^{[note: 31]}. PW20 also wrote down these conditions on page 1 of PW2’s Sales Agreement and placed RAPL’s company chop against these conditions^{[note: 32]}. PW20 also confirmed that PW2 had paid the Accused a total of $81,888 in cash and RAPL had only received a total sum of $20,000 - $5,000 by Nets payment and $15,000 cash^{[note: 33]}. PW2 also proceeded to file a police report on her case. To date, PW2 had not gotten delivery of her car from RAPL.^{[note: 34]}

iii. PW3 – Ng Poh Wen

14 PW3 had purchased a Honda Vezel motor car from RAPL and he was initially served by PW20 but halfway throughout, PW20 had to go away and he requested the Accused to continue to deal with PW3^{[note: 35]}. PW3 decided to purchase a Honda Vezel car from RAPL and he entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1159 with RAPL to buy the Honda Vezel car at a price of $91,888 on 29 May 2016 (“PW3’s Sales Agreement”)^{[note: 36]}. PW3 also wanted to take a loan of $64,321 to buy the Honda Vezel car^{[note: 37]}. When PW3 entered into the PW3’s sales agreement, he was required to pay a $20,000 deposit for the Honda Vezel car. However, he did not have any cheques or cash on him and he only paid the $20,000 deposit for the Honda Vezel car by way of bank draft issued to RAPL on 2 June 2016^{[note: 38]}.

15 The second payment that PW3 made for the purchase of the Honda Vezel car was $7,567. PW3 paid the $7,567 to the Accused^{[note: 39]}. PW3 had paid this money to the Accused because the Accused had informed PW3 that his Honda Vezel car was ready and he was required to pay this money in order for RAPL to register the Honda Vezel car for him^{[note: 40]}. PW3 could not remember the exact date that he had paid the $7,567 to the Accused but he remembered paying the money in September 2016 and he gave the money to the Accused at RAPL’s showroom. The Accused did not give PW3 any receipt for the $7,567 because the administrative people of RAPL were not around and the Accused was not able to issue any invoice on behalf of RAPL. The Accused also told PW3 that he would issue the invoice to PW3 at a later date^{[note: 41]}. PW3 also testified that he had given the sum of $7,567 to the Accused by way of cash payment^{[note: 42]}. The $7,567 was supposed to be the balance payment of the Honda Vezel car because PW3 was taking a $64,321 loan to buy the Honda Vezel car^{[note: 43]}.

16 Before PW3 paid the balance $7,567 to the Accused, the Accused informed PW3 that he had bid for COE on PW3’s behalf and PW3 had to pay the balance purchase in order for him to register the Honda Vezel car^{[note: 44]}. However, PW3 subsequently found out during his meeting with PW20 that there was no bidding done by the Accused on his behalf^{[note: 45]}.

17 When PW3 paid the balance $7,567 to the Accused, the Accused informed him that his Honda Vezel car would be in about two days’ time^{[note: 46]}. However, after paying the Accused the sum of $7,567 in cash, PW3 was still unable to obtain delivery of his Honda Vezel car from RAPL. PW3 kept communicating with the Accused on the delivery of the Honda Vezel car from September to October and the Accused also informed PW3 that RAPL might not be able to deliver his Honda Vezel car because the company was having financial problems^{[note: 47]}.The Accused subsequently became uncontactable^{[note: 48]}. PW3 then went down to RAPL to try to find out what was happening. He spoke to PW20 and PW21 but he was not able to get any answer from any of them save that they would need to study the matter^{[note: 49]}. PW3 then proceeded to file a police report (Exhibit P1) together with PW1 and a few customers of RAPL^{[note: 50]}. I noted in Exhibit P1 that PW3 had informed the police that he had given $7,567 cash to the Accused on 21 September 2016^{[note: 51]}. On 18 November 2016, PW3 spoke to PW20 and PW20 informed PW3 that RAPL only had record of the $20,000 payment made by PW3 and they did not have any record of the $7,567 payment that PW3 had given to the Accused. PW20 informed PW3 that RAPL was unable to honour the $7,567 that he had paid the Accused^{[note: 52]}. PW20 also informed PW3 that the Accused had taken the cash amount of $7,567 for his personal use^{[note: 53]}. PW20 also informed PW3 that RAPL was unable to absorb the $7,567 because they were having financial problems^{[note: 54]}.

18 PW20 then arranged for RAPL to fulfil PW3’s order for the Honda Vezel car by allowing PW3 to get his Honda Vezel car from another car dealer by the name of Luxury Auto^{[note: 55]} upon PW3 paying additional money to Luxury Auto to purchase and register his Honda Vezel car. PW3 finally got delivery of his Honda Vezel car on 3 January 2017^{[note: 56]}.

19 At the end, PW3 had to pay more than $91,888 for the Honda Vezel car because the $7,567 that he had paid to the Accused was not honoured by RAPL^{[note: 57]}.

iv. PW4 – Chong Yak Kok

20 PW4 wanted to buy a Honda Vezel car and he entered into Sales Agreement no. RA 1142 with RAPL for the purchase of a Honda Vezel car for $93,888 on 15 May 2016 (“PW4’s Sales Agreement”)^{[note: 58]}. The Accused was the first person from RAPL who served PW4 when he went to RAPL. PW4 also met up with PW20 after he had dealt with the Accused^{[note: 59]}.

21 After PW4 had entered into the Sales Agreement no. RA 1142 with RAPL, he paid $20,000 down payment by way of fund transfer from his OCBC account to RAPL’s account^{[note: 60]}. PW4 paid the $20,000 to RAPL on 15 May 2016^{[note: 61]}. RAPL issued PW4 with invoice no. RA-PO 0121 for $20,000 payment^{[note: 62]}. The person who handled this $20,000 payment was PW20^{[note: 63]}. PW20 also informed PW4 that he should get delivery of the Honda Vezel car in September 2016^{[note: 64]}.

22 After PW4 had paid the $20,000 down payment, the Accused became his contact person at RAPL. The Accused would update PW4 on the status of the COE bidding and the status of his purchase^{[note: 65]}

23 On the day of the purchase, PW4 informed the Accused that he had wanted to take up a loan amounting to 50% of the price of the Honda Vezel car. Subsequently in September 2016, PW4 decided to reduce the loan amount to 40% of the price of the Honda Vezel car and he was informed by the Accused that he would need to pay another $9,389 to offset the loan difference. PW4 then proceeded to pay the $9,389 in cash to the Accused on 7 September 2016^{[note: 66]}.

24 After the payment of $9,389, PW4 paid the Accused another $17,555^{[note: 67]}. The Accused informed PW4 that his Honda Vezel car had arrived in Singapore and it was ready to be delivered^{[note: 68]}.The Accused told PW4 that they were just waiting install the car with the relevant accessories before delivering it to RAPL’s showroom. The Accused then persuaded PW4 to pay him the balance of the car price, which was $17,555. PW4 proceeded to pay the Accused the $17,555 by way of cash payment on 15 September 2016^{[note: 69]}. After PW4 had paid the Accused the $17,555, the Accused handed PW4 RAPL’s invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for the payments made by PW4^{[note: 70]}. Invoice no RA-PO 0170 was dated 7 September 2016 and it stated that PW4 had paid the $17,555 on 15 September 2016^{[note: 71]}. However, PW4 was not able to remember the exact date when the Accused handed the invoice no. RA-PO 0170 to him^{[note: 72]}but he remembered that it was not the same day as the payment for the $17,555^{[note: 73]}.

25 Sometime in October 2016, the Accused contacted PW4 in the afternoon and told him that RAPL was having a promotion and the company was giving $3,000 discount to selected customers who were prepared to make full payments for their cars instead of taking loans^{[note: 74]}. At that time, PW4 was working at Tuas South Extension^{[note: 75]}. The Accused told PW4 that he had been selected for the promotion^{[note: 76]}. PW4 was tempted and he decided to take up the offer and he promised to pay the Accused the sum of $43,944 in cash (which was the loan amount less $3,000)^{[note: 77]}.

26 The Accused told PW4 that the offer was valid only for one day and that PW4 had to pay the money to him in cash by the end of the day^{[note: 78]}. PW4 then went down to OCBC Bank in Sembawang in the evening at about 6 to 7 pm and he tried to withdraw the money from his bank account. However, the bank did not have so much cash at hand. PW4 then contacted the Accused and told the Accused that he was not able to obtain that amount in cash^{[note: 79]}. PW4 asked the Accused if he could transfer the money directly into RAPL’s account instead but the Accused told PW4 that it was too late and he suggested that PW4 transfer the money into his account instead^{[note: 80]}. The Accused told PW4 that he could assist PW4 and if PW4 were to transfer the money into the Accused’s personal account, the Accused could withdraw the money from his account and settle the matter with RAPL by handing the money over to RAPL^{[note: 81]}. PW4 agreed to the Accused’s suggestion and he later made a fund transfer of $43,944 from his bank account into the Accused’s UOB personal account^{[note: 82]}. The Accused’s UOB bank account no. XXX also showed a deposit of $43,944 paid into the account on 26 October 2016^{[note: 83]}.

27 After PW4 had made payment of the $43,944 from his bank account into the Accused’s UOB personal account, he did go down to RAPL to look for the Accused and the Accused issued PW4 with invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for the payment of the $43,944^{[note: 84]}. Invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was given to PW4 when PW4 was at RAPL’s showroom^{[note: 85]}. Invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was dated 27 October 2016 and it stated that the term of payment was by way of bank transfer. PW4 understood this to mean that the Accused had transferred the $43,944 to RAPL’s account after he had received the same from PW4 into his personal account^{[note: 86]}. When PW4 first received invoice no. RA-PO 0109, he noticed that the figure in invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was wrong as the invoice stated that PW4 had paid $46,944 and he pointed out the mistake to the Accused^{[note: 87]}. The Accused said he would amend the invoice and he brought invoice no. RA-PO 0109 to his office in the showroom and he amended invoice no. RA-PO 0109 by striking out the amount and writing down the correct amount of $43,944. The Accused also proceeded to sign against the amendments^{[note: 88]}. PW4 had waited at the customer rest area while the Accused went into the office to amend the invoice^{[note: 89]}.

28 After PW4 had made full payment for the Honda Vezel car, he continued to contact the Accused to check on the progress and updates on the registration of the car^{[note: 90]}. In October 2016, the Accused informed PW4 that his Honda Vezel car had arrived at RAPL’s showroom and was ready to be delivered to PW4. However, the Accused needed more time to arrange for delivery because the accessories had not been installed^{[note: 91]}.The Honda Vezel car was never delivered to PW4^{[note: 92]}.

29 In November 2016, PW4 decided to go down to RAPL’s showroom to check on the status of his Honda Vezel car. When he was at the showroom, he met up with a few other customers of RAPL and he found out that all these other customers had been attended to by the Accused and that the Accused had run away^{[note: 93]}. PW4 and the other customers then decided to go to the police to file a police report (Exhibit P1)^{[note: 94]}.

30 PW4 subsequently met up with PW20. PW20 informed PW4 that the Accused had run away with RAPL customers’ money and the police had started investigating the matter. PW20 also told PW4 that all the money that PW4 had paid to the Accused in cash and by way of bank transfer to the Accused’s bank account had been taken by the Accused.^{[note: 95]} PW4 tried to ask PW20 for a refund but PW20 was not able to give PW4 any refund because RAPL was short of funds. PW20 also asked for more time for RAPL to deliver PW4’s car and he promised PW4 that RAPL would bid for the COE in December 2016 but that did not materialise^{[note: 96]}.

31 The Prosecution had also shown PW4 a copy of RAPL invoice no. RA-PO 0206 dated 13 October 2016, which was issued to PW4 for a payment of $17,556^{[note: 97]} when PW4 was on the witness stand. PW4 confirmed that he did not make any payment of $17,556 to RAPL on 13 October 2016 and he only paid $17,555 cash to the Accused on 15 September 2016^{[note: 98]}.

v. PW5 – Choo Ann Lock Marvin

32 PW5 had wanted to buy a Honda Vezel car from RAPL because RAPL was having a promotion on the car^{[note: 99]}. He entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1130 with RAPL to purchase a Honda Vezel car from RAPL for $89,999 on 17 April 2016 (“PW5’s 1^st sales agreement”)^{[note: 100]}. When PW5 entered into Sales Agreement with RAPL, he had wanted to take a loan of $30,000 to buy the Honda Vezel car^{[note: 101]}.

33 PW5 had dealt with PW20 initially and PW20 had prepared PW5’s 1^st sales agreement with RAPL^{[note: 102]}. However, PW20 became busy later on and he assigned the Accused to follow up on PW5’s case^{[note: 103]}. Later on, because the payments were a bit messy, the Accused decided to prepare another Sales Agreement no. RA 1183 (“PW5’s 2^nd Sales Agreement”) to replace PW5’s 1^st Sales Agreement^{[note: 104]}. PW5’s understanding was that once parties had signed PW5’s 2^nd Sales Agreement, PW5’s 1^st Sales Agreement would become null and void^{[note: 105]}. Under the terms of the sales agreement, PW5 was supposed to pay RAPL a $20,000 deposit for his purchase of the Honda Vezel car. PW5 paid an initial payment of $1,000 on 17 April 2016 and another $19,000 on 18 July 2016. PW5 handed these two payments to PW21 by way of cash payment^{[note: 106]}.

34 About 3 to 4 days after 18 July 2016, the Accused contacted PW5 and asked him to pay another $40,000, which was the balance of the price of the Honda Vezel car. The Accused told PW5 that his COE was ready and requested the money in cash from PW5^{[note: 107]}. PW5 had also sent a text message to the Accused on 20 July 2016 to ask about the payment. The text message read “Hey, Mr Chua thanks, how much is my COE and how should I proceed with the later stage?”^{[note: 108]}. The Accused replied on 21 July 2016 “You’ll see how bro if you want just carry cash full amount come over, if you cannot you take 5K then come with the balance next week”^{[note: 109]}. PW5 then proceeded to pay $5,000 cash to the Accused directly^{[note: 110]}. When PW5 paid the Accused the $5,000, he asked the Accused as to what were the additional steps that he would need to take in order for him to get his car. The Accused told PW5 that he would need to pay the full price of the car before the Accused could get him his COE^{[note: 111]}. PW4 then proceeded to pay the $35,000 by way of cash payment to the Accused^{[note: 112]}. PW4 was unable to recall the exact date that he handed over the $35,000 to the Accused but he recalled that the payment was round mid-July 2016^{[note: 113]}. When PW5 paid the $35,000 cash to the Accused, the Accused also prepared a Sales Balance Sheet dated 24 July 2016 to explain to PW4 the breakdown in payments and the Accused also signed on the Sales Balance Sheet to confirm the figures. The Accused explained to PW5 that the purchase price of his Honda Vezel car was $89,888. PW5 had paid a deposit of $20,000 and a further cash payment of $5,000 on 22 July 2016. Taking into account the loan amount of $30,000, the balance payment due for the Honda Vezel car was $34,888^{[note: 114]}. The Accused also highlighted to PW5 that because PW5 had paid $35,000, RAPL was supposed to refund a sum of $122 to PW5^{[note: 115]}. The Accused also informed PW5 that he was supposed to get delivery of his Honda Vezel car after this payment^{[note: 116]}.

35 PW5 also testified that he was supposed to get delivery of the Honda Vezel car in August 2016. However, he did not get his car in August 2016^{[note: 117]}. PW5 also said that he only spoke to the Accused in August and September 2016^{[note: 118]}.

36 Sometime in October 2016, PW20 contacted PW5 and informed him that RAPL was unable to pay for his Honda Vezel car because they were having a financial crisis. PW20 told PW5 that the monies that PW5 had paid to the Accused was not handed over by the Accused to RAPL^{[note: 119]}. PW20 told PW5 that the monies that he had paid the Accused was not deposited into RAPL’s account^{[note: 120]}. PW5 also tried to contact the Accused to find out what happened but he was unable to reach the Accused^{[note: 121]}.

37 PW5 also met up with PW20 in November 2016 to discuss the delivery of his Honda Vezel car. At the meeting, PW20 informed PW5 that RAPL did not have the money to pay for the car, the car documents were not ready and they were unable to register the car^{[note: 122]}. At the end of the day, PW5 had to pay an additional $26,000 to Sin Thai Hing Motor and Credit Company to get his car delivered to him^{[note: 123]}.

vi. PW6 – Yip Yong Yew

38 PW6 had gone to RAPL to look for a replacement car because his old car was coming to 10 years. PW6 had wanted to buy a Toyota Sienta car^{[note: 124]}.The Accused was the sales person at RAPL who had attended to PW6^{[note: 125]}. PW6 had dealt with both the Accused and PW21 when he was at RAPL. PW21 had spoken to PW6 and the Accused had prepared all the documentation^{[note: 126]}.

39 PW6 decided to buy a Toyota Sienta car from RAPL after visiting RAPL and on 18 July 2016, he entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1180 with RAPL to buy the Toyota Sienta at an agreed price of $98,888 (“PW6’s Sales Agreement”)^{[note: 127]}. PW6 had wanted to take a loan of $49,444, which was 50% of the price of the Toyota Sienta car^{[note: 128]}. The Accused also agreed to allow PW6 to trade-in his old car^{[note: 129]}. PW6 could not remember whether it was the Accused or PW21 who had given him a copy of Sales Agreement no. RA 1180^{[note: 130]}.

40 On the day that PW6 entered into Sales Agreement no. RA 1180 with RAPL, he was supposed to pay RAPL a deposit of $20,000. PW6 wanted to pay $5,000 from his ATM card but he was not able to deduct the money from his ATM card. The Accused then requested PW6 to prepare $20,000 in cash^{[note: 131]} and he told PW6 that he would go over to PW6’s house in order to collect the payment. Subsequently PW21 went to PW6’s house to collect the $20,000 cash and PW6 paid the $20,000 to PW21^{[note: 132]}.

41 In October 2016, the Accused told PW6 that his vehicle was ready for collection. He gave PW6 the engine and chassis number of vehicle and requested for payment of $49,444^{[note: 133]}. PW6 had initially wanted to take a 50% loan on the car but he changed his mind because of the high interest rate and he decided to pay in full for the car. PW6 then suggested to the Accused to pay this amount by way of cheque payment but the Accused told PW6 that “even if you want to pay in full, you still have to pay $49,444 because your car is ready and you need to pay in cash”^{[note: 134]}. PW6 then proceeded to pay the $49,444 to the Accused by way of cash payment on 27 October 2016 and the Accused issued PW6 with RAPL invoice no. RA-PO 0109 dated 27 October 2016^{[note: 135]}. The Accused also acknowledged the receipt of the $49,444 cash by writing and signing on the invoice^{[note: 136]}. PW6 also testified that he had handed over the money to the Accused inside OCBC bank at VivoCity Mall. PW6 had gone to the bank to withdraw the money and he had waited for the Accused and had handed the money to the Accused when he arrived at the bank at about 4 plus in the afternoon^{[note: 137]}. The Accused had issued invoice no. RA-PO 0109 to PW6 when PW6 handed the money to the Accused at the bank^{[note: 138]}.

42 After paying the Accused the $49,444, PW6 kept texting the Accused to find out when his car would be ready^{[note: 139]}. This went on until sometime in November 2016 when PW6 went down to RAPL and he found out that the Accused had absconded^{[note: 140]}. PW6 had met up with PW21 at RAPL and PW21 informed PW6 that the Accused had absconded and “his boss will look into the matter”.^{[note: 141]} PW21 also told PW6 that RAPL had received the $20,000 deposit but they did not receive the $49.444. PW21 also informed PW6 that his car was not with RAPL and they had not obtained any COE on PW6’s behalf^{[note: 142]}.

43 PW6 also testified in Court that when the Accused told him that his car was ready and gave him the chassis number of the car and asked for the balance payment, his understanding from the Accused was that the whole of the balance payment was due and he was supposed to pay the Accused the full balance of price of the car. That meant that PW6 would need to pay the Accused another $29,444 plus $49,444. However, after the Accused had absconded and PW6 did not receive his car, he decided not to pay the $29,444^{[note: 143]}.

44 PW6 confirmed that he did not pay the balance price of $29,444 because he did not receive the car from RAPL^{[note: 144]}. The Accused also did not ask for any further payment after the payment of $49,444^{[note: 145]}. PW6 also met up with the owner of RAPL in November 2016 and the owner informed PW6 that the Accused had taken the $49,444 and RAPL did not receive the money from the Accused^{[note: 146]}.

vii. PW7 – Hisyamuddin Bin Senan

45 PW7 first met the Accused at RAPL showroom when he wanted to buy a car from RAPL. The Accused had attended to PW7. PW7 decided to buy a Toyota Sienta car from RAPL and he entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1191 with RAPL on 7 August 2016 to buy the Toyota Sienta car from RAPL at an agreed price of $98,888 (“PW7’s Sales Agreement”)^{[note: 147]}. The Accused prepared and signed PW7’s Sales Agreement in the presence of PW7^{[note: 148]}. PW7 had also paid the Accused a deposit of $20,000 on 7 August 2016 after he had signed PW7’s Sales Agreement^{[note: 149]}. PW7 also testified that the Accused was the only person he had dealt with at RAPL and he did not liaise with any other person from RAPL^{[note: 150]}.

46 When PW7 met up with the Accused at RAPL, the Accused told PW7 that the price of $98,888 was only available for one day and PW7 needed to pay $20,000 deposit to secure the Toyota Sienta car at that price. The Accused also informed PW7 that he would need to pay a deposit of $20,000 - $10,000 being the deposit for the car and $10,000 for the COE deposit^{[note: 151]}. PW7 then decided to enter into PW7’s Sales Agreement and he paid the $20,000 by way of cash payment to the Accused^{[note: 152]}. The Accused acknowledged the payment of the $20,000 on the sales agreement^{[note: 153]}. When PW7 paid the $20,000 deposit, he was not given any invoice for the payment. The Accused told PW7 that the other staff were not working and he was not able to print out the invoice for PW7. The Accused also told PW7 that he would give the invoice to PW7 on a later date. A few days later, the Accused sent an invoice to PW7 through the email^{[note: 154]}.

47 When PW7 entered into PW7’s Sales Agreement with the Accused, PW7 had wanted to take a loan of $69,221 to buy the car^{[note: 155]}. However, the Accused contacted PW7 on a later date and informed PW7 that his loan amount was not approved in full and the amount of loan approved was only $65,000^{[note: 156]}. The Accused told PW7 that he would have to top up another $4,221 in cash to buy the car^{[note: 157]}. PW7 agreed to pay the additional money and he went down to RAPL’s premises on 4 September 2016 and paid the $4,221 in cash to the Accused^{[note: 158]}.

48 After the second payment of $4,221, sometime in September 2016, the Accused contacted PW7 and told him that his car was ready and he needed PW7 to pay another $9,677, which was the balance of the purchase price of the car^{[note: 159]}. PW7 proceeded to pay the $9,766 by way of cash payment to the Accused at RAPL’s premises on 11 September 2016^{[note: 160]}.

49 The Accused also issued PW7 with RAPL’s invoice no. RA-PO 0170 on the same day that PW7 paid the third payment of $9,766 to the Accused^{[note: 161]}. Invoice no. RA-PO 0170 was for all 3 payments that PW7 had paid to the Accused^{[note: 162]}. When the Accused gave PW7 invoice no. RA-PO 0170, PW7 noticed that the amount for the second payment was printed as $4,211 when the correct amount should be $4,221 but PW7 thought that it was a typographical when the Accused prepared the invoice^{[note: 163]}. PW7 also noted that amount for the third payment was wrongly printed as $9,000. He informed the Accused who proceeded to amend the figure to $9,766 by hand in the presence of PW7 and initialled against the amendments. The Accused then gave the amended invoice to PW7^{[note: 164]}. PW7 also placed his initials next to the amendments to confirm the amendments^{[note: 165]}.

50 When PW7 made the third payment to the Accused, he asked the Accused when he would be getting delivery of his car and the Accused told him that he would get his car in October 2016^{[note: 166]}. However, PW7 did not get his car in October 2016. He tried to contact the Accused a number of times but the Accused became uncontactable^{[note: 167]}. PW7 then saw RAPL’s Facebook where RAPL had announced that the Accused was no longer working for them. PW7 then proceeded to make a police report.

51 PW7 also managed to contact PW20 and showed PW20 his sales agreement. PW20 informed PW7 that RAPL had no record of his transactions with the Accused. PW20 told PW7 that RAPL had no record of his sales agreement and invoices^{[note: 168]}. To date, PW7 had not gotten delivery of his car from RAPL^{[note: 169]}.

viii. PW8 – Nur Amirah Binte Muhayat

52 PW8 first met the Accused when she went down to RAPL’s premises to purchase a car^{[note: 170]}. She had wanted to buy a Honda Vezel car^{[note: 171]}. On 28 May 2016, PW8 entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1151 with RAPL to purchase a Honda Vezel car at an agreed price of $91,888 (“PW8’s Sales Agreement”)^{[note: 172]}. Under the sales agreement, PW8 was supposed to pay a deposit of $20,000 to RAPL to buy the Honda Vezel car and she paid the $20,000 to the Accused by way of cheque payment made payable to RAPL on 28 May 2016 at RAPL’s premises^{[note: 173]}.

53 After the initial payment of the $20,000 deposit, PW8 paid the Accused a further sum of $2,468 after the Accused requested for the said payment from PW8. PW8 was at RAPL’s showroom and she was looking at a White Honda Vezel when the Accused came up to her and informed her that the car on display was her car and it would be released to her in one month’s time^{[note: 174]}. The Accused also told PW8 that he needed her to pay the $2,468 and that payment had to be made by way of cash payment because his accounts was “going to be closed till Monday”^{[note: 175]}. PW8’s father, Muhayat Bin Atris (who was PW18) handed the $2,468 in cash to the Accused the next day, which was a Saturday morning^{[note: 176]}. PW8 could not remember the exact date that she made the payment but she remembered that it was in August 2016^{[note: 177]}. When PW18 paid the $2,468 cash to the Accused, the Accused had informed PW18 that he could not give PW18 any invoice because there was no one to issue the invoice^{[note: 178]}. PW18 informed PW8 of the same and told her to chase the Accused for the invoice^{[note: 179]}. PW8 then went on to chase the Accused for the invoice and the Accused issued PW8 with invoice no. RA-PO 0178^{[note: 180]} for the said payment. The Accused personally handed the invoice to PW8 at RAPL’s showroom^{[note: 181]}. PW8 also said that the Accused had given the invoice to her “like a maybe a few weeks after I had made the physical payment”^{[note: 182]}.

54 Later on, PW8 found out from Facebook that there was some problem with the Accused and RAPL and she went down to RAPL and spoke to PW21 who told her that the Accused was the bad guy and he has taken all of RAPL’s monies^{[note: 183]}. PW8 also spoke to PW20 and PW20 informed PW8 that he did not receive the $2,468 that she had paid to the Accused.

ix. PW18 – Muhayat Bin Atris

55 PW18 was the father of PW8. PW8 had purchased a Honda Vezel car from RAPL^{[note: 184]}. PW18 had handed over $2,468 which was the balance of the deposit payable for the car to the Accused^{[note: 185]}. PW18 confirmed that when he paid the $2,468 to the Accused, the Accused did not give him any receipt for the payment^{[note: 186]}. PW18 had gone down to RAPL’s premises a few times to ask for the receipt and the Accused only gave him invoice no. RA-PO 0178^{[note: 187]} after a few days or a few weeks^{[note: 188]}. The Accused handed invoice no. RA-PO 0178 to PW18 at RAPL’s premises when PW18 went to the showroom to ask the Accused when the car was coming^{[note: 189]}. PW18 also did not notice the date on invoice no. RA-PO 0178 (which was 10 August 2016) when he received the invoice from the Accused^{[note: 190]}.

56 PW18 testified that the Accused had requested for the payment of $2,468 on 5 August 2016^{[note: 191]}. PW18 had gone down to RAPL on 5 August 2016 and he wanted to pay the amount by cheque payment^{[note: 192]}. But the Accused had insisted on payment by cash and PW18 did not bring any cash with him^{[note: 193]}. The Accused told PW18 that he did not want cheque payment because he wanted the money fast. The Accused also told PW18 that RAPL’s accounts was closed and it would take more time to clear the cheque^{[note: 194]}. PW18 believed what the Accused told him^{[note: 195]} and he went back to RAPL’s premises on Saturday 6 August 2016 and gave $2,468 cash to the Accused^{[note: 196]}.

57 PW18 also confirmed that the Accused had requested him and PW8 to pay $20,000 on 28 May 2016 when they decided to purchase the Honda Vezel car from RAPL^{[note: 197]} and he had paid the $20,000 to RAPL by way of cheque payment^{[note: 198]}. The Accused gave PW18 the receipt for the $20,000 payment about 1 week after he had paid the $20,000 to the Accused^{[note: 199]}.

58 After PW18 had paid the $2,468 cash to the Accused, he went down to the showroom on more than 10 occasions to ask the Accused when the car was coming. The Accused gave him many reasons, including the car was not approved by the LTA, they have not gone for Vicom testing; and the tint in the glass of the car was too dark^{[note: 200]}. PW18 also testified that he only dealt with the Accused on all these occasions and he did not speak to any other staff from RAPL^{[note: 201]}.

59 Later, PW18 found out that from PW8 that the Accused had run away^{[note: 202]}. PW18 then spoke to PW20 about the delivery of his car and PW20. PW20 told PW18 that he would re-contract with PW18 and assured PW18 that RAPL would deliver his car by December 2016^{[note: 203]}. When PW18 met up with PW20, PW20 also informed PW18 that RAPL had received the $20,000 but they did not receive the $2,468 that PW18 had paid to the Accused because the Accused had taken the money^{[note: 204]}. PW18 also testified that he had also dealt with PW21 at RAPL. He first met PW21 in August 2016 when PW21 spoke to him on the technical aspects of the car that he had ordered^{[note: 205]}.

x. PW9 – Syed Kassim S/O Mohamed Jamaludeen

60 PW9 had gone down to RAPL to purchase a car and the Accused had attended to him when he was at RAPL^{[note: 206]}. PW9 wanted to buy a Honda Vezel car and he entered into Sales Agreement no. RA 1170 with RAPL on 19 June 2016 to buy the Honda Vezel car at an agreed price of $98,000^{[note: 207]} (“PW9’s Sales Agreement”). When PW9 entered into PW9’s Sales Agreement with RAPL, he had wanted to take a loan on 70% of the price of the car in order to buy the car^{[note: 208]}. After entering into PW9’s Sales Agreement with RAPL, PW9 paid an initial deposit of $1,000 cash to the Accused on 19 June 2016^{[note: 209]}.

61 After the initial $1,000, PW9 made another three payments to the Accused for the sums of $9,000, $10,000 and $9,400^{[note: 210]}. For the first two payments of $9,000 and $10,000, PW9 was told by the Accused that he had to pay a deposit of $20,000 to RAPL to buy the Honda Vezel car - $10,000 for the deposit for the car and $10,000 to bid the COE^{[note: 211]}. As PW9 had paid a $1,000 deposit, there was still a sum of $19,000 which was payable. PW9 paid the Accused $9,000 on 21 June 2016^{[note: 212]} and another $10,000 on 14 July 2016^{[note: 213]}. Three days after PW9 had paid the Accused the $9,000, the Accused told PW9 that he needed to bid for the COE and he requested PW9 to pay him the $10,000 in cash early in order for him to bid for the COE. PW9 proceeded to give $10,000 cash to the Accused^{[note: 214]}.

62 The $9,400 was the balance payment for the car^{[note: 215]}. The Accused told PW9 that there was a delay in getting his car and the Accused told PW9 that if he could pay $9,400 as soon as possible, the Accused could book a car which was already in the showroom and deliver that car to PW9 as soon as possible^{[note: 216]}. Because PW9’s car had been delayed for a few months and PW9’s concern was to get his car as soon as possible. PW9 therefore agreed to the Accused’s proposal and he gave $9,400 in cash to the Accused a few days after the Accused had made the proposal to PW9^{[note: 217]}. When PW9 paid the $9,400 to the Accused, the Accused issued PW9 with RAPL’s invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for the payment^{[note: 218]}. The Accused also prepared a Sales Balance Sheet to payments made by PW9 and he showed it to PW9 and explained the breakdown to PW9 after he had paid the $9,400^{[note: 219]}. The Accused signed the Sales Balance Sheet and PW9 initialed the same^{[note: 220]}. PW9 was unable to remember the exact date he paid the $9,400 to the Accused but it “should be sometime around in September”. PW9 also did not take note of the date written on invoice no. RA-PO 0170 when he received the invoice from the Accused^{[note: 221]}. However, the date that was printed on invoice no. RA-PO 0170 was 5 September 2016^{[note: 222]}. PW9 also testified that other than the Accused, PW9 did not deal with any other person from RAPL and all the monies were handed by PW9 to the Accused^{[note: 223]}.

63 After PW9 had paid the Accused the $9,400, the Accused promised to deliver the car to PW9 in 1 to 2 weeks’ time. However, the Accused did not keep his promise. PW9 realized that there was a problem with RAPL after he read about it in RAPL’s Facebook in November 2016^{[note: 224]}. On the same day that he found out about RAPL’s problem, PW9 went down to RAPL’s premises to look for the Accused and the boss of RAPL but the premises were locked^{[note: 225]}. PW9 made a second trip to RAPL the following day and he met up with PW20 and showed PW20 all his documents. He explained to PW20 that he had paid a total of $29,400 to the Accused. PW20 checked RAPL’s records and informed PW9 that they only had records of the $20,000 and they did not have any records of the $9,400 which PW9 had paid to the Accused^{[note: 226]}. PW20 also told PW9 that the invoice no. RA-PO 0170 that the Accused had issued to PW9 was a fake invoice^{[note: 227]}. PW20 also informed PW9 that there were many other affected customers^{[note: 228]}.

64 PW9 eventually got his car through another car dealer known as Luxury. As PW9 did not want to lost his $20,000 deposit with RAPL, he paid Luxury another $9,400 to get his car^{[note: 229]}. PW9 did not get his $9,400 back from RAPL^{[note: 230]}. PW9 also testified that he had only dealt with the Accused at RAPL^{[note: 231]}.

65 The Prosecution also asked PW9 about 2 other RAPL invoices which were issued in PW9’s name, namely invoice nos. RA-PO 0148 dated 14 July 2016 for $10,000^{[note: 232]} and RA-PO 0170 dated 14 July 2016 for $20,000^{[note: 233]}. PW9 was unable to explain or comment on these two invoices^{[note: 234]}.

xi. PW10 – Ku Chee Chiang William

66 PW10 had wanted to buy a motor car^{[note: 235]}. He had first gone down to RAPL’s showroom in June 2016^{[note: 236]}. The Accused was the sales person from RAPL who had attended to PW10^{[note: 237]}. PW10 had entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1174 with RAPL on 12 July 2016 to buy a Honda Vezel car at an agreed price of $101,888^{[note: 238]} (“PW10’s 1^st Sales Agreement”). Pursuant to PW10’s 1^st Sales Agreement, PW10 paid RAPL a deposit of $50,944. PW10 made a first payment of $50,944 to RAPL by way of cheque payment on 12 July 2016 and he handed the cheque to the Accused. The Accused told PW10 that the $50,944 was a deposit for the car^{[note: 239]}.

67 After entering into PW10’s 1^st Sales Agreement with RAPL, PW10 saw from RAPL’s Facebook page that the price of the Honda Vezel car had fallen because the COE had dropped. PW10 then went on to check with the Accused if they could lower the price of the car. The Accused checked with his company and they agreed to lower the price to $98,888^{[note: 240]}. The Accused also told PW10 that the offer was contingent upon PW10 paying the balance price of the car in cash and PW10 agreed to the same^{[note: 241]}. As such, on 23 August 2016, the Accused prepared a fresh Sales Agreement no. RA 1188 between PW10 and RAPL, for PW10 to buy the Honda Vezel car at a new price of $98,888^{[note: 242]} (“PW10’s 2^nd Sales Agreement”). The original payment of $50,944, which was paid by way of cheque payment on 12 July 2016, was transferred to this new sales agreement^{[note: 243]}.

68 The second payment that PW10 paid to the Accused was $47,944^{[note: 244]}. The Accused had informed PW10 that he could collect his car and he had asked PW10 for the balance payment. PW10 had paid the Accused the $47,944 by way of cash payment on 23 August 2016.^{[note: 245]} PW10 remembered that 23 August 2016 was a weekday and he had gone down to RAPL’s premises after work with the cash^{[note: 246]}. When PW10 gave the $47,944 to the Accused, the Accused was not able to issue him with a receipt for the payment right away and PW10 requested the Accused to indicate on PW10’s Sales Agreement that he had received the money. The Accused wrote on page 2 of PW10’s Sales Agreement that he had “received cash of $47,944 on 23/08/16”. The Accused also wrote down the time he received the money as 9.15 pm and he signed on the document^{[note: 247]}. All these were done in the presence of PW10^{[note: 248]}.

69 After the payment of the $47,944 to the Accused, PW10 asked the Accused for the chassis number of the car because he wanted to purchase car insurance and HDB car park. PW10 messaged the Accused and the Accused gave him the chassis number as “RUI-1206909”^{[note: 249]}. PW10 used the chassis number and purchased a motorcar insurance from Direct Asia Insurance. Direct Asia Insurance issued him with an insurance policy and Certificate of Insurance for his car^{[note: 250]}. PW10 paid a premium of $982.03 for the car insurance^{[note: 251]}. PW10 had purchased the car insurance because the Accused had informed him that he would be getting his car very soon^{[note: 252]}. PW10 wanted to buy the insurance so that he could start driving the car from the moment he got the car^{[note: 253]}. The period of the insurance policy for the car as stated on the Certificate of Insurance was from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2016^{[note: 254]}. PW10 did not know the exact date that he would be getting the car from RAPL. He checked with Direct Asia Insurance and they told him to put those dates. They also told PW10 that he could call them as soon as he got his car so that they could change the dates if need be^{[note: 255]}. PW10 had purchased the car insurance on 29 October 2016 as the Certificate of Insurance was dated 29 October 2016^{[note: 256]}. PW10 also said in court that if he had known that his car was not ready, he would not have purchased the insurance^{[note: 257]}.

70 After having paid the $47,944 to the Accused, PW10 did go down to RAPL’s premises to request for their receipt for the $47,944. ^{[note: 258]}RAPL was having some sales event when PW10 went down to their premises and PW10 wanted to approach the Accused but he was busy. PW10 then approached a male and female staff and requested for his receipt but they just said they would attend to him^{[note: 259]}. PW10 gave his name and NRIC to the male staff. The male staff passed them to the woman staff who checked and said she could not locate the receipt. At the end, PW10 did not managed to meet up with the Accused and he did not get his receipt for the $47,944^{[note: 260]}.

71 PW10 subsequently found out through the social media and the boss of RAPL that the Accused had run away with RAPL’s money^{[note: 261]}. PW10 then proceeded to file a police report on 6 November 2016^{[note: 262]}.

72 PW10 also met up with PW20 and PW20 gave him two options: the first was to top money to get the car and the second option was to wait for RAPL to see if they could get the money for the car. PW10 chose the second option and he did not get his car^{[note: 263]}. PW20 was also unable to refund PW10 the deposit of $50,944 because he did not have any money and the police because of police investigation had seized RAPL’s money^{[note: 264]}.

xii. PW11 – Lim Phuay Chuen

73 PW11 had purchased a Honda Vezel car from RAPL and he had entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1192 with RAPL on 7 August 2016 to buy the Honda Vezel car for $99,888 (“PW11’s Sales Agreement”)^{[note: 265]}. The Accused was the sales person in charge of the sales^{[note: 266]}. After PW11 had entered into PW11’s Sales Agreement with RAPL, the Accused had asked PW11 to pay a deposit of $20,000 and PW11 paid the deposit of $20,000 to RAPL by way of cheque payment^{[note: 267]}. When PW11 entered into PW11’s Sales Agreement with RAPL, he had wanted to take a loan of $30,000 to buy the Honda Vezel car. Later, PW11 decided not to take the loan. He spoke to the Accused and the Accused informed PW11 that he had already signed up for the loan and in order for PW11 not to incur any penalty, he would need to pay the $30,000 immediately. PW11 then proceeded to pay the $30,000 to the Accused by way of cash payment^{[note: 268]}. PW11 had wanted to pay the full $30,000 at one go but he could not raise the full sum. He went down to the ATM to withdraw the money but the ATM could only dispense $5,000. PW11 then paid the Accused a first payment of $5,000, which he withdrew from his ATM on 14 August 2016. The next day, PW11 went to the bank and withdrew $25,000 and he gave the second payment of $25,000 to the Accused on 16 August 2016^{[note: 269]}. When PW11 paid the $5,000 to the Accused, the Accused did acknowledge the receipt of the $5,000 by writing the amount paid on page 2 of PW11’s Sales Agreement and signing on the same. When PW11 paid the remaining $25,000 to the Accused, the Accused again wrote the payment down on PW11’s Sales Agreement and signed on it^{[note: 270]}.

74 After PW11 had paid the first $50,000 for his car, he chased the Accused for the delivery of his car because his old car was due to be scrapped in November 2016^{[note: 271]}. The Accused called PW11 and informed him that his car had arrived and he requested PW11 to pay the balance price of the car of $50,000^{[note: 272]}. PW11 told the Accused that he wanted to have sight of the car before he paid the balance payment^{[note: 273]}. A few days later, the Accused called PW11 and told him that his car was in the showroom and he could view the car at the showroom^{[note: 274]}. PW11 went down to the showroom to see his car three days after receiving the Accused’s telephone call and he brought $50,000 cash with him to pay for the car^{[note: 275]}. PW11 went down to the showroom on 8 October 2016 and paid the $50,000 to the Accused^{[note: 276]}. When PW11 paid the Accused the $50,000 cash, the Accused prepared a Sales Balance Sheet and explained to PW11 his payments and both PW11 and the Accused signed on the Sales Balance Sheet^{[note: 277]}. The Accused also acknowledged the receipt of the $50,000 from PW11 on the Sales Balance Sheet^{[note: 278]}. The price of the car was $99,888. PW11 had paid a total of $100,000 and he was trading in his old car. The Accused agreed to refund PW11 the balance payment and the trade in value of the old car upon delivery of the new car to PW11^{[note: 279]}.

75 When PW11 went down to the showroom on 8 October 2016, the Accused showed him a car, which was in the showroom and he told PW11 that that car was his. The Accused also told PW11 that the car chassis number was RUI-1206909. PW11 took a photograph of the car and he kept it in his hand-phone^{[note: 280]}. Later, PW11 found out that the Accused had informed a few other customers that the car in the showroom was theirs^{[note: 281]}. I noted that the chassis number of PW11’s car was the same chassis number that the Accused had given to PW10 for him to purchase his car insurance.

76 PW11 did not receive any receipt from the Accused when he paid the first $50,000 for his car. PW11 paid the first $20,000 to the Accused in the evening and the Accused told PW11 that he could not issue any receipt for the payment because the staff was off^{[note: 282]}. When PW11 paid the Accused the $5,000, the Accused amended PW11’s Sale Agreement but he did not issue PW11 with any receipt for the payment of the $5,000^{[note: 283]}. When PW11 paid the Accused the $25,000, the Accused just acknowledged the payment on PW11’s Sale Agreement. PW11 did ask the Accused for a receipt for the total payment of $50,000^{[note: 284]}. The Accused told PW11 that he could not issue any receipt to PW11 on that day because the office was closed and he told PW11 that he would get RAPL to prepare the invoice later^{[note: 285]}. The Accused only gave PW1 the invoice no. RA-PO 0175 for the payment of the first $50,000 about 5 to 7 days after PW1 had paid the $30,000 to the Accused. The Accused went to PW11’s home to hand invoice no. RA-PO 0175 to PW11 because PW11 had chased the Accused for the receipt^{[note: 286]}.

77 After PW11 paid the Accused the balance $50,000 for the car on 8 October 2016, the Accused gave PW11 invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for payment a few days later^{[note: 287]}. The Accused had also indicated on invoice no. RA-PO0170 that the balance sum of $112 would be refunded to PW11 upon delivery of his car^{[note: 288]}. PW11 did not get his car after his payment to the Accused^{[note: 289]}.

78 After PW11 paid the Accused the balance $50,000, he heard from his son that RAPL was having problems and he went down to RAPL to check. PW11 spoke to PW21 on 6 November 2016 and he proceed to make a police report on the same day^{[note: 290]}. PW21 confirmed with PW11 that he was a customer of RAPL^{[note: 291]}.

79 PW11 also noted that the Prosecution had two different versions of invoice no. RA-PO0175. While both the invoices were issued to PW11, one invoice was for $20,000^{[note: 292]} while the other invoice was for $50,000^{[note: 293]}. PW11 confirmed that the copy that the Accused had given him was for $50,000 and he did not have the copy for the $20,000 payment^{[note: 294]}.

xiii. PW12 – Ng Boon Siang

80 PW12 had gone to RAPL to buy a car and the Accused was the sales person who had attended to PW12^{[note: 295]}. PW12 entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1177 with RAPL on 17 July 2016 to purchase a Honda Vezel car at an agreed price of $101,888 (“PW12’s Sales Agreement”)^{[note: 296]}. After entering into PW12’s Sale Agreement with RAPL, PW12 paid a deposit of $20,000 cash to the Accused on 17 July 2016^{[note: 297]}. When PW12 paid the $20,000 to the Accused, the Accused did give PW12 a receipt for the payment a few days later^{[note: 298]}.

81 When PW12 entered into PW12’s Sales Agreement with RAPL, he had wanted to take a loan of $71,321 to buy the car^{[note: 299]}. Later, PW12 decided to lower the loan amount to $66,000 and the Accused told him to pay up the difference of $5,321^{[note: 300]}. PW12 paid the sum of $5,321 by way of cash payment to the Accused on 20 July 2016^{[note: 301]}. The Accused did not give PW12 any invoice or receipt or any other documentation for the payment of $5,321^{[note: 302]}. PW12 did not ask the Accused for any receipt because he trusted the Accused^{[note: 303]}. PW12 managed to contact the Accused 2 to 3 days after he had paid the Accused the $5,321. He asked the Accused about the status of his car and the Accused told him that he would get back to him but he never did. After that, the Accused became uncontactable^{[note: 304]}.

82 PW12 went down to RAPL showroom on 21 November 2016 and he spoke to PW20 about his case^{[note: 305]}. PW20 told PW12 that the Accused had taken monies from a group of victims^{[note: 306]}. PW12 told PW20 that he had paid the Accused $5,321. PW20 told PW12 that RAPL did not received the $5,321 that PW12 had paid to the Accused. PW20 also told PW12 that he would try to help PW12 recover the $5,321. He told PW12 that he thought that the Accused had taken the $5,321^{[note: 307]}.

83 PW12 also discussed the terms of his sales agreement with PW20 and PW20 amended the agreement to bidding of COE during the second round of December and delivery no later than January 2017 with a full refund of the $20,000 paid if RAPL failed to deliver the car^{[note: 308]}.

84 A few days later on 25 November 2016, PW12 spoke to PW22 on the telephone to check on the status of his car and she told him that she needed to check with PW20. After that, PW12 went down to RAPL’s showroom again and he spoke to PW22 and asked her again on the status of his car but she avoided him^{[note: 309]}. To date, PW12 has not gotten his car and he did not get his $20,000 deposit back from RAPL^{[note: 310]}.

xiv. PW13 – Loh Bee Ling

85 PW13 had wanted to buy a Toyota Sienta car from RAPL and the Accused was the sales person who had dealt with her^{[note: 311]}. PW13 did not deal with any other employee of RAPL other that the Accused^{[note: 312]}. PW13 had entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1182 with RAPL on 19 July 2016 to buy the Toyota Sienta car for an agreed price of $96,000 (“PW13’s Sales Agreement”)^{[note: 313]}. PW13 also testified that the Accused was the only person from RAPL who had served her when she decided to buy the car from RAPL^{[note: 314]}. When PW13 entered into PW13’s Sale Agreement with RAPL, she had wanted to take a loan of $67,200 to buy the car^{[note: 315]}. The Accused requested PW13 to pay a deposit of $20,000 by way of cash payment and PW13 paid a deposit of $20,000 in cash to the Accused on 19 July 2016^{[note: 316]}. The Accused also acknowledged the payment of the $20,000 on PW13’s Sales Agreement^{[note: 317]}.

86 After the payment of the $20,000, PW13 made another payment of $11,924 to the Accused^{[note: 318]}. This $11,924 was the balance payment for the car. The Accused had informed PW13 that her car had reached the Singapore port and he needed her to pay the balance payment^{[note: 319]}. PW3 believed the Accused and she paid the Accused the $11,924 by depositing the amount into the UOB bank account provided by the Accused^{[note: 320]}. PW13 had testified that she was supposed to meet up with the Accused on that day in Toa Payoh to pay the Accused the money^{[note: 321]} but the Accused had informed her that he could not meet her because he was busy at LTA. The Accused then requested PW13 to deposit the money into his bank account instead^{[note: 322]}. The Accused also wanted PW13 to take a photograph of the receipt after she had deposited the money into his bank account^{[note: 323]}. PW13 was at Toa Payoh Hub when the Accused contacted her and she decided to pay the $11,924 into the account provided by the Accused at the UOB bank at Toa Payoh Hub. PW13 could only remember that she had paid the Accused the $11,924 in September 2016^{[note: 324]}. However, the Accused’s UOB bank account no. XXX showed a deposit of $11,924 into his bank account on 19 September 2016^{[note: 325]}.

87 After PW13 had paid the $11,924 to the Accused, she asked him for the receipt for the payment a number of times over the telephone but the Accused did not give her any invoice^{[note: 326]}. Therefore, PW13 decided to go to RAPL’s office to demand for a receipt for the payment in September 2016^{[note: 327]} and the Accused gave her RAPL’s invoice no. RA-PO 0109^{[note: 328]}. When PW13 went to RAPL’s office, the Accused was serving another customer and PW13 requested for her receipt for the payment. The Accused did not tell PW13 that he would go and check for her receipt. He just went into his office for about 5 minutes and he came out with invoice no. RA-PO 0109 and he handed the same to PW13^{[note: 329]}. When PW13 received invoice no. RA-PO 0109 from the Accused, she just checked her name and the amount on the invoice to make sure that it was correct. Although the date stated on invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was 23 September 2016, PW13 did not pay any attention to the date and she was not sure if 23 September 2016 was the date that she went down to RAPL’s office to meet the Accused^{[note: 330]}.

88 As regards to the loan of $67,200, no one informed PW13 that her loan was successful. When the Accused asked her to pay the balance of $11,924, PW13 assumed that her loan had been approved^{[note: 331]}.

89 After this, PW13 chased the Accused for her car. The Accused told PW13 that her car was already at the Singapore port but he was short of a document from Japan and he told her to wait for the car^{[note: 332]}.

90 At the end, PW13 did not get her car from RAPL. As PW13 was in between cars, she informed the Accused that she needed a car and the Accused told her to go ahead and rent a car before her new car arrived. The Accused also promised to pay for the rental. After that, PW13 proceeded to rent a car for $200^{[note: 333]}.

91 PW13 kept chasing the Accused for her car and the Accused finally told PW13 that he had made a mistake and RAPL did not register her car and he refunded a sum of $32,000 to her on 27 October 2016^{[note: 334]}. There was also a cash withdrawal of $32,000 cash from the Accused’s UOB bank account no. XXX on 27 October 2016^{[note: 335]}. The Accused refunded the money into PW13’s bank account^{[note: 336]}. The Accused was able to refund the money into PW13’s bank account because PW13 gave the Accused her bank account number. To date, the Accused still owed PW13 a sum of $124 being the balance of the car rental fees^{[note: 337]}.

xv. PW14 – Lee Jong Chin

92 PW14 wanted to buy a Honda Vezel car from RAPL and the sales person who had attended to him was Shan^{[note: 338]}. The other sales person who had attended to PW14 was the Accused^{[note: 339]}. PW14 had entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1191 with RAPL to buy the Honda Vezel car at an agreed price of $99,888 on 12 September 2016 (“PW14’s Sales Agreement”)^{[note: 340]}. When PW14 entered into PW14’s Sales Agreement to buy the Honda Vezel car, PW14 wanted to take a loan of $49,944 to buy the car^{[note: 341]}. PW14 also paid a deposit of $20,000 when he entered into PW14’s Sales agreement with RAPL. Shan told PW14 that he could pay the $20,000 deposit by any form of payment and PW14 transferred the $20,000 from his bank account into RAPL’s bank account on 12 September 2016^{[note: 342]}. Shan also informed PW14 that the expected delivery date for his car was March 2017^{[note: 343]}.

93 After PW14 had paid the deposit of $20,000, Shan contacted PW14 on 29 October 2016 and told PW14 that he could arrange for PW14’s car to be delivered to PW14 on an earlier date if PW14 was prepared to pay the balance of the sale price by way of cash payment^{[note: 344]}. Shan also told PW14 that if he was prepared to pay the balance of $29,944 in cash, Shan could arrange for PW14 to jump the queue and he could get delivery of his car in November 2016^{[note: 345]}. Shan told PW14 that they had cars in the port and the cars were ready to be sold to RAPL^{[note: 346]}. PW14 wanted to get delivery of his car at an earlier date and he decided to accept Shan’s proposal and to pay the $29,944 by way of cash payment^{[note: 347]}.

94 PW14 then proceeded to withdraw $29,944 from his bank account^{[note: 348]} on 30 October 2016 and he brought the money to RAPL on the same day to pay for his car^{[note: 349]}. When PW14 went down to RAPL on 30 October 2016, he met up Shan and the Accused at RAPL and both of them attended to him^{[note: 350]}. Before PW14 handed the money to Shan, he requested Shan to let him have the chassis number of the car. Shan could not give him the chassis number and he told PW14 that the Accused would give him the chassis number. The Accused later gave the chassis number of the car to PW14^{[note: 351]}. The Accused told PW14 that the chassis number was RUI-1206847 and he wrote down the chassis number on a copy of PW14’s Sales Agreement^{[note: 352]}. PW14 recalled the Accused had written down the chassis number in the office and not in the showroom^{[note: 353]}. PW14 then handed the money over to Shan and both Shan and the Accused sat at down at the table and counted the money^{[note: 354]}. PW14 also testified that when he went down to RAPL to pay the $29,944, only the Accused and Shan were in the office and there were no other staff who were around on that day^{[note: 355]}.

95 PW14 also testified that there were a few different copies of PW14’s Sales Agreement. Exhibit P19 was the original sales agreement that Shan had given to him when he first signed the sales agreement with RAPL^{[note: 356]}. Exhibit P15 was the copy of the sales agreement that RAPL had given him after he went to speak to them after finding out that there were trouble at RAPL^{[note: 357]}. Page 1 and 2 of Exhibit P16 was the copy of the sales agreement that the Accused had written the chassis number of the car on. Shan had also acknowledged the payment of the $29,944 on page 2 of Exhibit P16 on 30 October 2016^{[note: 358]}. PW14 also testified that although he had paid the $29,944 to Shan on 30 October 2016, Shan had changed the date of payment of the $29,944 on page 2 of Exhibit P16 to 26 October 2016 so that PW14 could jump the queue to get his car earlier^{[note: 359]}. Shan also prepared a Sales Balance Sheet to show PW14 his payments made when PW14 paid the $29,944 to Shan but Shan had dated the Sales Balance Sheet 26 October 2016 when PW14 had signed on the same document on 30 October 2016^{[note: 360]}.

96 PW14 also testified that when he paid Shan the deposit of $20,000, Shan had issued him with RAPL invoice no. RA-PO 0192 dated 12 September 2016 for the payment of the $20,000^{[note: 361]}. Shan did not give PW14 invoice no. RA-PO 0192 on the day he paid the $20,000 but Shan only emailed the invoice to PW14 a few days later on 16 September 2016^{[note: 362]}.

97 After PW14 paid the $29,944 to Shan, PW14 asked both the Accused and Shan for a receipt for the payment and both of them went into the office and they came back with invoice no. RA-PO 0109 and they gave the invoice to PW14^{[note: 363]}. Invoice no. RA-PO 0190 was dated 26 October 2016^{[note: 364]}. PW14 also asked both of them when he could collect his car and they told him that the car would be ready in the first or second week of November 2016^{[note: 365]}. The Accused also amended the delivery date of the car on the sales agreement from January to February 2017 to November 2016.

98 PW14 also testified that he had kept all his text messages from Shan and his chat history showed that Shan had asked him for the $20,000 deposit on 12 September 2016 and the payment of $29,944 on 29 October 2016^{[note: 366]}. PW14 also tendered a transcript of the text messages between himself and Shan when he was on the stand^{[note: 367]}.

99 Shan also created another WhatsApp chat group with the Accused and PW14 and PW14 had kept all the WhatsApp messages between the three of them. On 3 November 2016, PW14 had sent a message to ask when his car would be ready and the Accused had replied to PW14 to inform him that his car would be reaching RAPL’s showroom between 9 to 11 November 2016 and that the Accused would require three days to get the car ready for PW14. On 4 November 2016, PW14 sent another message to the Accused and Shan to ask them if he could collect his car by 13 November and both of them replied to PW14 and told him that it would be dependent on the COE bidding. On 7 November 2016, PW14 sent another message to the group to inform them that he had heard news about RAPL and he enquired about his car. The Accused replied to PW14 the next day and informed PW14 that he was towing 4 cars to the showroom the next day and he would update PW14 on the status of his car^{[note: 368]}. PW14 had tendered a transcript of all the messages to Court during the trial^{[note: 369]}.

100 After this, the Accused became uncontactable and PW14 kept chasing Shan for an answer^{[note: 370]}. Shan also informed PW14 that he could not get in touch with the Accused^{[note: 371]}. PW14 tried to get Shan to acknowledge the payment of $29,944 which he had paid to the Accused and Shan on 30 October 2016 and Shan confirmed that they had received the money^{[note: 372]}.

101 After this, PW14 decided to make his way down to RAPL and he met up with PW21 and PW22. He showed them that invoice for the $29,944 and they informed him that the invoice was a fake invoice and RAPL did not receive the $29,944^{[note: 373]}. RAPL also did not recognize the chassis number given by the Accused to PW14 and they also had no record of any delivery date for the car. PW14 also met up with PW20 and PW20 filled up the details on page 1 of Exhibit P15. PW20 also told PW14 that he would try to help him settle the matter and deliver his car by March 2017. In the end, RAPL did not deliver PW14’s car to him^{[note: 374]}.

102 PW14 also did not get back the $20,000 deposit and the $29,944 that he had paid to Shan and the Accused. When PW14 met up with RAPL, they offered to help him get his car if he were to top up some payment but PW14 did not take up RAPL’s offer as he no longer trusted the company^{[note: 375]}.

xvi. PW15 - Muhammad Rizwan Bin Kamaludin

103 PW15 wanted to buy a Toyota Sienta car from RAPL and he entered into a Sales Agreement with RAPL to purchase the Toyota Sienta car for an agreed price of $94,888 on 28 September 2016^{[note: 376]} (“PW15’s Sales Agreement”). The Accused was the sales person who had attended to PW15^{[note: 377]}. When PW15 entered into PW15’s Sales Agreement with RAPL, he informed the Accused that he wanted to take a loan of $75,910 to buy the car^{[note: 378]}. The Accused also asked PW15 to pay a deposit of $20,000 for the car but PW15 negotiated and the Accused agreed to accept $10,000 deposit instead of $20,000 with the balance $10,000 to be paid when the car was delivered^{[note: 379]}. PW15 then paid $10,000 by way of cash payment to the Accused on 28 September 2016 and the Accused acknowledged the receipt of the $10,000 by writing down the payment on page 2 of Exhibit P20^{[note: 380]} and issuing RAPL invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for the $10,000^{[note: 381]}. PW15 testified that he had met up with the Accused at 7.30 pm on 28 September 2016 to sign the sales agreement and to make the payment of the $10,000. When PW15 paid the Accused the $10,000, the Accused had gone off to his office and had returned with invoice no. RA-PO 0170 which he handed to PW15^{[note: 382]}. PW15 remembered that there was Malay lady who was present in the office but he was not sure who had printed the invoice^{[note: 383]}.

104 After PW15 had paid the $10,000 to the Accused, the Accused told PW15 that the delivery of his car was approximately in three months. After waiting for more than one month, PW15 decided to go down to RAPL’s showroom to check on his car and he met up with PW21^{[note: 384]}. PW15 showed his documents to PW21 and asked about the status of his car. PW21 told PW15 that the invoice no. RA-PO 0170 that the Accused had given to him had been issued to someone else and RAPL did not have any record of his transaction with RAPL^{[note: 385]}. PW21 also told PW15 that RAPL had issued invoice no. RA-PO 0170 to another customer who was a Malay man^{[note: 386]}. The Accused was not around when PW15 met up with PW21 and PW21 told PW15 that he would liaise with the Accused on the matter^{[note: 387]}. PW21 told PW15 that he would give him a reply but he did not get back to PW15. PW15 also spoke to PW20 and PW20 informed PW15 that they had no record of his payment^{[note: 388]}. After that, PW15 heard about the problems at RAPL.^{[note: 389]} By then, the Accused had become uncontactable^{[note: 390]}. PW15 then proceeded to make a claim against RAPL at the Small Claims Tribunal and he managed to recover about $1,000 after the Bailiff had auctioned off RAPL’s properties^{[note: 391]}.

xvii. PW16 – Senior Investigation Officer Alfred Toh Yong Sian

105 PW16 was the investigation officer in charge of this case. PW16 had obtained the following documents in the course of his investigation into the Accused’s case:

(a) RAPL’s ACRA records^{[note: 392]};

(b) The Accused’s UOB bank account no. XXX for the months of September and October 2016^{[note: 393]};

(c) 7 ATM deposit receipts from Malaysian ATMs all dated 27 October 2016 which showed a total deposit of RM 64,200 into the account of a company known as NS Motor (M) Sdn Bhd ^{[note: 394]}. PW16 had seized the Accused’s Malaysian registered car and he had found these receipts in the Accused’s Malaysian registered car^{[note: 395]}. PW16 testified that the Accused had informed him that the Accused was the one who had paid the deposits to NS Motor (M) Sdn Bhd. The deposits were payments to NS Motor (M) Sdn Bhd for the purchase of the Accused’s Malaysian registered vehicle^{[note: 396]};

(d) Two receipts issued by NS Motor (M) Sdn Bhd^{[note: 397]}. PW16 had found these receipts in the Accused’s Malaysian registered car bearing number plate MCT 86 and he asked the Accused about these receipts. The Accused told him that the receipts was for his payment for the car. Although one of the receipts showed payment for JCY 96, the Accused confirmed that it was the same vehicle as the Accused had purchased a new number plate MCT 86 for his car^{[note: 398]}. MCT 86 was a Toyota sedan car and the Accused told PW16 that first receipt for RM 74,300 was for the down payment for the car and the second receipt for RM 2,740 was for the balance payment and insurance payment for the car^{[note: 399]};

(e) An extract from eAUTO Sdn Bhd that was the Malaysian Land Transport Authority search together with the translation, which showed that NS Motor Trading had transferred ownership of the car to the Accused^{[note: 400]}. PW16 also found this document in the Accused’s vehicle^{[note: 401]};

(f) A tax invoice from Your Auto Service Sdn Bhd dated 12 November 2016 for RM 2,862^{[note: 402]}. PW16 found this invoice in a box in the Accused’s car. PW16 asked the Accused about this invoice and the Accused told him that this invoice was issued to him after he had made payment for the servicing of his car^{[note: 403]};

(g) Messages extracted from the Accused’s hand-phone using telephone numbers +XXX and +XXX showing the text conversations between the Accused and Shan who was using telephone number +XXX^{[note: 404]};

(h) Messages extracted from the Accused’s hand-phone using telephone numbers +XXX and +XXX showing text conversations between the Accused and PW20 who was using telephone number +XXX (Exhibit P27)^{[note: 405]};

(i) Messages extracted from PW20’s hand-phone using telephone number +XXX showing text conversations between PW20 and the Accused who was using telephone numbers +XXX and +XXX^{[note: 406]};

(j) An audio recording of a conversation between PW20 and the Accused and a transcript of the audio recording;^{[note: 407]} and

(k) The Accused’s statement recorded by PW16 on 14 November 2016 (Exhibit P32)^{[note: 408]}.

106 I noted that the Accused had said the following to PW16 in Exhibit P32:

(a) That the Accused had joined RAPL as a sales representative in mid April 2016 and his monthly salary was $600 a month from April to July 2016. The Accused’s salary was increased to $1,000 a month from August 2016 onwards. On top of his salary, the Accused was paid a commission of $1,000 for every Category A car sold and $1,500 for every category B car sold. The Accused would receive his commission only after the cars were delivered to the customers^{[note: 409]}.

(b) During the Accused’s employment, he had only received $6,000 commission for the sales that he had closed for May 2016. From June to October 2016, RAPL had paid the Accused only his basic salary^{[note: 410]}.

(c) In August 2016, the Accused was asked to collect a payment of $2,000 plus from a customer, which he did not hand over to RAPL. The Accused had used this money for his own expenses. The Accused had also received $7,000 plus from another customer which he had used to pay for his expenses. Whenever the boss asked him about the payments, he would inform the boss that the customers had not made the payments^{[note: 411]}.

(d) Between August and September 2016, the Accused had been taking balance payments from customers for his own expenses. The Accused remembered that he had taken the balance payments from about six customers and the total amount taken was $20,000 plus and all these payments were in cash. In end September 2016, the Accused did pay the $2,000 plus which he had taken from the first customer back to RAPL^{[note: 412]}.

(e) There was once where the Accused had directed a customer to transfer his balance payment of $30,000 to $40,000 to the Accused’s UOB account with intention to misappropriate the money. However, after having received the money, the Accused felt that he could not cover up his action as the amount was large and he withdrew the amount and handed over the same to PW21 to bank into RAPL’s account the next day^{[note: 413]}.

(f) When the Accused was in Malaysia, his boss had contacted him about customers complaining about not getting their cars after making the balance payment to RAPL. The Accused had admitted to his boss that he had misused RAPL’s funds and he requested his boss to deduct the payments from his commission^{[note: 414]}.

(g) The Accused’s boss had informed the Accused that the missing funds was about $500,000. The Accused said that he had taken about $20,000 but he did not take $500,000^{[note: 415]}.

107 I also noted the following messages between the Accused and Shan, which were found in Exhibit P27:

S/No	From	Date and Time	Message
1	Accused	2/11/16 11:04:07 pm	I got big problem here. Don sleep
2	Accused	2/11/16 11:07:35 pm	We need talk already
3	Accused	2/11/16 11:07:55 pm	Boss won’t shut down
4	Accused	2/11/16 11:08:01 pm	Now I with them
5	Accused	2/11/16 11:08:05 pm	Later find u
6	Accused	2/11/16 11:09:38 pm	Later I need to go casino I need win money this week
7	Accused	2/11/16 11:09:43 pm	If not all thing will burst bro
8	Accused	2/11/16 11:09:45 pm	Seriously
9	Shan	2/11/16 11:10:24 pm	I cannot cover Liao.. I left few thousand.. I go casino just now
10	Shan	2/11/16 11:10:30 pm	Shitttttt!!!
11	Shan	2/11/16 11:14:30 pm	I wanna win big take more shit. I buy phone some more
12	Shan	2/11/16 11:14:41 pm	Fuck shit ! This time die
13	Accused	2/11/16 11:17:20 pm	U left how much now
14	Accused	2/11/16 11:17:24 pm	Really fuck already I also die
16	Accused	2/11/16 11:48:22 pm	We 1 people almost 25k already
17	Accused	2/11/16 11:48:27 pm	Have to take out 50k
18	Accused	2/11/16 11:50:19 pm	I told you not to use all the money first
19	Accused	2/11/16 11:50:25 pm	Why u cannot control
20	Accused	2/11/16 11:56:12 pm	Jail + banned
21	Accused	2/11/16 11:56:17 pm	Don simply make decision
22	Accused	2/11/16 11:56:48 pm	How much I left
23	Accused	2/11/16 11:56:52 pm	U*
24	Shan	2/11/16 11:57:00 pm	I do it I bear the consequences, My family problem all settled ady
25	Accused	2/11/16 11:57:28 pm	U left how much now. Tell me
26	Shan	2/11/16 11:58:07 pm	1.5
27	Accused	2/11/16 11:58:30 pm	Bro. 25k why spend so much in 2 day
28	Accused	2/11/16 11:59:53 pm	U come out we talk. I try to settle. Now on the way of Faisal home
29	Accused	2/11/16 12:00:18 pm	If I can win I might can settle for u. but u hutang me. I try. Since how also die
30	Shan	11/11/16 8:34:20 pm	Who r u
31	Accused	11/11/16 8:35:06 pm	Chua, im goin to surrender myself soon. U wan join or u don wan, if u don wan, I wont say anything about you
32	Shan	11/11/16 8:35:31 pm	How much u take oh bro
33	Accused	11/11/16 8:36:00 pm	I forgot the exact figure. I don wan to think but goin to surrender soon, if u don wan I will act dono on ur case
34	Accused	11/11/16 8:36:57 pm	Ur case he know or not, I will call him
35	Accused	11/11/16 8:37:05 pm	If he don our case I wont say anything
36	Accused	11/11/16 8:37:13 pm	One people die better than 2
37	Shan	11/11/16 8:37:18 pm	He know
38	Accused	11/11/16 8:37:28 pm	Then he din find u ?
39	Shan	11/11/16 8:37:32 pm	I told him everything
40	Accused	11/11/16 8:37:58 pm	I just text him, he haven reply me yet
41	Shan	11/11/16 8:37:58 pm	I also don’t want to die, but what to do
42	Accused	11/11/16 8:40:42 pm	Like wht you said, the moment we did , we shud expect the worst case. I break his trust, I really felt sorry to him and company as well, I witness and stay together with royal from nothing to something
43	Accused	11/11/16 8:40:56 pm	I also do shit thing. I deserve the punishment
44	Accused	11/11/16 8:41:13 pm	So u goin to surrender urself or not, if boss never blame you then I will go alone
45	Accused	11/11/16 8:41;27 pm	I wont sAy anything about your thing to anyone else
46	Accused	11/11/16 8:41:55 pm	U push everything to me
47	Accused	11/11/16 8:42:02 pm	U say I force u to do so
48	Shan	11/11/16 8:42:12 pm	No we discuss together
49	Accused	11/11/16 8:42:25 pm	I told u already 1 people dies better than 2
50	Shan	11/11/16 8:42:26 pm	This is not you alone, why ask me I say yes
51	Accused	11/11/16 8:42:30 pm	I go enough
52	Accused	11/11/16 8:43:07 pm	Tell him I will surrender myself to him on Monday. Please allow me lat few day with my family
53	Accused	11/11/16 8:43:25 pm	I wont escape and I wont run from my responsibility
54	Shan	11/11/16 10:07:09 pm	You still have the money with you?
55	Accused	11/11/16 10:07:33 pm	Nope. The amount is not correct. Go back I verify again, he tell me 700k ridiculous
56	Accused	11/11/16 10:07:50 pm	Dono where wrong or maybe customer try to attack royal as well
57	Shan	11/11/16 10:10:07 pm	What amount that U estimate
58	Accused	11/11/16 10:10:22 pm	300 - 400

xviii. PW17 – Stride Peter Anthony

108 PW17 was the representative from Marina Bay Sands Casino and he held the post of vice-president of casino finance^{[note: 416]}. PW17’s responsibilities at Marina Bay Sands Casino included having oversight of the cage cashiering operations, the counting operations of the funds from table games, slot machine operations and regular daily audit of gaming and gaming related operations^{[note: 417]}. PW17 testified that Marina Bay Sands Singapore had different types of loyalty programs for their members and they would issue different types of membership cards for the different types of loyalty programs^{[note: 418]}:

(a) A blue colored membership card known as the Rewards Lifestyle card for which was used for non-gaming activities;

(b) A greyish colored membership card, which is used to monitor or track gaming activities. This card was also used to identify the member when performing transactions with the cashiers in the casino.

109 PW17 also testified that every member of Marina Bay Sands casino would be issued with a membership card with a specific serial number and this serial number would act as a unique identifier for that member^{[note: 419]}. PW17 noted that the Accused had two greyish colored membership card^{[note: 420]}. He also told the Court that it was possible for a member to have more than one membership card because the member could have left his card at home when he visited the casino and he could get the casino to issue him with a new card. Marina Bay Sands casino would not cancel the old card because the serial number of the card remained the same and the member’s photograph was printed on the card^{[note: 421]}.

110 PW17 also confirmed that the Accused was a member of Marina Bay Sands casino and his application for membership was approved on 1 April 2016 and he was assigned the membership number of 1114913 and the membership number was reflected on the Accused’s membership card^{[note: 422]}.

111 At the hearing, PW17 also produced a printout (Exhibit P35) which was generated from Marina Bay Sands computer system which was used to track the entries by foreigners into the casino^{[note: 423]}. I note from the print-out that the Accused had visited the casino an average of about 5 days a month from March to July 2016 and he had visited the casino on 13 days in August 2016, 18 days in September 2016 and 16 days in October 2016^{[note: 424]}.

112 PW17 also tendered to Court a printout showing the Accused’s play history (Exhibit P36) at the casino during his visits to the casino. The print-out also the Accused’s winnings and losses from his each of his visit to the casino^{[note: 425]}. This printout would capture the details whenever the Accused used his membership card to play at the casino. PW17 explained that the numbers were estimates. The staff at the gaming table would estimate the amount of winnings or losses but these estimates were accurate, as the staff had been trained to count the figures^{[note: 426]}. I noted from the figures provided by the Accused’s play history that he had suffered a net loss of $50,897 from his visit to the casino^{[note: 427]}.

113 PW17 further tendered to Court another printout (Exhibit P37) which showed the Accused’s gaming history whenever he used cash to purchase chips to play at a gaming table or to purchase a ticket to play at a slot machine. PW17 explained that they were required by law to report to the authorities cash transactions of more than $10,000 aggregated over a 24-hour period^{[note: 428]}. PW17 explained that according to this printout, the Accused had cashed in $773,326 and had cashed out $523,902 at the casino. However, there was an error in the printout on 7 August 2016 and the correct figures should be cash in of $768,326 and cash out of $518,902^{[note: 429]}. This would mean that he would have lost about $250,000 at the casino during this period. PW17 also clarified that the information was based on transactions made by the Accused using his membership card at the casino, the Accused could have played small amounts without using his membership card, and these transactions would not have been captured by their computer system^{[note: 430]}. PW17 also clarified that a customer could also feed cash into a slot machine and Exhibit 37 would not capture that transaction^{[note: 431]}.

114 PW17 also clarified that for cashing out, a customer was only required to present his membership card only if the amount to be cashed out was more than $5,000 and that the customer was not obliged to present his membership card when he was cashing out any sum less than $5,000. However, the casino had always encouraged their customers to present their membership cards when cashing out^{[note: 432]}. The staff were also trained to ask for the players’ identification whenever they wanted to cash out their money^{[note: 433]}. PW17 testified that it was possible for a customer to cash out more than $5,000 in total if he were to cash out smaller amounts, which may cumulate to more than $5,000^{[note: 434]}. PW17 also testified that it was open to a customer to present his card even though he was cashing out sums smaller than $5,000^{[note: 435]}.

xix. PW19 – Chang Tuck Kam

115 PW19 was the assistant director of security for Resort World Sentosa^{[note: 436]}. His job scope included access control into Resort World Sentosa’s premises as well as their casino^{[note: 437]}. PW19 explained that for who wished to enter into their casino, they would need to scan either their identity card, work permit or passport at the entrance before they enter the casino^{[note: 438]}. Resort World Sentosa also placed casino officers at the entrance to physically check the identity of the patrons against the photograph in their identification document before allowing the patron to enter the casino^{[note: 439]}. The patrons of the casino are also required to have their identity documents scanned when they leave the casino^{[note: 440]}. PW16 also confirmed that the Accused had been to their casino and they tendered to Court printout of the Accused’s entry record into their casino (Exhibit P38)^{[note: 441]}. The printout tendered by PW19 showed that the Accused had been to Resort World Sentosa casino on 4 occasions between January and October 2016 using his work permit^{[note: 442]}. The Prosecution also informed me that they did not conduct any search on the Accused entering the casino using his passport^{[note: 443]}.

xx. PW21 – Syed Faisal Bin Syed Saleh

116 PW21 was the operation manager of RAPL. He was in charge of the fleet of new cars ordered from Japan as well as cars sourced from local sources who were parallel importers of cars^{[note: 444]}. When RAPL order cars from Japan, PW21 would get the order in and trace the order all the way to Japan until the cars arrived at the Singapore port. He would then arrange for VITAS and LTA clearance and ensured that the cars were ready for delivery to RAPL’s customers^{[note: 445]}.

117 Whenever PW20 gave PW21 a purchase order, PW21 would checked the order against the fleet of cars that they had pre-ordered from Japan. If he found out that they did not order certain models, PW21 would source the car from his local contacts^{[note: 446]}. For cars that RAPL had ordered from Japan, PW21 would have to ensure that these cars were able to clear Singapore Custom checks and this process could take up to one month^{[note: 447]}. Once they have cleared Singapore Customs and the necessary payments, the cars would be sent to LTA for VITAS inspection. After the LTA inspection, the cars would need to be prepped and groomed^{[note: 448]}. PW21 would also need to arrange for the installation of accessories such as front and rear cameras before the cars^{[note: 449]}. Concurrently, PW20 would handle the COE bidding. When the COE has been successfully bid, PW21 would arrange to register the cars with LTA and obtain the license plates^{[note: 450]}. After all this, PW21 would conduct a final QC check on the cars. PW21 would check that all the devices were working, that there were no scratches on the body of the cars, that the seat leather was not torn, that the gears were in good conditions and that the brakes were in good condition. When all these had been done, PW21 would hand the car to the sales department for the cars to be delivered to the customers^{[note: 451]}. PW21 also testified that the sales department consisted of the Accused and Shan^{[note: 452]}. As for warranty for the cars, RAPL would tie up with a third party repairer to provide servicing and repairs^{[note: 453]}.

118 As to invoices issued by RAPL, PW21 confirmed that RAPL stored all their issued invoices in a drop-box and he had access to the drop-box. However, PW21 did not know exactly how the drop-box worked and he had never accessed the drop-box^{[note: 454]}. PW21 also testified that he was not involved in the managing of accounts or finances of RAPL and he was not familiar as to how RAPL generated their invoices and how they numbered their invoices^{[note: 455]}.

119 PW21 was not based in RAPL’s showroom. He would be out of the office on most occasions as he had to shuttle between LTA and their warehouse in Tuas^{[note: 456]}.

120 As for monies belonging to RAPL, PW21 said that he had handled cash deposits for RAPL on a number of occasions but it was usually not money from the customers. PW21 remember one incident when he get collect money from a customer and it was for the sales agreement for PW6 when PW6 passed $20,000 to PW21 and PW21 did acknowledge receipt of the money on behalf of RAPL^{[note: 457]}.

121 The staff from the accounts department would occasionally ask for his help and they would pass money that they had obtained from customers to PW21 and ask him to help them bank the money into RAPL’s account as PW21 was out of the office most of the time^{[note: 458]}. Whenever PW21 was in the office, the staff from the accounts department would ask him to help drop off customers’ money into the bank when he was going out of the office^{[note: 459]}. Whenever the staff wanted PW21’s help to bank in any money, they would usually fill up the deposit slip and PW21 would just drop the money off at the bank. If the money that was given to PW21 were in cash, PW21 would usually pass the deposit slip back to the staff when he returned to the office^{[note: 460]}.

122 PW14 also confirmed that the staff from RAPL who were in charge of handling money were the staff from the finance department. RAPL had two staff who were in charge of banking in cash and cheques and they were Ziana, who was the finance administrator and PW22, who was the finance manager^{[note: 461]}.

123 PW21 also stated that RAPL had no practice of using customer’s cash deposits as petty cash. He was not aware of any box or drawer in their office where they kept petty cash money^{[note: 462]}.

124 PW21 also testified that he was not involved in the sales of cars at RAPL but he would assist by explaining the mechanics and specifications of cars to customers. PW21 also did not handle moneys collected by sales persons from RAPL and they did not hand the monies that they had collected from the customers to him^{[note: 463]}.

xxi. PW22 – Sharifah Lubna Bte Syed Saleh

125 PW22 was the finance manager of RAPL. She joined RAPL in June 2016^{[note: 464]}. As finance manager, her job was to receive payments from sales and to do the accounts of RAPL^{[note: 465]}. It was also her job to issue invoices of RAPL^{[note: 466]}. PW22 confirmed that RAPL would prepare and issue a sales agreement similar to Exhibit P2 after a customer had agreed to purchase a car from RAPL^{[note: 467]}. After the sales person at RAPL had prepared the sales agreement, they would have to inform PW22 and PW22 would have to go through the sales agreement to verify the details in the sales agreement^{[note: 468]}. PW22 would also check on the payment made and issue an invoice if there was a payment made^{[note: 469]}. If there were payment made, PW22 would issue an invoice and arrange for PW20 to sign the invoice. PW22 would also arrange to place RAPL’s stamp on the invoice. PW22 also testified that for an invoice to be validly issued, it should have PW20’s signature and RAPL’s company stamp^{[note: 470]}.

126 With regard to RAPL’s sales agreements, the sales agreements numbers were supposed to be unique for every customer. Each customer should have a different sales agreement number. The sales agreement were supposed to be printed with running numbers and the sales agreements numbers were not to be handwritten onto the agreements. PW20 would print the agreements and hand them to the sales staff for their use^{[note: 471]}.

127 RAPL also utilized a sales balance spreadsheet system^{[note: 472]} to generate the sales agreements numbers. These numbers were generated manually. Whenever RAPL enters into a sales agreement with a new customer, they would generate the new sales agreement number manually by going into the spreadsheet system and looking at the last sales agreement number. The new customer would be given a sales agreement number which was numbered one number higher than the last customer in the spreadsheet system^{[note: 473]}. Only PW22 and PW20 had access to the sales balance spreadsheet system^{[note: 474]}. The sales balance spreadsheet system also allowed both of them to print out monthly sales balance sheets^{[note: 475]}.

128 As for the numbering system for RAPL’s invoices, PW22 testified that RAPL issued their invoices in sequential order. RAPL was already issuing invoices in running numbers when PW22 joined RAPL in June 2016. When she joined RAPL, she decided to revamp their invoicing system and she and PW20 designed the “RA-PO” invoice numbering^{[note: 476]}. The two of them decided to create a drop box system where RAPL would store the invoice database for their customers and every invoice issued would be given a serial number^{[note: 477]}. PW22 also testified that each invoice number was unique and it would not be re-cycled. Whenever a customer made a new payment to RAPL, RAPL would issue them with a new invoice with a new number^{[note: 478]}. PW22 also testified that they were not supposed to consolidate different payments into a single invoice. If a customer was to make two payments on two different days, the customer should receive two invoices for his payments^{[note: 479]}. According to PW22, RAPL would generate invoice numbers using an Excel system that she had stored in her office computer^{[note: 480]}. Only PW22 and PW20 were authorized to access the invoice database and only the two of them could print out invoices^{[note: 481]}. PW22 also testified that the process of printing of invoices was created by PW20 and PW20 created this by using the Excel system^{[note: 482]}.

129 RAPL’s practice was to issue invoices only after payments had been banked into their bank accounts. Usually either PW20 or PW22 would print the invoices^{[note: 483]}. If a customer were to make payment by cheque, RAPL’s practice was to print the invoice only after the cheque had cleared. If a customer were to pay by way of fund transfer, RAPL would issue the invoice only after the funds had gone into RAPL’s bank accounts. The invoices would also state the amounts that the customers had paid to RAPL^{[note: 484]}.

130 PW22 testified that only PW20 was authorized to sign the invoices. If PW20 was not available, he would authorize PW22 to sign the invoices. There was no other persons from RAPL who were authorized to sign the invoices^{[note: 485]}. If an invoice was signed by any other person, that invoice would be invalid.

131 PW22 also confirmed that whenever RAPL received cash payments from their customers, they would try to bank in the money on the same day. However, if they were not able to do that, they would try to bank in the money by the next working day. RAPL also did not have the practice of using customers’ monies as petty cash^{[note: 486]}.

132 PW22 also explained that RAPL’s sales balance spreadsheet system was supposed to capture the details of all the dealings by RAPL with customers. However, she admitted during cross-examination that the information in the spreadsheet might not be 100% accurate as the information were entered manually, information might not have been keyed into the system, and there could be typos^{[note: 487]}. Therefore, she also had to rely on the Excel drop-box information and bank documents such as bank in slips and statements to check on invoices and payments^{[note: 488]}.

133 PW22 also testified that their sales agreement numbering system and invoice numbering system were manual systems and it was possible for other people to have made duplicates by copying or scanning the same into their computers^{[note: 489]}. PW22 also testified that once an invoice is printed, it was open to anyone who had received a copy of the invoice to re-create the invoice by using the Excel system or by scanning the printed invoice^{[note: 490]}. PW22 also agreed that it was not possible to tell if the money that has been paid by a customer had been banked into RAPL’s account by just looking at the invoice itself^{[note: 491]}. PW22 also agreed that it was possible that for duplicate invoices, monies could have been received by RAPL provided monies had been banked into RAPL’s account and the sales declared^{[note: 492]}. PW22 also disagreed with the Defence’s suggestion that all of RAPL invoices were only printed by her and PW20^{[note: 493]}.

134 With regard to PW2, PW22 noted that the signature on PW2’s invoice no, RA-PO 0109^{[note: 494]} did not belong to her or PW20. PW22 therefore was of the view that the said invoice was not a valid invoice^{[note: 495]}. As for invoice no. RA-PO 0170, that invoice did not contain PW20’s signature and it was an invalid invoice^{[note: 496]}.

135 PW22 also testified that RAPL had two types of company stamps^{[note: 497]}. One was a word stamp^{[note: 498]} and the other was a round stamp^{[note: 499]}. The company stamps were only accessible to PW22 and PW20 and the stamps would normally be locked in PW22’s room in RAPL’s office^{[note: 500]}.

136 With regard to PW4, PW22 testified that she did not recognize the signature on invoice no. RA-PO 0109^{[note: 501]}, which was issued to PW4^{[note: 502]}. PW22 was of the view that the invoice no. RA-PO 0109, which was issued to PW4, was an invalid invoice^{[note: 503]}. PW22 also did not recognize the signature on invoice no. RA-PO 0170^{[note: 504]}, which was issued to PW4. She also noted that the invoice no. RA-PO 0170 did not have RAPL’s company stamp. PW22 was therefore of the view that invoice no. RA-PO 0170, which was issued to PW4, was an invalid invoice^{[note: 505]}. PW22 also noted that the invoices, which were issued to PW2 and PW4 both, had the same invoice no. RA-PO 0170 and that RAPL did not issue invoices bearing the same serial numbers^{[note: 506]}.

137 With regard to PW6, PW22 testified that she did not recognize the signature on invoice no. RA-PO 0109^{[note: 507]}, which was issued to PW4 and the signature was not PW22 or PW20’s signature^{[note: 508]}. PW22 also noted the invoice no. RA-PO 0109, which was issued to PW6, had the hand-written words by the Accused that he had received $49,444 in cash^{[note: 509]}. PW22 testified that invoices issued by RAPL should not have hand-written words on the invoices. For payments made, it should be recorded on the sales agreement instead^{[note: 510]}. PW22 said that the payment listed on RAPL’s invoices should be typed and not hand-written^{[note: 511]}. PW22 also noted that PW6’s payment of the $49,444 was not recorded on PW4’s Sales Agreement^{[note: 512]}.

138 With regard to PW7, PW22 noted that invoice no. RA-PO 0170^{[note: 513]} that was issued to PW7 did not contain PW20 or PW22’s signatures. There was also a hand-written amendment to the invoice to change the amount on the invoice. PW22 told the Court that if there was a need amend the invoice, RAPL would redo and re-type the invoice^{[note: 514]} PW22 was of the view that the invoice which was issued to PW7 was not a valid invoice^{[note: 515]}.

139 With regard to PW8, PW22 noted that invoice no. RA-PO 0178^{[note: 516]} that was issued to PW8 had not been signed. PW22 was of the view that the invoice no. RA-PO 0178 was not a valid invoice^{[note: 517]}.

140 With regard to PW9, the Accused had issued PW9 with invoice no. RA-PO 0170^{[note: 518]} for the payment of $9,400 cash. PW22 noted that the invoice no. RA-PO 0170 that was issued to PW9 had no signature and no company stamp on the invoice. PW22 was of the view that that particular invoice was not a valid invoice^{[note: 519]}. PW22 also noted that RAPL had record of another invoice with the same invoice number no. RA-PO 0170 for a total payment of $20,000 (Exhibit P80). This invoice was for three payments: $1,000 cash on19 June 2016, $$9,000 cash on 21 June 2016 and $10,000 cash on 14 July 2016. PW22 said that it was not RAPL’s practice to issue consolidated payments but it was possible that the customer could have asked for one invoice and on those occasions, RAPL would issue one invoice instead of three separate invoices^{[note: 520]}. PW22 also noted that there was another invoice no. RA-PO 0148 (Exhibit P44) which was issued to PW9 for the sum of $10,000: $1,000 on 19 June 2016 and $9,000 on 21 June 2016. PW22 was of the view that there could be a typographical error. Exhibit P44 was probably the first invoice, Exhibit P80 was the second consolidated invoice, there was a typo error and the date was not changed^{[note: 521]}. PW22 also testified that she was unable to tell if the monies had gone into RAPL’s accounts just by looking at the invoices and she would have to look at other document such as bank documents to confirm the payment^{[note: 522]}.

141 With regard to PW11, PW22 testified that the invoice no. RA-PO 0175^{[note: 523]} that was issued to PW11 did not contain RAPL’s company stamp and the invoice did not have a signature. PW22 was therefore of the view that the invoice was not a valid invoice^{[note: 524]}. PW22 also noted that the invoice that was issued to PW11 had records of two payments of $20,000 and $30,000, which were paid by PW11 to RAPL on different dates. PW22 testified that if the two payments were paid on the same day, RAPL would issue one invoice for the two payments. However, if the two payments were paid on different dates, RAPL would issue different invoices for the different payments^{[note: 525]}. PW22 also noted that RAPL had record of another invoice no. RA-PO 0175 (Exhibit P42) that PW11 had said was not issued to him. PW22 noted that PW20 did place his signature on Exhibit P42 and RAPL’s company stamp was endorsed on Exhibit P42^{[note: 526]}. PW22 was of the view that Exhibit P42 was a valid invoice that was issued by RAPL^{[note: 527]}.

142 The Accused had issued PW11 with another invoice no. RA-PO 0170^{[note: 528]} after PW11 had paid $50,000 cash to the Accused. PW22 was of the view that invoice RA-PO0170 was not a valid invoice because it did not any signatures and it did not have RAPL’s company stamp^{[note: 529]}.

143 With regard to PW13, PW22 noted that PW13 was issued invoice no. RA-PO 0109^{[note: 530]} after she had paid $11,924 in cash^{[note: 531]}. PW22 was of the view that the invoice issued to PW13 was not a valid invoice because there was no signature and RAPL company stamp was missing.PW22 also noted that the invoice no. RA-PO 0109 had been previously issued to another customer^{[note: 532]}.

144 With regard to PW14, the Accused had issued PW14 with invoice no. RA-PO 0192^{[note: 533]} after PW14 had paid RAPL $20,000 by way of bank transfer. PW22 initially thought that invoice no. RA-PO 0192 was an invalid invoice because it did not have any signature and it did not have RAPL’s company stamp^{[note: 534]}. However, PW22 also noted that RAPL had record of an invoice bearing the same invoice number (Exhibit P72) in their drop-box under PW14’s name and RAPL’s copy of Exhibit P72 also did not have PW20’s signature, PW22 then proceeded to do a cross check with RAPL’s bank statement and she found out that amount that was stated on the invoice was supported by payment into RAPL’s bank statement. This meant that PW14’s payment had been banked into RAPL’s bank account. PW22 was therefore of the view that invoice no. RA-PO 0192 was a valid invoice issued by RAPL^{[note: 535]}.

145 PW22 also noted that there was another invoice no. RA-PO 0109^{[note: 536]} issued to PW14 for the payment of $29,944 cash. PW22 was of the view that the invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was not a valid invoice because it did not have a signature and there was no RAPL company stamp present^{[note: 537]}. PW22 also noted that invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was dated 26 October 2016 while invoice no. RA-PO 0192 was dated 12 September 2016. As invoice numbers were issued in sequential order, it was not possible for an invoice which was issued after invoice no. RA-PO 0192 to have a smaller invoice number^{[note: 538]}.

146 PW22 also explained to the Court how she would determine if an invoice is valid or invalid. First, PW22 would look at the invoice itself. She would check the signature and company stamp. If both these items were not present, PW22 would take the initial view that the invoice was invalid^{[note: 539]}. Secondly, PW22 would cross-reference the invoice with the bank statements of RAPL to check if the payments were banked into APL’s accounts. If the payments had been banked in, PW22 would treat the invoices as valid invoices. PW22 had testified that it was not RAPL’s practice to issue invoices without signatures and company stamps. However, it was possible that they could have overlooked them^{[note: 540]}. Thirdly, PW22 would crosscheck with invoices with the sales agreements. The sales agreements would indicate the date of payment as well as the mode of payment. These steps were taken by PW22 when she had checked the invoices^{[note: 541]}. Another step that PW22 would take include checking her records in her drop-box to cross-reference the invoice number^{[note: 542]}.

xxii. PW20 – Syed Khairil Bin Syed Saleh

147 PW20 was the sole director and shareholder of RAPL, which was incorporated on 24 November 2015^{[note: 543]}. The people who were in charge of running RAPL were PW20 and his immediate family, which consisted of PW21, PW22 and Ria, PW20’s wife^{[note: 544]}. RAPL was no longer in operation as there was a Writ of Seizure and Sale, which was carried out against RAPL in February 2017^{[note: 545]}.

148 PW20 confirmed that the Accused was in RAPL’s employ. The Accused was employed as a sales executive of RAPL on 29 April 2016 and his basic pay then was $600 a month. The Accused was initially placed on three months’ probation. The Accused was confirmed on 29 July 2016 and his pay was increased to $1,000 a month^{[note: 546]}.

149 The Accused’s duties at RAPL included promoting, marketing and selling vehicles, a six-day workweek and to do documentation which included sales documents, loan applications and applications for car insurance. The Accused was also required to handle trade-in vehicles and communicate with customers to inform and update customers on the status of their cars, loans, payments, insurance as well as delivery dates^{[note: 547]}. The Accused’s duty at RAPL also included the collection of payments and documents from the customers and to hand over the same to PW20 or PW22^{[note: 548]}.

150 PW20 also testified that the sales agreement forms were printed out by him on plain paper and given to the Accused. PW20 would print out the sales agreement with the agreement numbers printed on the agreements and the Accused would fill up the agreements with the customers’ details as well as other terms and conditions which had been agreement with the customers whenever he closed a deal to sell a vehicle^{[note: 549]}.

151 During the first three months of the Accused’s employ, the Accused was still under probation and whenever he closed a deal, he would need to obtain a blank sales agreement form from PW20^{[note: 550]} and fill up the sales agreement and forward the agreement to PW20 for his approval^{[note: 551]}. As for the pricing of the vehicle, the Accused was authorized to sell the vehicle if the customer agreed to pay the listed price but if the customer wanted to negotiate another price, the Accused would have to seek PW20’s approval before agreeing on the price with the customer^{[note: 552]}. PW20 did not allow the Accused to hold onto any blank sales agreement forms when he was on probation. He would only give one set with the sales agreement form with the agreement number pre-printed on the form to the Accused whenever the Accused closed a deal^{[note: 553]}. After PW20 had approved the sales, the Accused would need to liaise with the finance companies on the loan as well as the insurance company for the car insurance^{[note: 554]}. If the customer wanted to trade-in a vehicle, the Accused would need to forward the details of the trade-in vehicle to PW20 for PW20 to obtain the paper PARF value of the vehicle and PW20 would proceed to evaluate the price of the trade in vehicle^{[note: 555]}. PW20 would then give the value of the trade-in vehicle to the Accused for the customer’s confirmation^{[note: 556]}. The Accused would also have to obtain PW20’s approval before confirming any loan or car insurance application^{[note: 557]} for the customer.

152 PW20 also informed the Court of what the Accused would need to do whenever he sold a vehicle to a customer:

(a) When the Accused closed a deal with any customer, he would need to prepare the sales agreement and get the customers to complete and sign the sales agreement^{[note: 558]}. After that, he was required to collect a deposit from the customer. The deposit was $20,000 for a Category A car and $25,000 for a Category B car^{[note: 559]}. The customer had the option to pay the deposit by way of either cash, cheque or transfer of funds into RAPL’s bank accounts^{[note: 560]}.

(b) PW20 was required to collect the deposit payment, obtain copies of the customer’s identity card, driving license and proof of income, and forward the same to PW20. PW20 will then hand the deposit payment to PW22 for PW22 to bank the money into RAPL’s accounts^{[note: 561]}. RAPL maintained two bank accounts: one with OCBC bank and the other with UOB Bank^{[note: 562]}. All payments by customers would be banked into RAPL’s OCBC account. RAPL would use their UOB account to bid for COE. Whenever RAPL needed to bid for COE, they would transfer the funds from their OCBC account to their UOB account in order to bid for the COE.^{[note: 563]}

(c) Where monies had been collected from customers, the monies must be banked into RAPL’s OCBC account before RAPL before any invoice can be issued. Only PW22 was allowed to print out the invoices^{[note: 564]}. For payment by cash, the Accused was supposed to pass the cash to PW20 and PW22 would hand the cash to PW22 for PW22 to bank the cash into RAPL’s OCBC account. RAPL would print the invoice for the customer after the cash had been banked into RAPL’s OCBC account^{[note: 565]}. When a customer made payment by way of cheque payment, PW22 would bank in the cheque and RAPL would have to wait for the cheque to be cleared before they proceed to issue an invoice to the customer^{[note: 566]}. If a customer wanted to pay by way of fund transfer, the Accused was supposed to give RAPL’s OCBC account number to the customer for the customer to effect the fund transfer and the Accused was supposed to collect the bank transfer slip from the customer and forward the same to PW20 or PW22 for PW22 to check RAPL’s accounts. Once the monies had been credited into RAPL’s accounts, RAPL would then proceed to issue an invoice for that customer^{[note: 567]}. PW20 also testified that RAPL used to operate a Nets terminal for Nets payment but the Nets terminal had given them a lot of problems and they had decided to stop allowing Nets payment^{[note: 568]}. PW20 also confirmed that the Accused was not authorized to transfer customer’s money into his personal bank account^{[note: 569]}.

(d) After the monies had been credited into RAPL’s OCBC account, the Accused would proceed to carry out the next step, which was to apply for loan and car insurance for the customer^{[note: 570]}.

(e) After the payment of the initial deposit by the customer, there would be no further payment until the vehicle was ready for delivery to the customer. The vehicle would be ready after bank loan had been approved and the COE bid was successful^{[note: 571]}.

(f) There would be one final payment for the car insurance and the first loan repayment instalment and RAPL would collect these payments from the customer on the day the customer took delivery of the car or one day before that^{[note: 572]}.

153 After the Accused had completed his probation with RAPL, PW20 gave the Accused fresh responsibilities by allowing the Accused to hold onto a stack of up to ten blank sales agreement forms without the need for the Accused to approach PW20 each time he closed a deal to sell a vehicle^{[note: 573]}.

154 PW20 also explained that RAPL used two different systems to generate sales agreements and to generate invoices. For sales agreements, RAPL would use the Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system. RAPL started conducting business in November 2015. From November 2015 until March 2016, whenever a sales agreement was voided or there was a mistake in the agreement, RAPL would issue a new sales agreement with a different serial number. That resulted in a system where serial numbers would jump. Therefore, PW20 and PW22 decided to revamp the system to keep the same serial number for different customers. This allowed RAPL to have their sales agreement in running order and made it easier for RAPL to keep track of their sales agreements^{[note: 574]}. Every customer was given a unique sales agreement number and customers did not share the same sales agreement number^{[note: 575]}. The Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system not only recorded the sales agreement number in running order, the system also captured all the information relating to the customers, the financing, trade in values, payments made and date of delivery of cars^{[note: 576]}. The sales agreement numbers were keyed into the system manually^{[note: 577]}. Only PW20 and PW22 had access to RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system^{[note: 578]} and they could print out blank sales agreement forms from the system^{[note: 579]}.

155 As for RAPL’s invoicing system, RAPL used a different Excel spreadsheet system to generate their invoices^{[note: 580]}. RAPL would issue an invoice to the customer when a customer made payment to RAPL. PW22 would key in the invoice numbers manually in running order using the Excel spreadsheet whenever there was a payment made^{[note: 581]}. Only PW20, PW22 and Ria had access to the invoicing database and all of them could print out the invoices^{[note: 582]}. PW20 also testified that invoices issued should have his signature and the RAPL’s company stamp endorsed on the invoice. However, even if any of these were missing but the invoice was stored in RAPL’s invoice database, that invoice would be a valid invoice^{[note: 583]}. PW20 also testified that date printed on invoices would usually correspondent with the date the payment was deposited into RAPL’s account^{[note: 584]}. Payments were usually handled by PW22 and Ria. PW20 was not involved in payment of monies^{[note: 585]}. PW20 also confirmed that for payment into RAPL, RAPL would issue the customer with an invoice whenever the customer made any payment to RAPL and RAPL would normally not consolidate payments made on different dates and issue a single invoice for these payments^{[note: 586]}. However, for cases involving loans, the sales agreements would be assigned to the loan company and RAPL would need to issue invoices to the finance companies in order for the loans to be disbursed from the finance companies and RAPL would issue two sets of invoices bearing the same numbers and one set was given to the customer and the other set was given to the finance company. PW20 testified that this was an industry practice in order to get the loan disbursement from the finance companies^{[note: 587]}.

156 In terms of the accuracy of both the Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system and the Excel Spreadsheet invoicing system. PW20 however, admitted that the information captured in the Sale Balance Sheet system might not be 100% accurate as some information might be not have captured or entered wrongly^{[note: 588]}. PW20 also confirmed that the records in both the systems should be accurate save for a few repeated sales agreement numbers and invoice numbers^{[note: 589]}. During cross-examination, PW20 did admit that there were a few mistakes made in the recording of information in RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system and there were a few cases where invoices were not issued after customers had made payments^{[note: 590]}. However, in order for PW20 to check whether a sales agreement number or invoice number was genuine or fake, PW20 would need to cross-check all of RAPL’s records which included RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system and all the information recorded in the system under the particular customer’s name as well as RAPL’s drop-box invoice system and RAPL’s bank accounts before he was able to determine if the sales agreement or invoice was fake^{[note: 591]}. PW20 also testified that RAPL would use different ways to keep track of monies coming into RAPL, which included the sales agreement, banking statements, invoices, sales balance sheet and invoicing system^{[note: 592]}.

157 PW20 also testified that he started hearing complaints from customers who complained to him about not getting delivery of their cars after making payments to the Accused^{[note: 593]}. PW20 was in Kuala Lumpur for the weekend around 5 to 6 November 2016 when the Accused contacted him and told him that a customer was asking about the delay in delivery of his car^{[note: 594]}. When this happened, RAPL was having some problems with the delivery of cars. One reason was due the long queue at VITAS for inspection of cars. This had resulted in many local dealers not being able to obtain their stock to be delivered to the customers^{[note: 595]}. The other reason for the delay was that RAPL had taken too many orders that they did not have enough cars to deliver to their customers^{[note: 596]}. PW20 had also told the Accused that he would meet up with the customers when he returned to Singapore^{[note: 597]}. PW20’s initial reaction was that the Accused had failed to inform the customers about the delay and the customers were not aware of the delay^{[note: 598]}. PW20 asked the Accused why he had failed to inform the customer as he had informed the Accused about the delay to some customers two weeks ago^{[note: 599]}. When PW20 returned to office on Monday morning, the Accused was not around because he had asked to go on urgent leave^{[note: 600]}. PW20 also received many queries from customers asking about their cars^{[note: 601]}. PW20 only discovered that there were issues with payments when he met up with the customers and that was how he found out that the Accused had cheated the customers^{[note: 602]}.

158 Because of the complaints by the customers, PW20 decided to look into the matter to check on the payments made by the customers^{[note: 603]}. PW20 and PW22 then decided to go through all the invoice and their database and they found out that a number of the invoices had been duplicated^{[note: 604]}. They also checked RAPL’s bank accounts and found out that the Accused had collected the balance payments from a number of customers without updating RAPL of the payments^{[note: 605]}. PW20 confirmed that the Accused had cheated fourteen customers^{[note: 606]}.

159 PW20 tried to contact the Accused on Monday 7 November 2016 but the Accused did not respond to PW20 until Wednesday or Thursday^{[note: 607]}. The police came to RAPL’s office on Wednesday morning 9 November 2016^{[note: 608]}.

160 PW20 managed to reach the Accused in the night of 9 November 2016 and he recorded his conversation with the Accused^{[note: 609]}. PW20 told the Accused that he had customers complaining of undeclared sales as well as payments of monies to the Accused. The Accused admitted to PW20 the following:

(a) The Accused had confirmed that there were customers with “undeclared sales”. PW20 said that undeclared sales referred to sales agreements, which had been issued to customers without the approval of RAPL^{[note: 610]}.

(b) The Accused also confirmed that there were customers with “tampered invoices”. PW20 confirmed that these were customers with duplicate invoices^{[note: 611]}.

(c) That the Accused had taken “plus minus 300” thousand dollars from RAPL’s customers.^{[note: 612]}

(d) That the Accused had taken “plus minus 60” thousand dollars from PW4 who was also known as James^{[note: 613]}.

(e) That the Accused had taken $49,000 cash from PW6^{[note: 614]}.

(f) That the Accused had taken about $80,000 from PW11.^{[note: 615]}

(g) That the Accused had taken about $50,000 from PW10^{[note: 616]}.

(h) That the Accused had taken $9,000 from PW9^{[note: 617]}.

(i) That the Accused had taken $2,000 from PW8^{[note: 618]}.

(j) That the Accused had taken $31,000 from PW7. The Accused also told PW20 that PW7 did not have a valid sales agreement. According to the Accused, PW7 was one with “no sales in record”^{[note: 619]}.

(k) That the Accused had taken $10,000 from PW15^{[note: 620]}.

(l) That the Accused had taken “25,24,25” thousand dollars from PW5^{[note: 621]}.

(m) That the Accused had taken $70,000 from PW2^{[note: 622]}.

(n) The Accused also informed PW20 that he had used the money that he had taken to gamble at the casino. The Accused had also used the money to pay for his sister’s medical fees and his father’s debts and he had no money left^{[note: 623]}.

161 PW20 also communicated with the Accused by way of phone text messages. The text messages were retrieved from PW20’s hand-phone^{[note: 624]} as well as the Accused’s hand-phone. The contents of some of the messages were as follows:

(a) At 9:25:45 am on 8 November 2016, PW20 texted the following message to the Accused using the WhatsApp “Chua I have to be very honest to u. Now I have to inform the customers I donot received the fund. Any they will take actions against u! Please reply me in 10 mins as they are waiting for my confirmation weather I have received the money?”^{[note: 625]}.

(b) At 10:52:49 am on 8 November 2016, PW20 had sent another message to the Accused “Sorry chua I tried to wait for ur reply. Sister n i have checked the payment from the statement and did not show any amount from the mention customer have paid balance to my company. The report will be against u for criminal breach of trust and u will be charge chua. Please get back to me if u think of ur future n how to solve this. I need to get an ans from you before I commit and inform the customers”^{[note: 626]}.

(c) The Accused had sent PW20 a text message at 10:02:01 am on 9 November 2016 to tell PW20 “Yes I miss use the fund. i will surrender myself to u on Monday. Please help me on hold until I come back on Monday. Let I spend last few day with my family. I will come bAck on Sunday night and surrender myself to you.”.^{[note: 627]}

(d) At 10:05:01 am on the same day, PW20 replied to the Accused “Chua where are u? Please assist me this thing I need to know. I want this thing settle only chua..Now I want register money shortage I cant get u I go n check with customers. Atleast tell me la chua.. Now be honest chua who are the customers that u have mis used the money? I need to handle them. Please chua this is my crucial time”^{[note: 628]}.

(e) PW20 also sent another text to the Accused at 5:27:36 am on 10 November 2016 “Thank you chua for all this while u have been cheating me and lying to me. Ive trusted u soo much and this is what I get in return. Remember chua where u come from chua. When u first interview n selected I heard rumour about u owing people money and stuff.. But I still have a faith in u and do not choose to believed the rumour I believed everyone have change. But now u really have proven urself by doing this chua. As of what I understand from customers till now u have been taking money a total amount of 300k estimated. And I still yet to meet few more customers. How can u chua? Why u do this?...^{[note: 629]}”.

162 PW20 also testified that:

(a) For PW2, RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system showed that PW2’s Sales Agreement was given the number RA 1198 and PW2 had purchased a car for $86,888 and she had taken a loan for $30,000^{[note: 630]}. PW2 had paid RAPL a deposit of $20,000: $5,000 by way of Nets payment and $15,000 by way of cash payment. RAPL’s bank statements also showed that the $15,000 cash had been deposited into RAPL’s OCBC account^{[note: 631]}.

(b) PW2 had tendered to Court a RAPL invoice no. RA-PO 0208^{[note: 632]}. PW20 confirmed that the amount was correct but he was unable to verify whether the invoice no. RA-PO 0208 was a valid invoice because RAPL’s invoice database showed that the invoice that RAPL had issued to PW2 was invoice no. RA-PO 0204^{[note: 633]}. PW20 confirmed that RAPL had only received $20,000 from PW2.

(c) The Accused had also issued PW2 with invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for $43,444^{[note: 634]}. PW20 confirmed that RAPL did not receive the sum of $43,444 from PW2. RAPL had only received $20,000 deposit from PW2. This meant that RAPL did not receive $23,444 of the $43,444 that PW2 had paid to the Accused^{[note: 635]}. PW20 also confirmed that RA-PO 0109 was not a valid invoice, which was issued by RAPL^{[note: 636]}. He also noted that PW4, PW6 and PW14 had all been issued with invoices bearing the same number RA-PO 0109^{[note: 637]}.

(d) The Accused had also issued PW2 with invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for $43,444 and the Accused had signed on the invoice^{[note: 638]}. PW20 also confirmed that RAPL did not receive this sum of $43,444 from PW2. PW20 also noted that PW4 and PW11 have also been issued with invoices nos. RA-PO 0170 by the Accused. The Prosecution also pointed out that the Accused had also issued PW9 with invoice no. RA-PO 0170^{[note: 639]}.

(e) The Accused had in his conversation with PW20 admitted to PW2 that “I take 70 also” from PW2^{[note: 640]}.

(f) For PW3, RAPL’s records showed that PW3’s Sales Agreement number was RA1159, he had purchased a car for $91,888, and he had taken a loan of $64,321 from Tokyo Leasing^{[note: 641]}. RAPL’s records also showed that PW3 had paid a deposit of $20,000 and there was a balance payment of $7,567 due from PW3^{[note: 642]}. The deposit of $20,000 had also been deposited into RAPL’s OCBC account^{[note: 643]} and RAPL had issued an invoice no. RA-PO 0145 for the payment^{[note: 644]}.

(g) As for the balance payment of $7,567, PW3 had informed PW20 that he had paid this amount to the Accused. However, RAPL did not receive this amount from the Accused^{[note: 645]}.

(h) For PW4, PW20 confirmed that PW4’s Sales Agreement was recorded in RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system and the sales agreement was numbered RA 1142. RAPL’s record showed that the price of PW4’s car was $93,888 and PW4 had taken a loan of $56,332^{[note: 646]}. PW4 had paid an initial deposit of $20,000. PW20 confirmed that RAPL had received this payment and they had issued invoice no. RA-PO 0121 (Exhibit P40) for this payment^{[note: 647]}. PW20 also confirmed that the $20,000 was deposited into RAPL’s OCBC account^{[note: 648]}. RAPL’s records also showed that there was a balance due from PW2 for the sum of $36,888 and PW2 had not paid the balance sum to RAPL^{[note: 649]}.

(i) PW4 had also paid $9,389 in cash to the Accused on 7 September 2016, $17,555 in cash to the Accused on 15 September 2016 and the Accused had issued invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for the total payment of $26,944^{[note: 650]}. PW4 had also transferred $43,944 to the Accused’s UOB account on 27 October 2016 and was issued invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for $43,944^{[note: 651]}. PW20 testified that the Accused did not hand over any of these monies to RAPL. PW20 also checked RAPL’s bank account and found that the monies were not deposited into RAPL’s bank account^{[note: 652]}. PW20 was not able to find any record of such payment in RAPL’s records and he did not have any record of the money being banked into RAPL’s bank account^{[note: 653]}. PW20 also said that RAPL did not allow customers to transfer payments into the personal bank accounts of staff members^{[note: 654]}. PW20 was of the view that invoice no. RA-PO 0170 was not a genuine invoice because there was no signature on the invoice and the company stamp was missing^{[note: 655]}. As for invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for the sum of $43,944, PW20 was not aware of this invoice being issued by RAPL. In any event, employees of RAPL were not allowed to cancel and amend on the actual invoice itself^{[note: 656]} and invoice no. RA-PO 0109 had been manually amended. PW20 was therefore of the view that invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was not a genuine invoice. PW20 also confirmed that invoice nos. RA-PO 0109 and RA-PO 0170 have not been assigned to PW4 and they were fake invoices^{[note: 657]}.

(j) PW20 also confirmed that apart from the $20,000, RAPL did not receive any other payment from the Accused for PW4^{[note: 658]}. PW20 also confirmed that PW4’s Sales Agreement was a declared sales agreement^{[note: 659]}.

(k) PW20 also spoke to the Accused and the Accused confirmed that he “took plus minus 60, 50 plus. I think 50,944 from James”. The Accused also informed PW20 that he had used the money for gambling and other things^{[note: 660]}.

(l) PW20 also checked RAPL’s invoice database and he was unable to find invoice nos. RA-PO 0109 and RA-PO0170, which were issued in PW4’s name. PW20 was only able to find invoice nos. RA-PO 0121 and RA-PO 0262 that were issued in PW4’s name. Invoice no. RA-PO 0121 was for the deposit payment by PW4 and invoice no. RA-PO0262 was for the sum of $17,556. The $17,556 was an additional sum paid by PW4 on top of what he had already paid to the Accused on 13 October 2016 in order for him to get his car. This $17,556 was paid by PW4 to RAPL and it had nothing to do with the sum of $17,555, which PW4 had paid to the Accused on 15 September 2016. RAPL also deposited this money into their OCBC account on 13 October 2016^{[note: 661]}.

(m) For PW5, PW5’s Sales Agreement was a valid sales agreement as it was captured in RAPL’s Sale Balance spreadsheet system^{[note: 662]}. PW5’s sales agreement number was RA1130 and this was the same number, which was entered on PW5’s sales agreement form^{[note: 663]}. According to RAPL’s records, PW5 had purchased the car for $89,888 and he had taken a loan of $53,832^{[note: 664]}. RAPL’s records also showed that PW5 had made two payments of $1,000 and $19,000 totaling $20,000 to RAPL^{[note: 665]}. RAPL had also issued PW5 with invoice no. RA-PO 0162 for $19,000^{[note: 666]}. PW20 also checked RAPL’s invoice database and he confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0162 was a valid invoice, which was issued to PW5^{[note: 667]}. RAPL also had record of $19,000 being banked into their OCBC account^{[note: 668]}. PW20 was however unable find any invoice issued by RAPL for the $1,000 paid by PW5^{[note: 669]}.

(n) PW20 also testified that he had spoken to PW5 and there were text messages between them^{[note: 670]}. PW5 had informed him that he had paid PW21 $20,000 and the Accused a further sum of $40,000 for the payment of his car^{[note: 671]}. PW had shown PW20 a sales balance sheet prepared and given by the Accused to him, which showed that he had paid the Accused the $40,000^{[note: 672]}. PW5 also showed PW20 his sales agreement, which stated that the sales agreement number was RA 1183^{[note: 673]}. However, according to RAPL’s record, PW5’s sales agreement number was supposed to be RA 1130^{[note: 674]}. PW20 also noted that someone had written the words “Cash 24/7/16 $39,888” on the sales agreement RA 1183. PW20 was unable to confirm who had written those words but he noted that the Accused had placed his signature on the sales agreement RA 1183^{[note: 675]}. PW20 was unaware that the Accused had issued PW5 with the new sales agreement RA 1183. PW20 suspected that the Accused had used the blank sales agreement forms to prepare RA 1183^{[note: 676]}. PW20 also checked with PW22 and PW21 and RAPL’s bank accounts and he confirmed that RAPL did not receive the $40,000^{[note: 677]}. PW20 subsequently confirmed that the owner of sales agreement no. RA 1183 was a customer Teng Wei Yen and not PW5^{[note: 678]}.

(o) For PW6, RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet showed that PW6’s Sales Agreement was registered as RA 1180. PW6 had bought a car from RAPL for $98,888 and he had taken a loan of $49,444^{[note: 679]}. RA 1180 was also the sales agreement number, which was recorded on PW6’s sale agreement form. Therefore, PW6’s Sales Agreement was a valid sales agreement^{[note: 680]}. PW6 had also paid a deposit of $20,000 on 19 July 2017^{[note: 681]}. RAPL had received the $20,000 and they had banked in the $20,000 into their bank account^{[note: 682]}. RAPL had also issued PW6 with an invoice no. RA-PO 0168 for the $20,000 (Exhibit P41)^{[note: 683]}. PW20 had also checked RAPL’s invoice database and he confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0168 had been issued to PW6^{[note: 684]}. According to RAPL’s record, PW6 still owed RAPL $29,444^{[note: 685]}. PW20 also confirmed that the Accused was RAPL’s sales advisor in charge of PW6’s case^{[note: 686]}.

(p) PW6 had paid another $49,444 in cash to the Accused on 27 October 2016 and the Accused had issued PW6 with invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for $49,444. PW20 had checked RAPL’s accounts and he confirmed that the monies were never deposited into RAPL’s accounts^{[note: 687]}. PW20 also unable to find any invoice no. RA-PO 0109 which was issued to PW6 and he confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0109, which was issued to PW6, was not a valid invoice^{[note: 688]}.

(q) PW20 also noted that PW4 was also issued invoice no. RA-PO 0109^{[note: 689]} by the Accused. However, according to information retrieved from RAPL’s invoice database, invoice no. RA-PO 0109 had been issued to another customer Seah Han Chong^{[note: 690]}.

(r) For PW7, PW20 had testified that PW7’s Sales Agreement was an undeclared sales agreement, as RAPL did not have any record of the agreement^{[note: 691]}. PW20 told the Court that PW7’s Sales Agreement^{[note: 692]} did not exist in RAPL’s system. According to RAPL’s records, sales agreement no. RA 1191 belong to PW14^{[note: 693]}. PW20 also informed the Court that RAPL did not recycle their sales agreements numbers. As such, PW7’s Sales Agreement number RA 1191 was a fake sales agreement^{[note: 694]}. RAPL was also not aware of the existence of PW7^{[note: 695]}.

(s) PW7’s Sales Agreement was dated 7 August 2016 and the first time PW20 found out about this agreement was after he had returned from Malaysia and PW7 had spoken to him and had given him a copy of his sales agreement^{[note: 696]}. PW20 also confirmed that RAPL did not receive any of the payments that PW7 had given to the Accused, namely the $20,000 cash deposit on 7 August 2016, the $4,221 cash payment on 4 September 2016 and the $9,766 cash payment on 11 September 2016, as they did not have any records of the payments^{[note: 697]}. PW20 was not able to explain how the Accused was able to place the company stamp on the documents, as the Accused was not authorized to hold onto the company stamp^{[note: 698]}. PW20 also testified that there were only three person in RAPL who had access to RAPL’s company stamp and they were PW20, PW22 and Ms Ria, who was the wife of PW20^{[note: 699]}. PW20 also noted that the way the invoice was draft was different from the usual way that RAPL prepared their invoices^{[note: 700]}.

(t) The Accused had also issued PW7 with invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for his payments. However, RAPL did not receive the payments. PW20 had also asked the Accused about the payments and the Accused had admitted that PW7’s Sales Agreement was a “no sales in record” agreement and he had taken about $31,000 from PW7^{[note: 701]}.

(u) For PW8, RAPL’s records showed that PW8’s Sales Agreement number was RA 1151, she had purchased a car for $74,888, and she had taken a loan from Tokyo Leasing for $52,420^{[note: 702]}. PW8 had paid a deposit of $20,000 by way of cheque payment and RAPL had received the payment^{[note: 703]}. RAPL had acknowledged receipt of the payment of the $20,000 by issuing invoice no. RA-PO 0131 for $20,000 to PW8^{[note: 704]} (Exhibit P45). PW20 also checked RAPL’s invoice database and he confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0131 was a valid original invoice^{[note: 705]}. Apart from the $20,000, PW8 was supposed to pay RAPL another $2,468^{[note: 706]}. PW8 had informed PW20 that she had paid $2468 in cash to the Accused and the Accused had issued her with invoice no. RA-PO 0178 for $2,468. RAPL did not receive the payment of $2,468 from PW8^{[note: 707]} and their record on invoice no. RA-PO 0178 showed that the invoice number was issued to another customer and not PW8^{[note: 708]}. PW20 also confirmed the payment was not captured in their Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system and the money was not deposited into RAPL’s OCBC account. The Accused also did not hand the amount to either PW20, PW21 or PW22^{[note: 709]}.

(v) PW8 and PW18 had informed RAPL that they had paid the $2,468 to the Accused and that the Accused had issued them with invoice no. RA-PO 0178. PW20 had checked his invoice database and invoice no. RA-PO 0178 had been issued to another customer by the name of Chong Foo Chuen^{[note: 710]}. PW20 also confirmed that the invoice no. RA-PO 0178 which the Accused had given to PW8 was a fake invoice^{[note: 711]}. The Accused had also informed PW20 that he had taken the $2,468 from PW8 and he had used the money to buy a car^{[note: 712]}.

(w) For PW9, PW20 confirmed that PW9’s Sales Agreement was a declared sales agreement^{[note: 713]}. RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system showed that PW9’s Sales Agreement number was RA 1170 and PW9 had bought a car for $98,000 and his loan was $68,600^{[note: 714]}. PW20 testified that PW9 had paid RAPL a deposit of $20,000 by cash payment: $1,000 on 19 June 2018, $9,000 on 21 June 2016 and $10,000 on 14 July 2016^{[note: 715]}. While PW20 was unable to trace the deposit of the $20,000 into RAPL’s OCBC account, PW20 was able to confirm the receipt of the payment as RAPL had issued their invoice no. RA-PO 0148 to PW9 for the $20,000 and the payment was recorded in RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system^{[note: 716]}. PW20 also searched RAPL’s invoice database and he confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0148 was validly issued to PW9^{[note: 717]}.

(x) PW9 told PW20 that he had paid the Accused a further $9,400 in cash and the Accused had issued PW9 with an invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for $9,400^{[note: 718]}. PW20 had checked RAPL’s records and the $9,400 payment did not appear in their bank statements^{[note: 719]}. PW20 confirmed that RAPL did not receive the $9,400 from the Accused^{[note: 720]}. PW20 also checked with PW21 and PW22 and both of them told him that they did not receive any such payment from the Accused^{[note: 721]}. RAPL had also not issued any invoice to PW9 for this $9,400 payment. PW20 was of the view that the invoice no. RA-PO 0170 that was issued to PW9 was not a genuine invoice. PW20 noted that invoice no. RA-PO 0170 had also been issued to PW11^{[note: 722]}.

(y) PW20 did check with the Accused and the Accused admitted to PW20 that he had taken $9,000 from PW9 and he had used the money to gamble and medical fees^{[note: 723]}.

(z) PW20 also noted that he had copies of two other invoices belonging to PW9. One was an invoice no. RA-PO 0148 for $10,000 (Exhibit P44) and the second was an invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for $20,000 (Exhibit P80)^{[note: 724]}. PW20 did search RAPL’s invoice database and he was able to retrieve invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for $20,000^{[note: 725]}. PW20 explained that the invoice was validly assigned to PW9 and it was a consolidated invoice for the deposit payment of $20,000^{[note: 726]}.

(aa) For PW10, RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system showed that PW10’s 1^st Sales Agreement number was RA 1174, his car price was $101,888, and he had paid a deposit of $50,944^{[note: 727]}. PW20 confirmed that PW10’s 1st Sales Agreement was a valid sales agreement as it was captured in RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system^{[note: 728]}. PW20 testified that PW10’s 2^nd Sales^{[note: 729]} Agreement number RA 1188 was never assigned to PW10. In fact, according to RAPL’s records, sales agreement no. RA 1188 was assigned to another customer Mohd Fuad Bin Abdul Rahman^{[note: 730]}.

(bb) Based on RAPL’s records, PW10’s car was priced at $101,888 and PW10 had paid RAPL a deposit of $50,944 by way of cheque payment on 12 July 2016^{[note: 731]}. RAPL had acknowledged the receipt of that payment and they had issued an invoice no. RA-PO 0160 for the $50,944 to PW10 (Exhibit P43)^{[note: 732]}. The money was also deposited in RAPL’s OCBC account on 13 July 2016^{[note: 733]}. Invoice RA-PO 0160^{[note: 734]} was also captured in RAPL’s invoice database^{[note: 735]}.

(cc) Subsequently PW10 paid another $47,944 cash to the Accused on 23 August 2016. However, the Accused did not hand these monies over to RAPL^{[note: 736]}. PW20 was not able to retrieve any bank-in slip to cross-reference with RAPL’s database and RAPL did not have any record of issuing an invoice for the payment^{[note: 737]}. PW20 confirmed that RAPL did not receive this money from the Accused^{[note: 738]}. PW20 had also spoken to the Accused and the Accused had admitted taking “William 50”. PW20 understand that to mean that the Accused had taken the $47,944^{[note: 739]}.

(dd) For PW11, RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system showed that PW11’s Sales Agreement was registered as RA 1192. RAPL’s records also showed that PW11 had purchased the car for $99,888 and he had taken a loan for $30,000^{[note: 740]}. As such, PW11’s Sales Agreement was a valid sales agreement^{[note: 741]}. PW11 had also paid a deposit of $20,000 to RAPL. When PW11 paid RAPL the $20,000 deposit, RAPL acknowledged receipt of the $20,000 by issuing PW11 with invoice no. RA-PO 0175 for $20,000 (Exhibit P42)^{[note: 742]}. PW20 also checked RAPL’s invoice database and invoice no. RA-PO 0175 was recorded in the database as being assigned to PW11^{[note: 743]}.

(ee) However, PW20 realized that he had made a mistake when he assigned the sales agreement number to PW11. RA 1191, which was assigned to PW11, was also assigned to another customer Tan Kun Heng^{[note: 744]}. For this particular case, PW20 acknowledged that there were two sales agreements, which were assigned the same sale agreement, number RA 1191^{[note: 745]}.

(ff) After PW11 paid the deposit of $20,000, he paid another $30,000 cash to the Accused: - $5,000 on 14 August 2016 and $25,000 on 16 August 2016. PW20 confirmed that RAPL had only received the $20,000 deposit and they did not received the $30,000 cash, which PW11 had paid to the Accused^{[note: 746]}. When PW11 paid the Accused the $30,000 cash, the Accused issued PW11 with an invoice bearing the same number RA-PO 0175 but for a different sum. The invoice that the Accused had given PW11 was for the sum of $50,000, which included the $20,000 deposit and the $30,000 cash payment^{[note: 747]}. PW20 was of the view that the invoice that was issued by the Accused was not a genuine invoice and it was a duplicate invoice^{[note: 748]}. PW20 also commented that for the invoice issued by the Accused, there was an additional line of $30,000 typed onto the invoice. PW20 was unable to explain how the $30,000 was typed onto the invoice that was issued by the Accused^{[note: 749]}.

(gg) PW11 had made a further payment of another $50,000 cash to the Accused on 8 October 2016 and the Accused had issued PW11 with an invoice no. RA-PO 01070 for the payment^{[note: 750]}. With regard to this payment of $50,000 cash by PW11 to the Accused, PW20 also confirmed that this money was never handed over to RAPL^{[note: 751]}. PW20 also noted that the Accused had also issued PW4 with the same invoice no. RA-PO 0170^{[note: 752]}.

(hh) PW20 also informed the Court that he had spoken to the Accused and the Accused had admitted taking $80,000 from PW11. The Accused had also informed PW20 that he had used the money to gamble and to pay for medical fees. PW11 only found out that PW11 had given the Accused the $80,000 when PW11’s children came to RAPL and met up with PW20^{[note: 753]}.

(ii) The Prosecution had also asked PW20 whether it was possible that the $80,000 had gone into the account of Tan Kun Heng as Tan Kun Heng was also issued with the same sales agreement no. RA 1192. PW20 said that it was not possible because RAPL had issued Tan Kun Heng with another invoice no. RA-PO 0196 when Tan Kun Heng made his payment in September 2016 and Tan Kun Heng’s invoice was kept in RAPL’s invoice database^{[note: 754]}.

(jj) For PW12, RAPL’s Sale Balance Sheet spreadsheet system showed that PW12’s Sales Agreement number was RA 1177, he had paid $101,888 for his car, and he had taken a loan of $71,321^{[note: 755]}. RAPL’s records also showed that PW12 had paid a deposit of $20,000 on 17 July 2016 and there was a balance payment of $10,567 due from PW12^{[note: 756]}. RAPL’s records also showed that RAPL had issued an invoice no. RA-PO 0161 for the $20,000^{[note: 757]}. RAPL had also deposited the payment into their OCBC account on 18 July 2016^{[note: 758]}. For PW12’s case, PW20 had produced a bank-in slip, which showed $30,000 cash being deposited into RAPL’s bank account^{[note: 759]}. PW20 explained that $20,000 of the $30,000 was PW12’s payment and the other $10,000 was payment from another customer. RAPL had combined both the payments into one bank-in slip when they deposited the money into their bank account^{[note: 760]}. PW20 also confirmed that he had signed the invoice and had stamped it with the company stamp^{[note: 761]}. Invoice no. RA-PO 0161was also captured in RAPL’s invoice database. PW20 also confirmed that they have not received any other payment from the Accused other than the $20,000 deposit^{[note: 762]}.

(kk) RAPL also had a copy of a Sales Balance Sheet dated 6 December 2016 (Exhibit P76) relating to PW12 in their records^{[note: 763]}. PW20 had prepared this document to explain PW12’s payments to RAPL and this document was not given to PW12^{[note: 764]}. According to PW20’s calculations, PW12 had purchased a car for $101,888 and he had taken a loan for $71,321. PW12 had also paid RAPL $20,000 deposit. This meant that the outstanding amount due from PW12 was $10, 567. For PW12, he had also wanted to trade in his vehicle to RAPL for $6,758. If PW11 were to hand in the car to trade in, then the balance amount payable would be $10,567 less $6,758, which was $3,809^{[note: 765]}. PW20 also recalled PW20 informing him that he had paid $3,809 to the Accused and that was why PW20 had typed the words “paid to Chua $3,809” onto Exhibit P76^{[note: 766]}. I note that PW12 had not signed P76 to confirm the figures. PW20 also testified that RAPL did not receive the money that PW12 had paid the Accused^{[note: 767]}.

(ll) For PW13, the Accused had issued PW13 with sales agreement no. RA 1182. PW20 confirmed that PW13’s Sales Agreement no. RA 1182 was not a valid sales agreement^{[note: 768]}. RAPL did not have PW13’s details in their records and RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet Spreadsheet system showed that sales agreement no. RA 1182 was validly issued to Tan Cheong Kuan^{[note: 769]}. PW13 was an undeclared customer and RAPL was not aware of the existence of PW13^{[note: 770]}.

(mm) PW20 noted that the Accused was the sales person who had attended to PW13. This was evident from PW13’s documents^{[note: 771]}. PW13’s sales agreement^{[note: 772]} stated that PW13 had paid $20,000 cash to the Accused. PW20 confirmed that RAPL did not receive this money from the Accused and the money was not banked into their OCBC account^{[note: 773]}. PW13 had also paid the Accused a further sum of $11,924 and the Accused had issued PW13 with invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for $11,924. PW20 confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was a fake invoice and RAPL did not receive the $11,924 from PW13. PW20 also confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was validly assigned to Seat Han Chong^{[note: 774]}.

(nn) For PW14, RAPL’s Sales Balance spreadsheet system showed that PW14’s Sales Agreement was assigned the number RA 1191. The records also showed that PW14 had purchased his car for $99,888 and PW14 had paid RAPL a deposit of $20,000 by way of fund transfer on 12 September 2016^{[note: 775]}. RAPL had also issued PW14 with an invoice no. RA-PO 0192 for the $20,000 deposit^{[note: 776]}. PW20 also cross-referenced RAPL’s invoice database and he confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0192 was registered in PW14’s name^{[note: 777]}. PW20 also confirmed that apart from the $20,000, RAPL did not receive any other payment from PW14^{[note: 778]}.

(oo) PW20 noted that for PW14, there were two sets of sales agreement, namely Exhibit P15 and Exhibit P16^{[note: 779]}. Exhibit P15 was PW14’s copy of his sales agreement form and Exhibit P16 was Shan’s copy of PW14’s sale agreement form. PW20 also noted that in Exhibit P16, Shan had written on Exhibit P16 that RAPL had received $29,944 from PW14 and Shan had placed his initials on Exhibit P16^{[note: 780]}. PW20 also noted that his signature was found on Exhibit P15 but Exhibit P16 did not contain his signature. PW20 testified that it was possible that the sales person had attended to PW14 and had filled up Exhibit P16 when PW20 was not around the office and PW20 had signed Exhibit P16 when he returned to office.^{[note: 781]} PW20 also confirmed that the invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for $29,944, which was issued to PW14, was not a genuine invoice and that RAPL did not received the sum of $29,944^{[note: 782]}. PW20 also noted that invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was also issued by the Accused to PW4 and PW6^{[note: 783]}. PW20 had also checked RAPL invoice database and he confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0109 had been assigned to a customer Seat Han Chong and the invoice was dated 29 April 2016^{[note: 784]}.

(pp) For PW15, PW20 testified that PW15 was an undeclared customer of RAPL, as the Accused had not declared the sales to RAPL^{[note: 785]}. PW20 noted that PW15’s Sales Agreement, which was dated 28 September 2016, did not have any sales agreement number^{[note: 786]}. The Accused was the sales representative who had attended to PW15 as he had signed the sales agreement as sales advisor^{[note: 787]}. PW20 was unable to find any of PW15’s details in RAPL’s Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system^{[note: 788]}. PW20 also confirmed that RAPL would not allow their sales representatives to sign up customers without assigning to the customers a sales agreement number^{[note: 789]}. PW20 also noted that PW15 had paid $10,000 to the Accused and the Accused had issued PW15 with an invoice no. RA- PO 0170 for the $10,000. PW20 testified that invoice no. RA-PO 0170 had been validly assigned to PW9 and the invoice that the Accused had issued to PW15 was a fake invoice^{[note: 790]}.

163 PW20 also testified that he had started the Excel invoicing system with Seat Han Chong’s invoice no. RA-PO 0109 on 29 April 2016. Before that, PW20 used to store all the customers invoice folders and the invoice template in his personal computer and only he had access to the computer. That meant that only PW20 could issue the invoices and he could control the invoice numbers^{[note: 791]}. However, after 29 April 2016, PW20 gave access to PW21, PW22 and Ria, who was PW20’s wife. All of them would have their own passwords to log into the system and they did not know each other’s passwords. Apart from the four of them, no one else in RAPL was given access to the invoice system^{[note: 792]}.

164 PW20 also testified that RAPL had only three sales representative: the Accused, Shan and Naim. RAPL’s practice was to print out hard copies of the invoices for their sales representatives to make copies for the customers. The sales representatives would usually keep copies of the invoices for themselves. RAPL also had a photocopy machine in their premises which was capable of scanning documents into soft copies and it was possible for anyone to scan a hardcopy of the document and save it on his own computer. PW20 also admitted not putting any controls to prevent the scanning of hard copies into soft copies in the office. He admitted that there was a risk that the sales representatives, even though they did not have access to the invoice drop-box system, could still make soft copies of documents. PW20 would occasionally do spot checks on the sales representatives’ computers but he was not able to stop them from scanning documents as they were required to scan documents such as customers identity cards and driving licenses and income documents so that they could forward the same to finance companies for loan applications ^{[note: 793]}.

165 PW20 had also testified that RAPL had maintained a petty cash system whereby some of the customers’ payment might have been used for petty cash payments^{[note: 794]}. PW20 also testified that PW22 would keep track of the petty cash by issuing payment vouchers. The petty cash would be used for bid money or payment to local car dealers^{[note: 795]}.

166 During cross-examination, the Defence also suggested to PW20 that he had misappropriated monies from RAPL and this was denied by PW20^{[note: 796]}.

167 At the close of the Prosecution’s case, the Defence submitted that there was no case to answer for all the charges and the Defence urged me to dismiss the case against the Accused without the need to call for his defence.

Prosecution’s submission at the close of their case^{[note: 797]}

a. Overview

168 The Accused was employed by RAPL as a salesman. RAPL was a company that sold cars. The Accused faced 22 charges, of which 20 were under section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC”). One charge was under section 420 read with section 109 of the Penal Code and the remaining charge is under section 408 of the PC. The section 408 charge related to the Accused being entrusted with payments by customers, which he then dishonestly misappropriated. The section 420 charges related to various customers who were duped into handing over cash payments to the Accused. The section 420 read with section 109 charge related to the Accused engaging in a conspiracy with another salesman of RAPL to dupe a customer into handing over his cash payment to the other salesman, Shan Tai Yee Sin (“Shan”).

b. Elements of the charges

169 The Prosecution submitted that the elements of a charge under section 420 PC were as follows:

(a) The victim was deceived;

(b) There was inducement such that the victim delivered property to the Accused; and

(c) The Accused acted with dishonest intention^{[note: 798]}.

170 As for the charge under section 408, the Prosecution needed to show that:

(a) The Accused was employed as a servant of RAPL;

(b) The Accused was entrusted with property in this capacity; and

(c) The Accused had dishonestly misappropriated the property.

c. Undisputed facts

171 The Prosecution submitted that it was not disputed that at the material time, the Accused was employed by RAPL as a salesman, and that his responsibilities included collecting payments in cash or cheques from customers of RAPL^{[note: 799]}. The accused was to hand over the payments to PW20, the director of RAPL or PW22, the finance manager.

172 The following customers of RAPL had all given unchallenged testimony that they dealt with the Accused, and had made payments in cash to the Accused as follows:

S/No.	Witness	Date	Amount paid	Reason for payment	Charge
1	PW2	4 October 2016[note: 800]	$33,444	Accused told PW2 that she had to pay 50% down payment for the car she ordered.	DAC 941236-2016
2	PW2	20 October 2016	$43,444	Accused told PW2 that she had to pay the 50% balance for the car she ordered	DAC 912666-2017
3	PW4	7 September 2016[note: 801]	$9,389	PW4 decided to reduce the amount of the car loan he was applying for and was told by accused to top-up the difference.	DAC 941236-2016
4	PW4	15 September 2016[note: 802]	$17,555	Accused told PW4 that the car he ordered had been delivered to Singapore and asked for payment.	DAC 912655-2017
5	PW4	27 October 2016[note: 803]	$43,944	Accused told PW4 that he would get a discount if PW4 paid the balance sum instead of taking a car loan and requested that PW4 transfer the monies to his personal bank account.	DAC 912656-2017
6	PW3	September 2016[note: 804]	$7.567	Accused told PW3 that the car he ordered was ready.	DAC 912658-2017
7	PW5	July 2016	$40,000	Accused asked PW5 to pay $5,000 and $35,000[note: 805] in order to get the car that PW5 had ordered.	DAC 912654-2017
8	PW6	27 October 2016[note: 806]	$49.444	After PW6 told the Accused that he did not want to take up a car loan, the Accused told PW6 that the car he ordered was ready for collection and asked PW6 to pay the sum that was to be covered by the loan. PW6 suggested paying by cheque but the Accused insisted on cash payment.	DAC 912663-2017
9	PW6	Sometime after 27 October 2016	$29,444	The Accused asked PW6 to pay the balance purchase price for the car that PW6 had ordered, but PW6 did not make the payment, as he had not received the car.	DAC 912662-2017
10	PW7	7 August 2016[note: 807]	$20,000	PW7 signed a sales agreement with the accused and paid the $20,000 deposit to the Accused.	DAC 912650-2017
11	PW7	4 September 2016[note: 808]	$4,211	Accused told PW7 that his car loan application was rejected and that he had to top-up $4,211.	DAC 912651-2017
12	PW7	11 September 2016[note: 809]	$9.677	The Accused told PW7 that the car he ordered was to be delivered and asked for payment.	DAC 912652-2017
13	PW8	6 August 2016[note: 810]	$2,468	Accused asked for balance payment for the car that PW8 ordered, and PW8’s father, PW18, paid the accused in cash.	DAC 912657-2017
14	PW9	September 2016[note: 811]	$9,400	Accused told PW9 that he could expedite delivery of the car PW9 ordered if PW9 paid this sum to him.	DAC 912659-2017
15	PW10	23 August 2016[note: 812]	$47,944	Accused told PW10 that he had to make the balance payment in order to collect the car that he had ordered.	DAC 912660-2017
16	PW10	29 October 2016[note: 813]	$982.03	Accused gave a chassis number to PW10, causing PW10 to believe that the car he ordered was about to be delivered, and inducing PW10 to purchase insurance for the car using the chassis number.	DAC 912661-207
17	PW11	14/16 August 2016[note: 814]	$30,000	Accused told PW11 to pay this sum after PW11 informed him that he no longer wanted to take a car loan.	DAC 912664-2017
18	PW11	8 October 2016[note: 815]	$50,000	Accused told PW11 that the car he ordered had arrived and asked PW11 to make the balance payment.	DAC 912665-2017
19	PW12	20 September 2016	$5,321	Accused told PW12 to pay this sum to him after PW12 decided to reduce the amount of his car loan.	DAC 912667-2017
20	PW13	19 July 2016[note: 816]	$20,000	Accused told PW13 to pay the deposit for the car she ordered.	DAC 912648-2017
21	PW13	19 September 2016[note: 817]	$11,924	Accused told PW13 that the car she ordered had arrived in Singapore and asked her to make balance payment by depositing the money into his personal bank account.	DAC 912649-2017
22	PW14	26 October 2016[note: 818]	$29,944	Shan told PW14 to make the payment in cash in order to expedite the delivery of the car he had ordered. When PW14 went to pay the money to Shan, the accused gave PW15 the chassis number for the car and helped Shan to count the money.	DAC 912668-2017
23	PW15	28 September 2016[note: 819]	$10,000	Accused asked PW15 to pay a deposit of $20,000 for the car he ordered. After negotiation, PW15 paid $10,000.	DAC 912653-2017

d. Threshold at the close of the Prosecution’s case

173 The Prosecution submitted that relevant test that they had to satisfy at the close of its case was encapsulated in section 230(1)(j) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), as set out below:

“if after considering the evidence referred to in paragraph (e), the court is of the view that there is some evidence which is not inherently incredible and which satisfies each and every element of the charge as framed by the prosecutor or as altered or framed by the court, the court must call on the accused to give his defence”

174 As observed by Chan Sek Keong CJ in Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario [2012] 3 SLR 440 at [26], this section codified the approach set out in the Privy Council’s decision in Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor [1981–1982] SLR(R) 133. There, the Privy Council stated (at [15]) that in considering whether there was a case to answer, the court should act on the following presumptions:

(a) That all such evidence of primary facts were true, unless they were so inherently incredible that no reasonable person would accept it as being true; and

(b) That there was nothing to displace those inferences as to further facts or state of mind of the accused, which could reasonably be drawn from the primary facts in the absence of further explanation.

175 In respect of inferences to be drawn at this stage, the Prosecution submitted that the Court should look at the totality of the evidence and consider what inference, if any, could reasonably be drawn therefrom.

e. The CBT charge

176 The Prosecution submitted that it was not disputed that the Accused was handed the $33,444 by PW2 and $9,389 by PW4 for purposes relating to their purchase from RAPL. It was also not disputed that at the material time, the Accused was employed by RAPL as a salesman. The issue to be determined in relation to the CBT charge was whether the Accused had dishonestly misappropriated the monies.

177 PW20 had testified that the sum of $9,389 paid by PW4 was not handed over to him, or to PW22. PW2’s unchallenged testimony was that she had paid a total of $43,444, consisting of an initial deposit of $10,000 cash and a further payment of $33,444 in cash. PW20 testified that RAPL had received $20,000 from the amounts paid by PW2, leaving a balance $23,444 that was not paid to RAPL.

178 In P31, a voice recording of a conversation between PW20 and the Accused, the Accused had admitted to taking $50,000-$60,000 from a customer ‘James’ and spending the monies on his personal expenses, including gambling in the casino, paying his sister’s medical fees and paying his father’s debt. In that same recording, the Accused also admitted to taking about $70,000 from a customer known as “Tan Chee Hong”.

179 The Accused did not challenge the voice recording, and the transcript of the voice recording, P30, prepared by PW16, the Investigating Officer.

180 PW4 had testified that he was also known as James.

181 PW2 had testified that she had paid a total of $86,888 in cash to the Accused. If we took into account the $20,000 received by RAPL, the Accused would have taken $66,888 from PW2. Given the similarity in the name of PW2 to the name referred by the Accused in P31, and that the sums referred to correspond to each other, the Prosecution submitted that an inference should be drawn that the “Tan Chee Hong” referred to by the Accused in P31 was PW2.

182 The Prosecution therefore submitted that there were evidence, which were not inherently incredible, that showed that the Accused had dishonestly misappropriated $23,444 (from PW2) and $9,389 (from PW4)

f. The cheating charges

183 In the present case, it was not been disputed that the witnesses had delivered property to the Accused, either by handing over cash, or by having the monies transferred or deposited into the Accused’s personal bank account. It was also not disputed that the purpose of the monies being given to the Accused was relating to the cars that the witnesses had ordered from RAPL.

184 The Accused also did not dispute that he was the one who had dealt with the witnesses at the material time, and he had told them why they had to pay the monies.

185 The Prosecution submitted that on these undisputed facts, the victims would have been induced to deliver property to the Accused.

186 The Prosecution therefore submitted that the issues to be determined were whether the Accused had deceived the witnesses, and whether he had acted dishonestly. The Prosecution submitted that these were two entwined issues. If the Accused had deceived the witnesses, it would naturally follow that he had acted dishonestly as the victims would have suffered wrongful loss in handing over the monies on false premises.

187 The Prosecution submitted that the fact of deception could be inferred from the following:

(a) PW2, PW4, PW6, PW7, PW9, PW11, PW13 and PW14 were given invoices bearing either invoice number RA-PO 0109 or RA-PO 0170. PW22 had testified that the invoice numbers for invoices issued by RAPL bore numbers in running sequence and were not duplicated.

(b) PW2 testified that the Accused gave her an invoice after she had paid him the $43,444 cash. This invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy, as it did not have PW20 or PW22’s signature, but instead, bore the Accused’s signature. PW22 testified that the invoices issued by RAPL had to bear the company stamp and either the signature of PW20 or PW22 in order to be a valid invoice. The invoice also bore a duplicated invoice number, RA-PO 0170.

(c) PW4 testified that the Accused gave him two invoices after he made his payments. The two invoices^{[note: 820]} related to the three payments PW4 made. These invoices did not accord with RAPL’s policy, as there was no company stamp, or signature by PW20 or PW22. The two invoices also bore duplicated invoice numbers (RA-PO 0109 and RA-PO0170).

(d) PW3 was not given any invoice after making his payment.

(e) PW5 was not given any invoice after making his payment. His payment of $35,000 was only recorded on a hand-written sales balance sheet that the Accused had signed.

(f) PW6 was given an invoice by the Accused. The invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy as it bore the Accused’s signature instead of the signatures of PW20 or PW22. The invoice also bore a duplicated invoice number, RA-PO 0109.

(g) PW7’s sales agreement was not endorsed by PW20 as per RAPL’s policy. PW20 testified that the sales agreement was not submitted to him and that the sales agreement number, RA1191, was tied to another customer. PW7 was also given an invoice covering his three payments, RA-PO 0170, which was a duplicated invoice number. The invoice also did not accord with RAPL’s policy as it bore the signature of the Accused instead of PW20 or PW22.

(h) PW8’s father, PW18, was given an invoice by the Accused after making payment. The invoice bore the company stamp of RAPL but was not signed by PW20 or PW22, which did not accord with RAPL’s policy.

(i) PW9 was given an invoice by the Accused after making payment. This invoice was not signed by PW20 or PW22 and did not bear RAPL’s company stamp. The invoice number was also duplicated (RA-PO 0170).

(j) PW10 was not given any invoice after handing his payment to the Accused. The payment was only recorded on a sales agreement form, which the Accused signed on to acknowledge the receipt of the monies.

(k) PW11 was given an invoice (RA-PO 0175) by the Accused showing that he paid the first cash sum of $30,000. This invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy, as it did not bear any signatures. For the second sum of $50,000, PW11 was given a second invoice (RA-PO 0170) by the Accused. This second invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy, as it did not bear RAPL’s company stamp nor any signatures by PW20 or PW22.

(l) PW12 was not given any invoice after making his payment.

(m) PW13’s sales agreement, which recorded her payment of her deposit, was not endorsed by PW20 as per RAPL policy. PW20 testified that RAPL had no records of PW13 as a customer of RAPL. For her second payment, PW13 was given an invoice by the Accused. This invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy as it did not bear RAPL’s company stamp and was not signed by PW20 or PW22. The invoice number (RA-PO 0109) was also duplicated.

(n) PW15’s sales agreement was not endorsed by PW20 and did not bear a sales agreement number as per RAPL policy. PW20 testified that the sales agreement was not submitted to RAPL. PW15 was also given an invoice by the Accused. The invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy as it did not bear RAPL’s company stamp and was not signed by PW20 or PW22. The invoice number was also duplicated.

188 Given the undisputed testimony of the witnesses that the Accused had told them that their payments were to be for purposes relating to their purchases of cars from RAPL, it would have been implicit that the monies were to be handed over to RAPL.

189 The Prosecution submitted that the irregularities in the documentation above demonstrated that the monies were never handed over to RAPL:

(a) None of the invoices were signed by PW20 or PW22.

(b) The sales agreements relating to PW7, PW13 and PW15 were not endorsed by PW20, suggesting that they were never submitted by the accused to RAPL.

(c) The Accused himself had signed some of the invoices and made handwritten amendments, which suggested that the invoices were in fact created by him.

(d) A number of the witnesses were also never given any invoices after making payments to the Accused.

190 The Prosecution therefore submitted that the inference to be drawn must be that the Accused did not intend to hand over the payments from the witnesses to RAPL, despite representing to the witnesses that their payments were to be handed to RAPL for their car purchases. If the Accused had duly handed over those payments, the witnesses would have been issued invoices by RAPL which would have borne RAPL’s company stamp and either PW20 or PW22’s signature.

191 This inference was strengthened when we considered the following:

(a) When PW6 offered to pay by cheque, the Accused had insisted on cash payment. There was no reason for the Accused to insist on cash if the payment were to be made to RAPL, as cheques were an acceptable form of payment to RAPL.

(b) The Accused had asked PW4 and PW13 to make payments directly into the Accused’s personal bank account. PW20 gave unchallenged testimony that the Accused was not allowed to receive customer payments in his own bank account. In any event, the Accused could have given RAPL’s bank account details to them if he had genuinely intended for the monies to be paid to RAPL.

192 In P31 (and P30), the Accused also admitted to taking the following customers’ monies for himself:

S/No.	Name in P30/P31	Amount taken	Corresponding to PW	Amount involved in total
1	James	$50,000 to $60,000	PW4	$70,888
2	Yip Boon Yew	$49,000	PW6	$49,444
3	Lim Huay Chuen	$80,000	PW11	$80,000
4	William	$50,000	PW10	$47,944
5	Kassim	$9,000	PW9	$9,400
6	Amirah	$2,000	PW8	$2,468
7	Hishamuddin	$31,000	PW7	$33,888
8	Ridwan	$10,000	PW15	$10,000
9	Mervin	$25,000	PW5	$40,000

193 The Prosecution submitted the customers mentioned in P30/P31 matched up with the witnesses who had testified against the Accused as per the table above. I also noted that the Accused had mentioned in P30 that he had taken $70,000 from one Tan Chee Hong (PW2).

194 As the Accused had admitted to taking the monies from these customers in P31 for his personal use, this further buttressed the inference that the Accused did not have intention to hand those monies to RAPL at the time he collected the money despite his representation to the witnesses that the payments were for the purpose of their car purchases.

195 As for DAC 912661-2017, the Prosecution submitted that the Accused had given a chassis number to PW10, which induced PW10 to purchase car insurance and paying $982.03 to the insurer. Given that the Accused had not handed PW10’s payments for his car to RAPL, the Accused would have deceived PW10 when he gave PW10 the chassis number, which was purportedly for PW10’s car.

196 The Prosecution therefore submitted that there was some evidence that was not inherently incredible that satisfied each and every element of the 20 section 420 charges against the Accused.

g. The conspiracy to cheat charge

197 DAC 912668-2016 related to PW14 paying a sum of $29,944 to Shan for his purchase of a car from RAPL. The Accused was charged with engaging in a conspiracy with Shan to cheat PW14 and inducing him to deliver the $29,944.

198 The Prosecution referred me to the case of Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v PP [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 where at [76], the Court of Appeal had set out the essential elements of abetment by conspiracy:

(a) First, the person abetting must engage, with one or more persons, in a conspiracy;

(b) Second, the conspiracy must be for the doing of the thing abetted; and

(c) Third, an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy in order to the doing of that thing.

199 The Prosecution submitted that the law on conspiracy did not require the Accused to be aware of every aspect of the conspiracy. All that was required was knowledge of the general purpose of the plot. There was also no requirement in law for the Accused to know all the co-conspirators.

200 What was critical was for all the conspirators in a conspiracy to have come to an agreement on the subject of the conspiracy, which was commonly referred to as the ‘meeting of the minds’. This ‘meeting of the minds’ did not require any explicitly conveyed intention, nor must there be physical meetings of the persons involved: see Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGHC 195 at [30]- [32]. On this point, the High Court in Goh Kah Heng (alias Shi Ming Yi) v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2010] 4 SLR 258 noted at [40] that:

“Proof of an agreement between the parties can be inferred from the words and actions of the parties, as elaborated upon in PP v Yeo Choon Poh [1993] 3 SLR(R) 302 at [20]. I quote:

One method of proving a conspiracy would be to show that the words and actions of the parties indicate their concert in the pursuit of a common object or design, giving rise to the inference that their actions must have been co-ordinated by arrangement beforehand. These actions and words do not of themselves constitute the conspiracy but rather constitute evidence of the conspiracy.”

201 The inference of a conspiracy was also clarified by Yong CJ in Er Joo Nguang v PP [2000] 1 SLR(R) 756 at [35]:

“So far as proof goes, conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deduced from certain acts of the accused parties, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them. Both the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties before and after the alleged commission of the crime will be useful in drawing an inference of conspiracy ... An inference of conspiracy would be justified only if it is inexorable and irresistible, and accounts for all the facts of the case.”

202 In the present case, PW14 had testified that he was told by Shan that he could expedite the delivery of his car by paying the $29,944 in cash. PW14’s sales agreement, which recorded his payment of the $29,444 (P16), was not endorsed by PW20. PW14 was subsequently given an invoice for his payment of $29,944. The invoice did not bear RAPL’s company stamp, and was not signed by PW20 or PW22. The invoice number was also duplicated.

203 The Prosecution therefore submitted that it could be inferred that PW14 had been deceived that his payment of $29,944 was for the purpose of his car purchase.

204 PW14 also gave unchallenged testimony that on the day he handed the cash to Shan, the Accused was also present and had assisted Shan to count the money. The Accused had also provided a chassis number to PW14, which was recorded in the sales agreement (P16). The accused had signed against the written chassis number. From this, it is submitted that there was an irresistible inference of conspiracy, given the acts carried out by the Accused.

205 In conclusion, the Prosecution submitted that there was some evidence that was not inherently incredible, that made out each and every element of the charge DAC 912668-2016.

h. Conclusion

206 The Prosecution therefore submitted that sufficient evidence had been adduced to satisfy the test set out in section 230(1)(j) of the CPC and that the Accused should be called on to give his defence.

Defence’s submission of no case to answer^{[note: 821]}

a. Introduction

207 The Defences had submitted that in cheating cases, documentary records such as a company’s bank statements, invoices and receipts were often key pieces of evidence. Following such paper trail would usually lead to the culprit. But, when all these records have been shown to be utterly unreliable, such that even customer monies for legitimate transactions could be accounted for, there was no telling who the true perpetrator was. Without this minimum of evidence, the Defence was of the view that the Prosecution could not make out a prima facie case against the Accused.

208 The Defence submitted that at the core of the charges against the Accused involved the allegation that the Accused had deceived the 14 customers of RAPL. However, the Defence was of the view that in applying sections 230(1)(f) and 230(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC'), there was no case to answer for all the charges. This was because the Prosecution could not make out a prima facie case that the Accused was the one who had cheated the customers; as all evidence of primary fact in the form of RAPL's business records like invoices, sales agreements and sales balance sheets, have been be wholly unreliable.

209 The Defence also submitted that the evidence of the key prosecution witness, PW 20, was so inherently incredible that it could not support any element of the cheating charges. PW20 was completely discredited in the course of cross-examination as his testimony was shown to be self-contradictory and utterly illogical, not to mention that he was shown to be a liar on numerous occasions, like being contradicted by that his own sister PW22 about RAPL's so-called “petty cash” system.

210 The Defence submitted that there was no evidence, documentary or oral, to show that the Accused had cheated or attempted to cheat anyone. Apart from the deficiencies mentioned above, the Defence also submitted that for four of charges involving PW13, PW6 and PW14; the elements of the charges were disproved based on the evidence adduced by the Prosecution.

211 The Defence also submitted that without PW20’s testimony, and without any objective evidence, the Prosecution's case was unsustainable as a matter of law and fact. As such, there was no case to answer and the Accused should be acquitted of all the charges.

b. Applicable legal principles for no case to answer

212 The Defence submitted that the principles regarding a submission of no case to answer were well established and need only be briefly restated. As per section 230(1)(f) of the CPC, the Defence was entitled to "invite the court to dismiss the case on the ground that there is no case to answer, and per s 230(1)(j) of the CPC, the Accused would only be called upon to give his defence if “there was some evidence which was not inherently incredible and which satisfied each and every element of the charge as framed by the prosecutor or as altered or framed by the court”.

213 As summarised by the High Court in PP v Wong Wee Keong, the following guiding propositions should be considered in deciding whether to call on the Accused to enter his defence:

(a) All evidence of primary fact should be accepted as being true, unless it was so inherently incredible that no reasonable person would be able to accept it as being true or if it has been discredited or shown to be wholly unreliable. This could happen, for example, during the course of cross-examination.

(b) Inference may be drawn, but only if they were reasonable — it was not enough that the inference may be credible or not inherently incredible. In this regard, there was a different standard which applied to primary facts and inferences in so far as the former should be accepted as true unless it was inherently incredible whereas inferences could only be accepted if they could reasonably be drawn. It was not necessary that the inference be irresistible or that it must be the only possible inference that could be drawn from the facts.

(c) The totality of the evidence must be considered when determining whether evidence was so inherently incredible that it could be accepted or if the inferences sought to be drawn were reasonable enough to pass muster. The court could not only look to those parts of the evidence which were favourable to the Prosecution's case and ignore those which were detrimental: ie, it could not pick out only the plums and leave the duff behind.

214 However, while only a minimum evaluation of the evidence as a whole was required at the close of the Prosecution's case, this did not mean that no evaluation was required. As explained by the High Court in PP v IC Automation (S) Pte Ltd [at 17-18], if there were parts of the evidence which go towards supporting the charge, that in itself does not assure that there is a case to answer and the totality of the Prosecution's evidence must be considered.^{[note: 822]}If the evidence of the witness upon which the prosecution depended on was self-contradictory and out of all common sense or reason, the court was entitled to reach the conclusion that, there was no evidence to support an essential ingredient in the charge.Alternatively, the evidence might be so inherently weak that it was inherently incredible or manifestly unreliable.

c. Primary facts and outline of the Prosecution’s case

215 For the cheating charges, the Defence was of the view that the Prosecution had to prove the following: (i) that the Accused deceived each of the cheated customers into believing that the delivery of monies for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL; (ii) that the Accused intended to retain the monies for his personal use; and (iii) in so doing, the Accused had dishonestly induced the customers to deliver the sum of money to him.

216 For the CBT Charge, the Prosecution had to prove that (i) the Accused was entrusted with a total of $32,833 in cash from PW2 and PW4 and (ii) the Accused had dishonestly misappropriated the $32,833 in cash.

217 To prove the elements of the cheating charges and the CBT charge, the Prosecution had relied on two main categories of evidence in the course of trial:

(a) Documentary evidence: invoices and sales agreements received by the cheated customers, and RAPL's records such as its sales balance sheets^{[note: 823]}and bank account statement from OCBC^{[note: 824]}.

(b) Oral evidence: testimony from the cheated customers that they paid the Accused cash or cheque deposits and received invoices and sales agreements in return; and testimony from PW20 that he did not receive the customers' money and that RAPL had no record of these transactions based on its records, and that the cheated customers' invoices and sales agreements were "fake" because of certain irregularities.

218 According to PW20, the irregularities that proved that the invoices and sales agreements were "fake" were:

(a) PW20’s missing signature and RAPL's chop on the invoices;

(b) There were 8 duplicated serial numbers - in that different invoices for different customers had the same serial number;

(c) Consolidated payments in the invoices was against PW20’s practice;

(d) There were no record of certain customers in his sales balance sheets; and

(e) There was no trace of the customers' monies deposited into RAPL's OCBC bank account.

219 The Defence emphasized that PW20 was the one who told the Cheated Customers that the Accused had disappeared with their money, and that there was no record of their payments in RAPL's records^{[note: 825]}.

220 None of the cheated customers had any first-hand knowledge of the Accused's alleged deception. PW20 was the sole Prosecution witness who was able to testify directly about the cheating charges and the Prosecution's case against the Accused turned on PW20's testimony.

221 According to PW20:

(a) When PW20 was in Kuala Lumpur over the weekend from around 5 to 6 November 2016, the Accused had called him to tell him that customers were pestering him to deliver their cars early, and they were threatening to make a police report. PW20 then told the Accused to tell them that he would arrange to meet them when he returned to Singapore^{[note: 826]}.

(b) When PW20 arrived back in Singapore on 7 November 2016, he met the customers to attend to their concerns, and that was when he found out that they had been cheated^{[note: 827]}. When PW20 cross-referenced their invoices against his records, like the sales balance sheets and RAPL's bank records, he realised that the invoice numbers were duplicated and that they were fake invoices^{[note: 828]}.

222 As such, the two main categories of evidence of primary facts were: (i) RAPL's records, such as the invoices, sales balance sheets, and bank account statements; and (ii) PW20's oral testimony about these records. In assessing whether the state of the Prosecution's evidence crossed the threshold of being "not inherently incredible" as required in section 230(1)(j) of the CPC, regard must thus be had to these two categories.

d. No case to answer for the cheating charges and the CBT charge

223 The Defence submitted that in applying the guiding principles in Wong Wee Keong's, there was no case to answer for the cheating charges and the CBT charge. The Prosecution's case was inherently incredible for the two reasons:

(a) First, all the evidence of primary facts adduced by the Prosecution — the invoices, sales balance sheets, and RAPL's bank records — completely failed to support the constituent elements of the Cheating Charges, in that they had been exposed by cross-examination as completely unreliable and inaccurate.

(b) Second, the evidence of PW20 on whom the Prosecution's case hinged, was exposed by cross-examination to be inherently incredible and completely unbelievable. Worse still, he had demonstrated that he had lied on oath, in that his testimony about RAPL's supposed "petty cash" practice was contradicted by PW22.

224 Since the Prosecution's case was completely dependent on PW20's evidence regarding RAPL's records, there was no case to answer once PW20's evidence was completely undermined. In the words of IC Automation, PW20’s evidence was so self-contradictory and out of all common sense and reason that the only conclusion was that there was no evidence to support the key element of the cheating charges that the cheated customers had been deceived by the Accused. Similarly, there was no evidence to support the key element of the CBT charge that the Accused had dishonestly misappropriated any sum of money.

i. Evidence underlying primary facts were utterly discredited

225 The Defence submitted that at the outset, based on PW20’s own standard operating procedure, if a customer had an invoice, this meant that RAPL had received the amount stated in it^{[note: 829]}. This was because RAPL's invoices functioned more like receipts, in the sense that they recorded the amount a customer had paid and was proof that the money had been received by RAPL^{[note: 830]}.Furthermore, only PW20's immediate family members like PW22 and his wife Ria could print out invoices^{[note: 831]}.

226 There was thus a presumption that when an invoice was been issued, the amount stated on it had been received by RAPL. Indeed, when PW20 was asked about a so-called 'fake" invoice issued to PW6 (page three of Exhibit P6), PW20 conceded that since this invoice could only be printed out by PW22 or Ria, the amount stated on this 'fake" invoice had to be handed over to someone in RAPL^{[note: 832]}.

227 To rebut this presumption, PW20 testified that the invoices received by the cheated customers were "fake": he had checked the "fake" invoices' serial numbers against his invoice database and discovered that there were numerous duplicate serial numbers (like RA-PO 0170 and RA-PO 0109)^{[note: 833]}, and he double checked this against his sales balance sheets and RAPL’s bank account statements. It was only after this cross-referencing and crosschecking was performed that he realised that these invoices were “fake”^{[note: 834]}, in the sense that the amounts stated on them had not been handed over to RAPL or deposited into RAPL's OCBC bank account.

228 In other words, PW20's evidence was that he discovered that the Accused had cheated the customers by checking against the three categories of RAPL records mentioned above: the invoices, sales balance sheets, and bank account statements. PW20 had relied on these RAPL records to support his allegation of cheating against the Accused.

229 However, it was demonstrated during the course of cross-examination that not all of these documents could be relied on. As PW20 was eventually forced to concede, everything that he had shown in court was "completely inaccurate"^{[note: 835]}. As such, all evidence of primary facts underlying the cheating charges and CBT charge were completely unreliable and inaccurate, and could not prove even on a prima facie basis that the Accused had deceived the customers.

A. RAPL invoices were utterly unreliable

230 First and foremost, the invoices of the cheated customers could not prove that the Accused had deceived them, because there was no consistent way of telling whether an invoice was genuine or not.

231 To recap, PW20 had testified that the cheated customers had "fake invoices" because of the following breaches of RAPL's standard operating procedures and practices: these invoices did not have PW20’s and the RAPL chop; they consolidated different payments made on different dates on the same invoice; and they had duplicated serial numbers when each invoice was supposed to have a unique RA-PO number. However, each of these so-called standard operating procedures and practices were exposed to be non-existent because cross-examination revealed that PW20 did whatever he felt like doing.

232 For example, PW20 initially testified at the start of his evidence-in-chief ("EIC") that an invoice was genuine only if it had both RAPL's chop and his own signature on it^{[note: 836]}. Hence, he identified certain invoices issued to the cheated customers as 'fake" because they not have both RAPL's chop and his own signature. However, PW20 ended up contradicting himself when he identified invoices lacking either his signature or RAPL's chop or both as genuine invoices.

233 During EIC, PW20 was shown PW6’s invoice number RA-PO 0109^{[note: 837]},an invoice with RAPL's chop but without his signature. Syed testified that that this was a fake invoice because it lacked his signature^{[note: 838]}.However, during EIC, when PW20 was shown PW5’s invoice number RA-PO 0162, an invoice also with RAPL's chop and without his signature, PW20 said that it was a genuine invoice on the basis that it came with a deposit slip^{[note: 839]}.However, it should be pointed out that a deposit slip was not determinative, because PW20 was unable to explain why PW12's invoice number RA-PO 0161^{[note: 840]}for a $20,000 cash deposit came with a deposit slip for a $30,000 cash deposit. Eventually, PW20 was forced to concede that there was no way of keeping track of money deposited with RAPL^{[note: 841]}.

234 Indeed, when shown PW14's invoice number RA-PO 0192 during cross-examination, an invoice without both RAPL's chop and PW20's signature and lacking a deposit slip^{[note: 842]}, PW20 claimed that it was a genuine invoice because it was stated in his "database"^{[note: 843]}.Indeed, PW20 conceded that his "database"^{[note: 844]} was his main method of verifying whether an invoice is genuine or not, and not his signature^{[note: 845]}.

235 Finally, when shown PW3's invoice number RA-PO 0145^{[note: 846]}, an invoice with both RAPL's chop and PW20's signature, Syed still had to double-check the invoice number^{[note: 847]}, and he conceded that even if an invoice had his signature and RAPL's chop, it could be a fake invoice^{[note: 848]}. PW20 also had to do the same for PW9's invoice number RA-PO 0148^{[note: 849]} even though this invoice had his signature and RAPL's chop on it^{[note: 850]}.

236 Similarly, PW20 initially testified in EIC that that invoices could not consolidate payments, in that if there were two different payments on two different dates, there should be two different invoices^{[note: 851]}.However, when he was shown PW9's invoice number RA-PO 0148 in a later part of his ElC^{[note: 852]},which consolidated three different payments on three different dates, PW20 confirmed that this invoice was genuine^{[note: 853]}.If this internal inconsistency was not enough, in cross-examination PW20 went back to his initial position that payments were not supposed to be consolidated into one invoice^{[note: 854]}.

237 Finally, PW20 had initially testified that the invoices were "fake" was because of their duplicated serial numbers, i.e. multiple customers had invoices with the same RA-PO number like 0109 and 0170^{[note: 855]}. According to PW20, the invoice's RA-PO number was supposed to be unique — the same number could not be reused on two different invoices, and this was even if the invoice was issued to the same customer^{[note: 856]}.However, PW20 ended up conceding that invoices with duplicated numbers were not necessarily fake^{[note: 857]}.

238 Indeed, when PW20 was brought through a series of invoices that had the same RA-PO number despite either belonging to different customers or were issued to the same customer on different days, his evidence was that these were real invoices. For example:

(a) Dr Kereta Pte Ltd^{[note: 858]}and Harvey Leah Jing^{[note: 859]}, who were issued their invoices on different dates, were assigned the same serial number RA-PO 0150, and yet according to Syed these were real invoices^{[note: 860]}.

(b) PW8 was issued two different invoices, which had the same serial number RA-PO 0131, and again PW20's evidence was that this was a genuine invoice^{[note: 861]}.

(c) Mohammed Hadi, Tek Wei Credit Pte Ltd, Sin Thai Hin Motor & Credit Pte Ltd were issued the same serial number RA-PO 0152, but PW20 testified that they were genuine invoices^{[note: 862]}.

239 In fact, PW20 did not even use invoices consistently. As pointed out above, PW20 conceded in cross-examination that RAPL's invoices functioned more like receipts rather than actual invoices, because they: (i) were issued after a customer's payment; (ii) recorded the amount paid to RAPL; and (iii) provided proof that the customer's money was received by RAPL^{[note: 863]}. PW22, who was the finance manager of RAPL^{[note: 864]}, and one of the individuals in charge of issuing invoices^{[note: 865]},also agreed with this characterisation. However, PW20 subsequently changed his evidence to say that when it came to financing, the invoices were actually invoices, which told the customer how much he had to pay rather than record the payment^{[note: 866]}.

240 The Defence therefore submitted that it was clear that RAPL's invoices were wholly unreliable, and the supposed irregularities in them could even prove on a prima facie basis that there was any deception of the cheated customers by the Accused. Invoices with duplicated numbers could be genuine, or they could be fake; similarly, invoices with PW20's signature and RAPL's chop could be genuine, or they could also be fake. There was simply no way of telling which invoice was genuine and which was not.

B. RAPL sales balance sheets were completely unreliable

241 The Defence also submitted that the sales balance sheets were also completely unreliable. According to PW20, the sales balance sheets were used to generate the RA-PO numbers, and this allowed PW20 to keep track of the invoice numbers and ensure that they were not duplicated^{[note: 867]}. PW20 testified that by cross-referencing the "fake" invoices to these sales balance sheets, he was able to discover the Accused's deception of the cheated customers^{[note: 868]}.PW20 also testified that PW13 and PW7 were not genuine customers of RAPL simply because their names were not recorded in the sales balance sheets^{[note: 869]}.

242 The Defence was of the view that just like the invoices, RAPL's sales balance sheets had proved to be utterly unreliable and incapable of providing any proper record of customer monies received. For example, according to RAPL's sales balance sheet for April 2016 (P51), PW5 made a $1,000 and $19,000 cash deposit on 17 April 2016 and 17 July 2016 respectively, and yet P51 only recorded one invoice issued — RA-PO 0162^{[note: 870]}. This invoice, which was exhibited as P62, only recorded the $19,000 deposit on 17 July 2016, which meant that the invoice for the $1,000 deposit on 17 April 2016 either was not recorded down or did not exist^{[note: 871]}.The fact that PW20 was asked to produce it previously but failed to do so strongly suggested that it was the latter^{[note: 872]}. In any case, the sales balance sheets in themselves could not prove that customer monies were received by RAPL^{[note: 873]}.

243 Apart from this, there were other examples of the sales balance sheets failing to record invoices provided to customers. For example, the Defence had pointed out to PW20 that in his sales balance sheet for February 2016^{[note: 874]}, there was no record of an invoice being issued to one Kalyanasundram s/o Kandasamy for a $1,000 transfer on 15 January 2016, leading PW20 to concede that even when money was deposited with RAPL, no invoices were issued^{[note: 875]}. PW20's excuse that the sales balance sheets were only accurate after April 2016 when PW22 came into the picture was debunked, when his sales balance sheet for May 2016 was also demonstrated to lack a record of an invoice for Soon Khai Se (Daniel)'s balance payment of $44,788^{[note: 876]}.

244 In fact, after a series of examples were shown to PW20^{[note: 877]},he was ultimately forced to concede his sales balance sheets were not always accurate^{[note: 878]}.When PW20 was asked if his sales balance sheet for April 2016 was inaccurate, PW20's unequivocal answer was^{[note: 879]} "yes".In a similar vein, PW22 had also conceded that the sales balance sheets could not really be used to keep track of all the RA-PO numbers^{[note: 880]},and that the sales balance sheets were incomplete^{[note: 881]}.

245 Indeed, the sales balance sheets did not even accurately record who RAPL's customers were. In the sales balance sheet for May 2016 (Exhibit P52) a company called Pacific Cool Aircon Services Pte was issued two invoices, RA-PO 0117 and RA-PO 0194^{[note: 882]}, but when this was cross-referenced with other records, RA-PO 0117 was actually issued to one Lee Kok How while RA-PO 0194 was issued to Pacific Cool Air-Con Services Private Limited^{[note: 883]}. Similarly, a customer named Wong Yen Loo was assigned RA-PO 0125 and RA-PO 0193 according to the May 2016 sales balance sheet^{[note: 884]},but the actual invoice was issued to one Eugene Ho Jin Wei^{[note: 885]}. Finally, PW20 claimed that one Seat Han Chong was a customer of RAPL's even though there is no record of him in the sales balance sheets^{[note: 886]}.

246 As such, it was also clear that the sales balance sheets were as unreliable and inaccurate as the invoices. From missing invoices numbers, wrong customer names and even missing customer names, there was no way of keeping track of customer monies received by RAPL.

C. Bank statement showed that customer monies were unaccounted for

247 As the invoices and sales balance sheets had failed to provide any record of how much RAPL had received from its customers, the only way to account for customer monies was to refer to RAPL's bank statements in exhibit P46. Indeed, this was the position that PW20 was forced to take after he had to admit that the invoices and sales balance sheets were unreliable and inaccurate^{[note: 887]}.However, even these bank statements proved to be manifestly inadequate when cross-examination exposed that RAPL had unaccounted customer monies unaccounted.

248 According to PW20, invoices were given to customers after monies were banked into RAPL's account^{[note: 888]}. For cash payments, the invoice was provided to the customer after cash was deposited into RAPL's account, and for cheque payments, the invoice would be provided after the cheque cleared^{[note: 889]}. Hence, for cash deposits, the date of the invoice would correspond with the date that the cash was deposited in RAPL's bank account^{[note: 890]}, and for cheque deposits, the date when the cheque cleared^{[note: 891]}.

249 However, cross-examination revealed that this practice was not consistently carried out. This meant that customer monies went unaccounted for, without any way of tracing its final destination. For example:

(a) PW3's invoice number RA-PO 0145 dated 2 June 2016 was for a $20,000 deposit paid by cheque number 135530 (P66)^{[note: 892]}. However, when this was crosschecked against RAPL's bank account statement for June 2016, there was no trace of this cheque number 135530 clearing on 2 June 2016^{[note: 893]}.PW20 was ultimately unable to show that cheque number 135530 was deposited with RAPL's bank account at all^{[note: 894]}.

(b) PW9 had two invoices issued to him^{[note: 895]},both of which indicated that he made three cash deposits on three different dates: $11,000 on 19 June 2016; $9,000 on 21 June 2016; and $10,000 on 14 July 2016. However, when these were crosschecked against RAPL's bank statements for June and July 2016, there was no trace of $9,000 in cash being deposited in the month of June 2016, let alone 21 June 2016^{[note: 896]},nor was there any sign of the $10,000 in cash being deposited in July 2016^{[note: 897]}.

(c) Seat Han Chong, the alleged customer missing from the sales balance sheets, was issued invoice number RA-PO 0109 dated 29 April 2016 for a cheque payment of $26,000^{[note: 898]}. However, when this was crosschecked against RAPL's bank statement for April and May 2016, not only did the bank statements show that this sum was withdrawn rather than deposited, but that the cheque had repeatedly bounced^{[note: 899]}.

250 Furthermore, PW20 was forced to concede that $10,000 of customer monies were unaccounted for in July 2016, after all of RAPL's invoices for July 2016 were cross-referenced against RAPL's bank statement for July 2016^{[note: 900]}.PW20's explanation for this was that some of it went into petty cash, but this was eventually exposed as a lie by PW22 who testified that RAPL had no such practice^{[note: 901]}.In other words, even when we examined the bank statements of RAPL, there was no way of telling whether customer monies were in fact received by RAPL.

251 To conclude, the Defence submitted that the Prosecution's evidence of primary facts for the cheating charges and CBT charge was so inherently weak and manifestly unreliable to cross even a prima facie threshold. There was no way of identifying whether an invoice is genuine or not,there was no way of identifying which invoices were issued to which customers and whether customers existed or not, and there was no way of accounting for and tracing customer monies received by RAPL. It was thus unsurprising that when it was suggested to PW20 that everything he had shown in court was “completely inaccurate”, the only answer that the Accused could provide was, "l would say yes"^{[note: 902]}.

ii. Evidence of key prosecution witness completely undermined

252 The Defence also submitted that the manifest inadequacies in the Prosecution's case did not just stop there. Apart from the gaping holes in the Prosecution's evidence of primary facts, the evidence of PW20, the witness upon whom the entirety of the Prosecution's case depended on, was proven to be self-contradictory and out of all common sense and reason. PW20 was completely discredited in the course of cross-examination, and his testimony should be given zero weight. This could be seen from four specific examples:

253 First, PW20 was exposed to have lied on oath about the existence of a so-called “petty cash” system. When PW20 was asked to explain why $10,000 in customer monies was unaccounted for in the month of July 2016^{[note: 903]},PW20 claimed that this amount could have been used as “petty cash”^{[note: 904]}.According to PW20, when a customer paid a cash deposit to RAPL's accounts, sometimes a part of that money was used as petty cash^{[note: 905]}. When pressed by the Court to elaborate on how this system was supposed to work, PW20 was unable to give a clear response, and was only able to say that his sister PW22 was the one who handled the petty cash by maintaining a ledger^{[note: 906]}.However, when PW22 was asked if RAPL had such a petty cash system, she emphatically denied it^{[note: 907]}.

254 As such, the Defence was of the view that PW20's story about a "petty cash" system was nothing more than a barefaced lie. There never was a system of using customers' cash deposits as petty cash for RAPL, quite apart from the fact that it was simply incredible that PW20 would use customers' cash deposits for such a purpose without telling them^{[note: 908]}. If he had actually done so, an offence of criminal breach of trust could conceivably have been made out against him^{[note: 909]}.

255 Second, PW20 was contradicted by PW22 on numerous occasions. For example, PW20 had testified that only PW22 and Ria could print out the invoices (after having shifted his position that only PW22 could print out the invoices^{[note: 910]}. However, according to PW22, both she and PW20 could print out invoices, and PW20 had his own computer to do so^{[note: 911]}. Similarly, PW20 had claimed that PW22 maintained a ledger for RAPL's petty cash that was drawn from customers' cash deposits, but PW22 said that there was no such practice.

256 The Defence also pointed out another series of contradictions: whenever PW20 was confronted with a piece of evidence that he was unable to give an explanation for, his excuse was that PW22 would be able to give an explanation. However, when PW22 was questioned on these very same pieces of evidence, she turned out to be equally unable to give an explanation and said that PW20 would be able to give an explanation. For example:

(a) PW20 was unable to explain why there was no record of an invoice issued to PW5 for his payment of $1,000 in the April 2016 Sales Balance Sheet (page 2 of P51)^{[note: 912]}.In PW20's words, "it would be better to check with Sharifah" as she was the one who created the document^{[note: 913]}. However, when confronted with this, PW22 could not explain either and said that PW20 was the only one could explain^{[note: 914]}.

(b) PW20 was unable to explain why there were two invoices with the same serial number (RA-PO 0131) for PW8 Nur Amirah in exhibits P45 and D2, and he said that the best person to ask was PW22^{[note: 915]}.However, PW22 was also unable to give an explanation and said that PW20 was the only person who could explain these duplicated invoices^{[note: 916]}.

257 Third, PW20 made damaging concessions that disproved the charges. He agreed that the only way that the Accused could have passed Sales Agreement no. RA 1191 (P7, a "fake" sales agreement) to PW7 was if either he or one of his family members (PW22, Ria, or PW21) had printed it out for him^{[note: 917]}. It followed from this concession that the sum of money recorded in P7 must have been passed on to someone in RAPL by the Accused, which meant that there was no deception at all, and the charges relating to PW7 could not be made out. While PW20 subsequently denied a similar line of questioning in respect of the other cheated customers, the Defence submitted that this admission was a clear Freudian slip. The truth of the matter was that amount of money recorded in the various "fake" sales agreement was in fact passed on to RAPL.

258 Similarly, PW20 agreed that since only PW22 or Ria could print out invoices, invoice no. RA-PO 0109 issued to PW6 (page 3 of Exhibit P6, a "fake" invoice) had to have been printed out by one of them, so the amount stated on page 3 of P6 had to be handed over to someone in RAPL^{[note: 918]}. The Defence submitted that this must mean that the Accused did not deceive PW6 at all, and the 17^th charge could not be made out. While PW20 subsequently denied a similar line of questioning in respect of the other cheated customers, the Defence was of the view that that too was a clear Freudian slip and the invoices were issued to the cheated customers because their monies were received by RAPL.

259 Fourth, PW20 gave incredible explanations that made no sense at all, when he was confronted with a piece of evidence that completely undermined his testimony. This had to do with invoice number RA-PO 0109 (P79) issued to Seat Han Chong, the customer that was missing from any sales balance sheet.

260 P79 was an invoice for a cheque number 00085 for $26,000. According to PW20's process of issuing invoices, that sum should have been deposited in RAPL's account on 29 April 2016 for the invoice to be issued^{[note: 919]}. However, RAPL's bank records in P46 not only showed that that cheque number 00085 was issued out instead of being deposited; it also showed that the cheque subsequently bounced on 3 May 2016^{[note: 920]}.When asked point blank whether money was deposited or withdrawn, all PW20 could say was, "no, I don’t really understand this thing" and "supposed to be under deposit, why it's underwithdrawal”^{[note: 921]},even though the system of issuing invoices was designed by him^{[note: 922]}.

261 In fact, when it was suggested to PW20 that P79 recorded RAPL issuing out a cheque of $26,000 rather than Seat Han Chong's cheque for $26,000, PW20 refused to accept the explanation and claimed that he needed more documents to “help me recall”^{[note: 923]},even though it was clear from RAPL's bank records that no such sum was deposited. Indeed, when it was shown to PW20 that his own documents such as the Sales Balance Sheets had no record of Seat Han Chong as a customer of RAPL, Syed insisted in the face of all evidence to the contrary that he was a customer^{[note: 924]}. PW20 also gave an incoherent explanation that Seat Han Chong sold a used car to RAPL, which was why his name was not on the Sales Balance Sheet^{[note: 925]}.However, that still did not provide an explanation as to why P79 was issued in the first place when $26,000 was not deposited into RAPL's account.

262 The Defence submitted that as pointed out in IC Automation, the totality of the prosecution evidence must be considered, and this did not “entail picking out all the plums and leaving the duff behind”. PW20's evidence was self-contradictory and out of all common sense and reason. He was exposed as a liar and he was contradicted numerous times by his own sister PW22 regarding key prosecution exhibits. PW20 also made damaging concessions that conceded that certain charges could not be made out, and gave utterly incoherent explanations that ignored the reality of the situation. In applying IC Automation, the Defence had submitted that PW20’s credibility was so shaken that the Prosecution was left with nothing. PW20’s evidence was inherently incredible.

iii. No case to answer for the charges relating to PW13, PW6 and PW14 (2^nd, 3^rd, 16^th and 22^nd charge)

263 Finally, the Defence submitted that for four specific charges — the 2^nd charge & 3^rd charge, which concerned PW13; the 16^th charge, which concerned PW6; and the 22^nd Charge, which concerned PW14 (the attempted cheating charge) — even on the evidence adduced before the court, there was no evidence that the Accused had committed the offences alleged. The Defence was of the view that the elements of the offences charged were not disclosed based on the evidence of the relevant Prosecution witnesses.

264 For the 2^nd & 3^rd charges, the Accused was alleged to have cheated PW13 of a total of $31,924. However, as PW13 herself had testified, the Accused had voluntarily and fully refunded this sum to her, which proved that he had no dishonest intention at the relevant time. For the 16th charge (the attempted cheating charge), the Accused was alleged to have attempted to cheat PW6 of $29,444 on or about 27 October 2016. However, PW6 himself had testified that the Accused did not ask him for this sum of money at all.

265 Finally, the 22^nd charge alleged that the Accused had conspired with one Shan Tai Yee Shion ("Shan") to cheat PW14 of $29,444 on or about 29 October 2016. It was trite that a conspiracy charge required proof of an agreement between all the co-conspirators, but PW14 testified that he had handed the $29,444 to Shan, not the Accused, and Shan was not a Prosecution witness.

266 As such, the Defence had submitted that even on the Prosecution's own evidence, the 4 charges — the 2^nd, 3^rd, 16^th and 22^nd charges — could not be made out. The Defence thus submitted that they had no case to answer in this respect.

A. The Accused had fully refunded PW13 the $31,924 that she passed to him

267 The Defence noted that the 2^nd and 3^rd charges alleged that the Accused had dishonestly induced PW13 to deliver $20,000 to him on 18 July 2016 and $11,924 to him on 12 September 2016 respectively. According to the charges, the Accused deceived PW13 that her delivery of these sums of money would be handed over to RAPL when he had intended to retain these sums for his personal use.

268 However, as PW13 had testified during her EIC, while she did deliver a total of $31,924 to the Accused on both these occasions, the Accused later voluntarily refunded this sum because RAPL did not have any cars for her^{[note: 926]}. Indeed, the Accused had made good on his “promise to refund [her] deposit” on the very same day that he made the promise, on 27 October 2016 itself^{[note: 927]}.

269 The Defence submitted that a key element of a cheating charge under section 415 Penal Code was the dishonest inducement of a person to deliver property, and dishonesty was defined by section 24 PC as the doing of anything "with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person, or wrongful loss to another person". The fact that the Accused voluntarily offered to refund PW13's full deposit proved that his intentions were honest at the relevant time. Had he truly had intended to cause wrongful loss to PW13 or to wrongfully enrich himself at her expense, he would not have volunteered to refund the full sum to her. Indeed, one would have expected the Accused to delay the refund with excuses.

270 As such, the Defence submitted that the Accused had no case to answer for the 2^nd and 3^rd charges.

B. The Accused did not ask PW6 to give him $29,444

271 The 16thcharge alleged that “on or after 27 October 2016”, the Accused had attempted to cheat PW6 of $29,444, and in such attempt did an act towards the commission of this offence. However, based on PW6’s own testimony, no such act took place.

272 The Defence submitted that in PW6’s EIC, it was established that he had made two cash payments: $20,000 to PW21^{[note: 928]}and $49,444 to the Accused on 27 October 2016^{[note: 929]}.More importantly, PW6 testified that after these cash payments were made, there were no later requests for further payments to secure his car^{[note: 930]}. PW6 had confirmed during cross-examination that after the Accused had collected $49,444 from him on 27 October 2016, the Accused never asked him for further payments^{[note: 931]}. This meant that the Accused could not and did not do any act to attempt to cheat PW6, because the time period of the 16th Charge was” on or after 27 October 2016”, and PW6's evidence was that the Accused did not ask him for any further payments after 27 October 2016.

273 The Defence also submitted that it was unclear if PW6 was asked to make the balance payment of $29,444 (after subtracting $20,000 and $49,444 from $98,888), or whether this was something he deduced without being asked^{[note: 932]}.The identity of who had asked him to make this balance payment was also unclear^{[note: 933]}. What was clear was that even if there was a request for the payment of the balance of $29,444 to be made, it took place before 27 October 2016^{[note: 934]},which means that there is zero evidence for the 16^th Charge.

274 As such, the Defence was of the view that the Accused had no case to answer for the 16^th charge.

C. PW14 had handed his $29,444 cash payment to Shan

275 The 22^nd charge alleges that the Accused had engaged with a conspiracy with Shan to cheat PW14 to induce the delivery of the sum of $29,944 to Shan for their own personal use.

276 The Defence submitted that it was trite that abetment by conspiracy under section 107(b) Penal Code required proof of an agreement between parties. As explained by the learned authors of Yeo, Morgan and Chan's Criminal Law in Singapore and Malaysia ("YMC"), one would usually obtain proof of this agreement by way of circumstantial evidence because such agreements were usually in private, and one way of doing this was to show that the words and actions of the parties indicated that they had been acting in concert in pursuit of the common object or design.

277 The Defence submitted that for the present case, there was not even a single shred of circumstantial evidence to show the existence of such an agreement between Shan and the Accused. It was undisputed evidence that PW14 had handed over his $29,944 to Shan, not the Accused, and Shan was not a Prosecution witness. As explained by PW14 in his EIC, Shan was his main contact person at RAPL, given that Shan was the one who had asked PW14 to make the first payment^{[note: 935]}.More importantly, Shan was the one who had informed PW14 that he needed to make a further payment of $29,944 to "jump queue" and insisted that this payment be made in cash^{[note: 936]},and this sum of money was handed over to Shan, not the Accused^{[note: 937]}.The Accused's sole involvement was to help Shan count the money^{[note: 938]}, and Shan was the one who signed on the "fake" sales agreement form RA1191 (page 2 of P16) to acknowledge receipt of $29,944.

278 The Defence submitted that as pointed out by YMC, "the very nature of an agreement also meant that there must be two or more parties involved. A person could not conspire with oneself”.Without Shan as a Prosecution witness to testify as to any agreement, the evidence adduced pointed solely in the direction of Shan as being the one who had cheated PW14, not the Accused. The Defence submitted that there was no evidence even at a prima facie level to show that there was a conspiracy between the Accused and Chua. The actions of the Accused did not show that he was acting in concert with Shan as he did not even sign the acknowledgment of the monies received.

279 As such, the Defence was of the view that the Accused had no case to answer for the 22^nd charge.

e. Conclusion

280 The Defence submitted that it was well established that at the close of the Prosecution's case, only a minimum evaluation of the evidence was required. So long as the Prosecution's evidence on charges as framed was not inherently incredible, the Accused would be called upon to give his defence. However, the Defence was of the view that the Prosecution's evidence on the cheating charges and CBT charge was inherently incredible as not only their evidence of primary facts had been discredited and shown to be utterly unreliable, also the testimony of PW20 was shown to be self-contradictory and out of all common sense and reason. As a matter of law, it was impossible for a conviction to be sustained.

281 For all the above reasons, the Defence submitted that the Accused had no case to answer for all the charges, and the cases against the Accused should be dismissed without the Accused’s defence being called.

My decision on no case to answer

282 The standard of proof required at the close of the Prosecution’s case was set out in section 230(1)(j) of the CPC:

“if after considering the evidence.., the court is of the view that there is some evidence which is not inherently incredible and which satisfies each and every element of the charge as framed by the prosecutor or as altered or framed by the court, the court must call on the accused to give his defence”

283 And as rightfully pointed by the Prosecution^{[note: 939]}, section 230(1)(j) codified the approach set out by the Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor [1981-1982] SLR(R) 133 where Lord Diplock had stated:

“… At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, what has to be decided remains a question of law only. As decider of law, the judge must consider whether there is some evidence (not inherently incredible) which, if he were to accept as accurate, would establish each and every essential element of the alleged offence. If such evidence as respects any of those essential element is lacking, then. And then only, is he justified in finding “that no case against the accused has been made which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction”… Where he has not found so, he must call upon the accused to enter his defence, and as decider of fact must keep an open mind as to the accuracy of any of the prosecution’s witness until the defence has tendered such evidence, if any, by the accused or other witnesses as it may want to call and counsel on both sides have addressed to the judge such arguments and comments on the evidence on the evidence as they may wish to advance”.

284 As such, all that the Prosecution needed to establish was that there was a prima facie case. So long as there were some evidence, not inherently incredible, to satisfy every ingredient of the offence, the standard of proof would be satisfied and the accused would be called upon to give his defence. At this stage, the Court must keep an open mind on the accuracy and veracity of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution.

285 I also agreed with the Prosecution that at this stage, the court must act on the following presumptions:

(a) That all such evidence of primary facts is true, unless it is inherently so incredible that no reasonable person would accept it as being true; and

(b) That there will be nothing to displace those inferences as to further facts or state of mind of the accused which would reasonably be drawn from the primary facts in the absence of further explanation.

286 In the present case, the Accused faced a total of 22 charges: 19 cheating charges under section 420 of the Penal Code, 1 charge of CBT under section 408 of the Penal Code, 1 charge of attempted cheating under section 420 read with section 511 of the Penal Code and 1 charge of conspiracy to cheat under section 420 read with section 109 of the Penal Code.

287 The elements of a charge under section 420 of the Penal Code were as follows:

(a) The victim must be deceived;

(b) The accused had induced the victim to deliver property to him; and

(c) The accused had acted with dishonest intention.

288 As for the conspiracy to cheat charge, I agreed with the Prosecution that the essential elements of abetment by conspiracy included the following:

(a) First, there must be more than one person involved in order for there to be any abetment by conspiracy;

(b) Second, the conspiracy must be to do the thing abetted; and

(c) Third, an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy in order to the doing of that thing.

289 I also accept that the law of conspiracy did not require the Accused to be aware of every aspect of the conspiracy and all that was required was the knowledge of the general purpose of the plot. However, what was required was that there was a “meeting of minds” of the conspirators. It was also clear from the case law that the “meeting of minds” did not require any expressed or explicitly conveyed intention and there was no requirement of any physical meetings of persons involved. And conspiracy could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties both before and after the offence.

290 As for the section 408 offence, the elements of a section 408 charge would include:

(a) The Accused was employed as a servant/employee;

(b) The Accused was entrusted with property in his capacity as servant/employee; and

(c) The Accused had dishonestly misappropriated the property.

291 Having considered the evidence from the Prosecution’s witnesses, I noted the following:

(a) The Accused was at the material time employed by RAPL was a salesman.

(b) There were a total of 14 victims who had given evidence in Court.

(c) All the witnesses who were victims except PW14 had testified that the Accused was the salesman in charge of their case when they wanted to purchase cars from RAPL.

(d) All the witnesses had made payment in cash to the Accused after the Accused had requested payments from them pursuant to their sales agreement with RAPL albeit for different reasons.

(e) PW20 had testified on behalf of RAPL that Accused did not hand over the monies collected to RAPL. PW20 had also gone through RAPL’s records, which included their Sales Balance Sheet spreadsheet system, RAPL’s invoicing drop-box system and RAPL’s bank records and found that RAPL had no records of the payments, which were paid by the victims to the Accused.

(f) PW20 also gave evidence that all sales agreements and invoices issued by RAPL should have their own unique identification numbers and the numbers should not be duplicated.

(g) PW20 also noted that the Accused had issued invoices with duplicate numbers to the victims.

(h) RAPL required all invoices issued to be signed by PW20 and to have their company stamp endorsed on the invoices. A number of the invoices issued by the Accused to the victims did not include PW20’s signature and/or RAPL’s company stamp.

(i) When PW20 went through RAPL’s records, he also found that some of the sales, which were conducted by the Accused, were undeclared sales and the Accused did not declare the sales to RAPL and RAPL did not have records of payments made by the victims under such sales.

(j) RAPL’s practice required all sales agreements to be endorsed by PW20 and to have sales agreement numbers. A number of the sales agreement were not endorsed by PW20 and one of the sales agreement belonging to PW15 was not assigned any sales agreement number.

(k) A number of the victims were also not issued invoices after they had made payment to the Accused.

(l) The Accused had also spoken to PW20 and admitted that he had taken moneys from 10 of the victims for his own use. The Accused had also told PW20 that the total amount that he had taken was “plus minus 300” thousand.^{[note: 940]}.

(m) The Prosecution had also tendered Exhibit P27, which contained text messages between the Accused and Shan which were extracted from the Accused’s hand-phone and the Accused had informed Shan that he had taken “300-400” thousand from RAPL^{[note: 941]}.

(n) The Accused, in his statement to PW16 on 14 November 2016, had also admitted to taking $20,000 plus from at least six victims who were customers of RAPL. The Accused had also informed PW16 that he had “directed a customer to transfer his balance payment amounting to about $30,000 to $40,000 to my UOB Savings Account with the intention to misappropriate it”^{[note: 942]}.

(o) With regard to DAC 912661-2016, the Accused had informed PW10 that his car was ready and he had given a chassis number to PW10 when PW10 asked him for the chassis number to purchase insurance for the car. PW10 had given evidence in Court that he would not have proceeded to purchase the car insurance if the Accused had not given him the chassis number of the car.

(p) For PW4 and PW13, they had made payments into the Accused’s personal UOB account upon the Accused’s instruction. This was contrary to PW20’s testimony that the Accused was not authorised to receive customer’s payments into his own bank account.

(q) The Accused had specifically requested for cash payments from the victims even though RAPL allowed their customers to make payment by other modes of payments such as cheques or bank transfers.

(r) As for DAC 912662-2017 (the attempted cheating charge), PW6 had testified in Court that when the Accused told him that his car was ready and gave him the chassis number of the car and asked for the balance payment, his understanding from the Accused was that the whole of the balance payment was due and he was supposed to pay the Accused the full balance of price of the car. PW6’s understanding was that he needed to pay the Accused another $29,444 plus $49,444^{[note: 943]}.

(s) As for DAC 912688-2017 (the conspiracy to cheat charge), PW14 had given evidence that he had decided to pay the $29,944 cash to Shan in order to jump the queue and get his car earlier. When PW14 gave Shan the $29,944 cash in RAPL’s office, the Accused was also present and he counted the money with Shan. When PW14 handed the money to the two of them, he had asked for the details of his car and the Accused had provided him with the chassis number and had written the details on PW14’s Sales Agreement (P16). PW14 had also tendered transcripts of his text messages with Shan, whereby Shan had informed PW14 that the Accused was in charge of assigning cars to customers and the Accused would be the person who would confirm which car was going to be allocated to PW16^{[note: 944]}. PW14 had also tendered transcripts of a 3-way chat between himself, Shan and the Accused whereby the Accused had assured PW14 that his car was almost ready for delivery after PW14 had paid Shan and the Accused the $29,944^{[note: 945]}. In addition, the Prosecution had tendered Exhibit P27 which contained text messages between the Accused and Shan which were extracted from the Accused’s hand-phone where the Accused had told Shan that he would take the fall for their wrongdoings as “1 people die better than 2”^{[note: 946]}. Given all these, I would agree with the Prosecution that all these evidence would suggest and lead to an inference that the Accused was involved in the conspiracy with Shan to cheat PW14 of the $29,944.

292 In the circumstances, I agreed with the Prosecution that there was some evidence that was not inherently incredible that made out each element of all the 22 charges and I proceeded to call on the Accused to enter his defence.

293 After I had called on the Accused to enter his defence, I was informed by the Defence that Accused had elected not to give evidence in his own defence.

The Prosecution’s case

a. Overview

294 The Accused was employed by RAPL as a salesman. RAPL was a parallel importer of cars. Using his position as a salesman of RAPL, the Accused duped multiple customers of RAPL into handing over large sums of cash, in the belief that they were paying RAPL for their car purchases. Instead, the Accused applied the monies towards his own personal use.

295 At the end of the Prosecution’s case, the Accused was called on to give his defence. The Accused elected not to give any evidence.

b. Undisputed facts

296 The Prosecution submitted that it was not disputed that at the material time, the Accused was employed by RAPL as a salesman, and that his responsibilities included collecting payments in cash or cheques from customers of RAPL^{[note: 947]}. The Accused was to hand over the payments to the director of RAPL, PW20 or the finance manager, PW22.

297 The following customers of RAPL had all given unchallenged testimony that they dealt with the Accused, and had made payments in cash to the Accused due to his representations to them relating to the purchase of their cars:

S/No.	Witness	Date	Amount paid	Reason for payment	Charge
1	PW2	4 October 2016[note: 948]	$33,444	Accused told PW2 that she had to pay 50% down-payment for the car she ordered.	DAC 941236-2016
2	PW2	20 October 2016	$43,444	Accused told PW2 that she had to pay the 50% balance for the car she ordered	DAC 912666-2017
3	PW4	7 September 2016[note: 949]	$9,389	PW4 decided to reduce the amount of the car loan he was applying for and was told by accused to top-up the difference.	DAC 941236-2016
4	PW4	15 September 2016[note: 950]	$17,555	Accused told PW4 that the car he ordered had been delivered to Singapore and asked for payment.	DAC 912655-2017
5	PW4	27 October 2016[note: 951]	$43,944	Accused told PW4 that he would get a discount if PW4 paid the balance sum instead of taking a car loan and requested that PW4 transfer the monies to his personal bank account.	DAC 912656-2017
6	PW3	September 2016[note: 952]	$7.567	Accused told PW3 that the car he ordered was ready.	DAC 912658-2017
7	PW5	July 2016	$40,000	Accused asked PW5 to pay $5,000 and $35,000[note: 953] in order to get the car that PW5 had ordered.	DAC 912654-2017
8	PW6	27 October 2016[note: 954]	$49.444	After PW6 told the Accused that he did not want to take up a car loan, the Accused told PW6 that the car he ordered was ready for collection and asked PW6 to pay the sum that was to be covered by the loan. PW6 suggested paying by cheque but the Accused insisted on cash payment.	DAC 912663-2017
9	PW6	Sometime after 27 October 2016	$29,444	The Accused asked PW6 to pay the balance purchase price for the car that PW6 had ordered, but PW6 did not make the payment as he had not received the car.	DAC 912662-2017
10	PW7	7 August 2016[note: 955]	$20,000	PW7 signed a sales agreement with the accused and paid the $20,000 deposit to the Accused.	DAC 912650-2017
11	PW7	4 September 2016[note: 956]	$4,211	Accused told PW7 that his car loan application was rejected and that he had to top-up $4,211.	DAC 912651-2017
12	PW7	11 September 2016[note: 957]	$9.677	The Accused told PW7 that the car he ordered was to be delivered and asked for payment.	DAC 912652-2017
13	PW8	6 August 2016[note: 958]	$2,468	Accused asked for balance payment for the car that PW8 ordered, and PW8’s father, PW18, paid the accused in cash.	DAC 912657-2017
14	PW9	September 2016[note: 959]	$9,400	Accused told PW9 that he could expedite delivery of the car PW9 ordered if PW9 paid this sum to him.	DAC 912659-2017
15	PW10	23 August 2016[note: 960]	$47,944	Accused told PW10 that he had to make the balance payment in order to collect the car that he had ordered.	DAC 912660-2017
16	PW10	29 October 2016[note: 961]	$982.03	Accused gave a chassis number to PW10, causing PW10 to believe that the car he ordered was about to be delivered, and inducing PW10 to purchase insurance for the car using the chassis number.	DAC 912661-207
17	PW11	14/16 August 2016[note: 962]	$30,000	Accused told PW11 to pay this sum after PW11 informed him that he no longer wanted to take a car loan.	DAC 912664-2017
18	PW11	8 October 2016[note: 963]	$50,000	Accused told PW11 that the car he ordered had arrived and asked PW11 to make the balance payment.	DAC 912665-2017
19	PW12	20 September 2016	$5,321	Accused told PW12 to pay this sum to him after PW12 decided to reduce the amount of his car loan.	DAC 912667-2017
20	PW13	19 July 2016[note: 964]	$20,000	Accused told PW13 to pay the deposit for the car she ordered.	DAC 912648-2017
21	PW13	19 September 2016[note: 965]	$11,924	Accused told PW13 that the car she ordered had arrived in Singapore and asked her to make balance payment by depositing the money into his personal bank account.	DAC 912649-2017
22	PW14	26 October 2016[note: 966]	$29,944	Shan told PW14 to make the payment in cash in order to expedite the delivery of the car he had ordered. When PW14 went to pay the money to Shan, the accused gave PW15 the chassis number for the car and helped Shan to count the money.	DAC 912668-2017
23	PW15	28 September 2016[note: 967]	$10,000	Accused asked PW15 to pay a deposit of $20,000 for the car he ordered. After negotiation, PW15 paid $10,000.	DAC 912653-2017

298 The Prosecution also pointed out that in a recorded conversation between PW20 and the Accused (P30), the Accused had:

(a) Admitted to taking more than $300,000 from RAPL’s customers^{[note: 968]}; and

(b) Admitted to using the monies for his own personal expenses and gambling at the casinos^{[note: 969]}.

299 The Accused had also admitted in P30 to having received money from the following customers, which he subsequently spent:

S/No.	Name in P30/P31	Amount taken	Corresponding to PW	Amount involved in total
1	Tan Chee Hong	$70,000	PW2 – Tan Chwee Hong[note: 970]	$66,888
2	James	$50,000 to $60,000	PW4 –Chong Yah Kok[note: 971]	$70,888
3	Yip Boon Yew	$49,000	PW6 – Yip Tong Yew[note: 972]	$49,444
4	Lim Huay Chuen	$80,000	PW11 – Lim Phuay Chuan[note: 973]	$80,000
5	William	$50,000	PW10 – Ku Chee Chiang William[note: 974]	$47,944
6	Kassim	$9,000	PW9 – Syed Kassim S/O Mohamed Jamaludeen[note: 975]	$9,400
7	Amirah	$2,000	PW8 – Nur Amirah Binte Muhayat[note: 976]	$2,468
8	Hishamuddin	$31,000	PW7 – Hisyamuddin Bin Senan[note: 977]	$33,888
9	Ridwan	$10,000	PW15 – Muhammad Rizwan Bin Kamaludin[note: 978]	$10,000
10	Mervin	$25,000	PW5 – Choo Ann Lock[note: 979]	$40,000

300 The Prosecution also pointed out that in P27, which was a set of text messages between the Accused and Shan, the Accused and Shan had discussed their respective wrongdoings, and the prospect of the Accused taking the rap for Shan. There were also discussions of how they had incurred losses at the casinos and were looking to cover these losses.

c. The CBT charge under section 408 Penal Code

301 Given the undisputed facts, the Prosecution submitted that the sole issue to be determined in relation to this charge was whether the Accused had dishonestly misappropriated the monies.

302 PW20 had testified that the sum of $9,389 paid by PW4 was not handed over to him, or to PW22. PW2’s unchallenged testimony was that she had paid a total of $43,444, consisting of an initial deposit of $10,000 cash and a further payment of $33,444 in cash. PW20 testified that RAPL had received $20,000 from the amounts paid by PW2, leaving a balance $23,444 that was not paid to RAPL.

303 Given the Accused’s undisputed admissions in P30 that he had taken about the monies from PW2 and PW4 and had spent the monies on his personal expenses and gambling at the casinos, the Prosecution submitted that it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused had dishonestly misappropriated the $32,833.

304 The Prosecution therefore submitted that the Accused should be convicted on DAC-941236-2016.

d. The cheating charges

i. Cheating under section 420

305 The Prosecution had submitted that for an offence under section 420 of the Penal Code, the Prosecution would have to prove that:

(a) The victim was deceived;

(b) There was inducement such that the victim delivered property to the Accused; and

(c) The accused acted with dishonest intention.

306 The Prosecution submitted that the word “dishonestly” was defined under section 24 of the Penal Code as follows:

“ Dishonestly

24. Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person, or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.”

307 “Wrongful gain” and “wrongful loss” were defined under section 23 of the Penal Code:

“Wrongful gain” and “wrongful loss”

23. “Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining it is not legally entitled; “wrongful loss” is loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.

Explanation.-A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property.

308 The Prosecution noted that it was not disputed that 13 of the 14 victims^{[note: 980]} had delivered property to the Accused, either by handing over cash, or by having the monies transferred or deposited into the accused’s personal bank account. It was also not disputed that the purpose of the monies being given to the Accused for the purpose of payment towards the cars that the witnesses had ordered from RAPL, due to the representations that the Accused had made to the victims.

309 The Prosecution also pointed out that the Accused did not dispute the fact that he had dealt with the victims at the material time, and that he had been the one who had told them why they had to pay those sums.

310 On these undisputed facts, the Prosecution submitted that the victims would have been induced by the Accused’s representations to deliver property to the Accused.

311 The issues to be determined were therefore whether the Accused had deceived the 13 victims, and whether he had acted dishonestly. The Prosecution submitted that the two issues were entwined issues. If the Accused had deceived the victims, it would naturally follow that he had acted dishonestly as the victims would have suffered wrongful loss in handing over the monies on false premises while the Accused would have obtained a wrongful gain, as he could not be said to be legally entitled to any monies obtained through deception.

312 The Prosecution submitted that the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused had deceived the victims.

313 The Prosecution was of the view that the irregularities in the sales agreements and invoices given to the victims showed that the Accused did not intend to hand over the money to RAPL:

(a) PW2, PW4, PW6, PW7, PW9, PW11, PW13 and PW14 were given invoices bearing either invoice number RA-PO 0109 or RA-PO 0170. PW22 testified that the invoice numbers for invoices issued by RAPL bore numbers in running sequence and were not duplicated.

(b) PW2 testified that the Accused gave her an invoice after she paid him the $43,444 cash. This invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy as it did not have PW20 or PW22’s signature, but instead, bore the Accused’s signature. PW22 testified that the invoices issued by RAPL would need to bear the company stamp and either the signature of PW20 or PW22 in order to be a valid invoice. The invoice also bore a duplicated invoice number, RA-PO 0170.

(c) PW4 testified that the Accused gave him two invoices after he had made his payments. The two invoices^{[note: 981]} related to the three payments that PW4 had made. These invoices did not accord with RAPL’s policy, as there was no company stamp, or signature by PW20 or PW22. The two invoices also bore duplicated invoice numbers (RA-PO 0109 and RA-PO 0170).

(d) PW3 was not given any invoice after making his payment.

(e) PW5 was not given any invoice after making his payment. His payment of $35,000 was only recorded on a hand-written sales balance sheet, which the Accused had signed.

(f) PW6 was given an invoice by the Accused. The invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy as it bore the Accused’s signature instead of the signatures of PW20 or PW22. The invoice also bore a duplicated invoice number, RA-PO 0109.

(g) PW7’s sales agreement was not endorsed by PW20 as per RAPL’s policy. PW20 testified that the sales agreement was not submitted to him and that the sales agreement number, RA1191, was tied to another customer. PW7 was also given an invoice covering his three payments, RA-PO 0170, which was a duplicated invoice number. The invoice also did not accord with RAPL’s policy as it bore the signature of the Accused instead of PW20 or PW22.

(h) PW8’s father, PW18, was given an invoice by the Accused after making payment. The invoice bore the company stamp of RAPL but was not signed by PW20 or PW22, which did not accord with RAPL’s policy.

(i) PW9 was given an invoice by the Accused after making payment. This invoice was not signed by PW20 or PW22 and did not bear RAPL’s company stamp. The invoice number was also duplicated (RA-PO 0170).

(j) PW10 was not given any invoice after handing his payment to the Accused. The payment was only recorded on a sales agreement form, which the Accused signed to acknowledge receipt of the monies.

(k) PW11 was given an invoice (RA-PO 0175) by the Accused showing that he paid the first cash sum of $30,000. This invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy, as it did not bear any signatures. For the second sum of $50,000, PW11 was given a second invoice (RA-PO 0170) by the Accused. This second invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy, as it did not bear RAPL’s company stamp nor any signatures by PW20 or PW22.

(l) PW12 was not given any invoice after making his payment.

(m) PW13’s sales agreement, which recorded her payment of her deposit, was not endorsed by PW20 as per RAPL policy. PW20 testified that RAPL had no records of PW13 as a customer of RAPL. For her second payment, PW13 was given an invoice by the Accused. This invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy as it did not bear RAPL’s company stamp and was not signed by PW20 or PW22. The invoice number (RA-PO 0109) was also duplicated.

(n) PW15’s sales agreement was not endorsed by PW20 and did not bear any sales agreement number as per RAPL policy. PW20 testified that the sales agreement was not submitted to RAPL. PW15 was also given an invoice by the Accused. The invoice did not accord with RAPL’s policy as it did not bear RAPL’s company stamp and was not signed by PW20 or PW22. The invoice number was also duplicated.

314 PW20 had testified that he was unaware of the fact that PW7, PW13 and PW15 had entered into sales agreements with the Accused as these sales agreements were not submitted to RAPL.

315 None of the invoices that the Accused gave to the victims was issued in accordance with RAPL’s policy. Indeed, the Accused had signed some of the invoices, when he was not authorised to do so, and had made handwritten amendments to them. This shows that the Accused had issued those invoices without RAPL’s knowledge.

316 The irresistible inference was thus that the Accused had deceived these 13 victims when he asked them for payments towards their car purchases, as he had no intention that the monies would be applied towards the stated purpose.

317 The fact that the Accused failed to handover the monies and used the monies from 10 of the 13 victims (as admitted to in P30) corroborated and supported the inference that the Accused had deceived the victims that their money would be paid to RAPL and used for their car purchase. The Accused knew this to be false as his intention was to spend the money for himself.

318 The conclusion that the Accused had deceived the victims was further strengthened when considering the following:

(a) When PW6 offered to pay by cheque, the Accused insisted on cash payment. There was no reason for the Accused to insist on cash if the payment were to be made to RAPL, as cheques were an acceptable form of payment to RAPL.

(b) The Accused had asked PW4 and PW13 to make payments directly into his personal bank account. PW20 gave unchallenged testimony that the Accused was not allowed to receive customer payments in his own bank account. In any event, the Accused could have given RAPL’s bank account details to the victims if he had genuinely intended for the monies to be paid to RAPL.

319 The Prosecution submitted that there was no reasonable explanation for the Accused to require these specific modes of payments, except to facilitate him in pocketing the monies for himself.

320 The Prosecution therefore submitted that it had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused had cheated the victims into delivering monies to him, and the Accused ought to be convicted on DAC 912648-2017 to DAC 912660-2017 and DAC 912663-2017 and 912667-2017.

321 As for DAC 912661-2017, the Accused had given a chassis number to PW10, which had induced PW10 to purchase car insurance and paying $982.03 to the insurer. Given that the Accused had not handed PW10’s payments for his car to RAPL, the Accused would have deceived PW10 when giving him the chassis number, as there would have been no car that was to be delivered to PW10. PW10 had thus suffered wrongful loss and was thus dishonestly induced into paying for the insurance.

322 The Prosecution therefore submitted that DAC-912661-2017 was also proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

ii. Cheating under section 420 read with section 511

323 As for DAC 912662-2017, the Prosecution submitted that PW6 would have been similarly deceived by the Accused given that the money requested was for the balance payment and the Accused had admitted in P30 to keeping PW6’s initial payment for his own use; i.e. there could not have been any car reserved for PW6 such that he needed to pay the balance at the material time. PW6 declined to make the payment, as he had not received the car. The Accused had thus attempted to cheat PW6 and he should be convicted accordingly.

324 The Prosecution therefore submitted that the Accused ought to be convicted on all 20 cheating charges.

e. The conspiracy to cheat charge

325 DAC 912668-2016 related to PW14 paying a sum of $29,944 to Shan for his purchase of a car from RAPL. The Accused was charged with engaging in a conspiracy with Shan to cheat PW14 and inducing him to deliver the $29,944.

326 In the present case, PW14 had testified that he was told by Shan that he could expedite the delivery of his car by paying the $29,944 in cash. PW14’s sales agreement, which recorded his payment of the $29,444 (P16), was not endorsed by PW20.

327 PW14 was subsequently given an invoice for his payment of $29,944. The invoice did not bear RAPL’s company stamp, and was not signed by PW20 or PW22. The invoice number was also duplicated.

328 PW14 gave unchallenged testimony that on the day he handed the cash to Shan, the Accused was also present and had assisted Shan to count the money. The Accused (and not Shan) was the one who provided a chassis number to PW14, which was recorded in the sales agreement (P16). The Accused also signed against the written chassis number. PW14 then handed the money to Shan, and the Accused counted the money together with Shan. The acts carried out by the Accused thus directly contributed to PW14 handing over the money to Shan.

329 P27, an extract of text messages between the Accused and Shan, also disclosed that the Accused was well aware of Shan’s misdeeds^{[note: 982]}. P27 also disclosed that the Accused and Shan had incurred losses at the casinos and so needed to cover their losses. They did so by taking monies from RAPL’s customers^{[note: 983]}.The Prosecution therefore submitted that the Accused’s actions on the night, lead to PW14 handing over the money, his assistance to Shan in counting the money, and the knowledge he displayed in P27 collectively pointed to the irresistible conclusion that the Accused and Shan had acted in a conspiracy to deceive PW14 to deliver the cash to Shan. The Prosecution submitted that the Accused ought to be convicted accordingly.

f. Conclusion

330 In conclusion, the Prosecution submitted that the undisputed evidence of the various witnesses, corroborated by the objective evidence (invoices, sales agreements, phone conversation and text messages) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused was guilty of the offences he had been charged with. Therefore, the Accused should be convicted on the 22 charges accordingly.

Defence’s case^{[note: 984]}

331 The Defence submitted that on the totality of the evidence, the Prosecution had failed to prove any of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Even taking the Prosecution's case at its highest, the evidence was riddled with far too many inconsistencies, which were impossible to reconcile. This was because of the following reasons:

(a) First, the documentary evidence adduced by the Prosecution were exposed during cross-examination as completely unreliable and inaccurate, and therefore could not prove the constituent elements of any of the charges against the Accused.

(b) Second, the evidence of PW20, the key witness for the Prosecution, was revealed to be so inherently incredible that it should rejected in its entirety. He was completely discredited in the course of cross-examination when his testimony was exposed as self-contradictory and utterly illogical, not to mention that he was shown to be a liar on numerous occasions.

(c) Third, the Prosecution's inability to resolve these gaping holes in its case meant that no adverse inference can or should be drawn against the Accused for remaining silent; the evidence adduced by the Prosecution did not call for an explanation that only the Accused could give. In any case, the Accused's various text messages and phone conversations in the Prosecution Exhibits remained inconclusive and ambiguous as to the specific elements of the charges against him, and therefore could not be used to bolster plug the gaps in the Prosecution's case.

332 Put simply, the Prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused had cheated or attempted to cheat anyone, or that he had committed criminal breach of trust. The evidence relied on by the Prosecution in the course of trial had been proven to be so incredible and unreliable that a conviction could not be sustained. The only safe verdict in these circumstances was "not guilty'.

a. Summary of primary facts and the Prosecution's case

333 For the cheating charges, the Prosecution had to prove that: (i) the Accused deceived each of the cheated customers into believing that the delivery of a certain sum of money for the purchase of a car would be handed over to RAPL; (ii) the Accused intended to retain this sum for his personal use; and (iii) in so doing the Accused had dishonestly induced the customers to deliver the sum of money to him.

334 For the CBT charge, the Prosecution had to prove that: (i) the Accused was entrusted with a total of $32,833 in cash from PW2 and PW4; and (ii) the Accused had dishonestly misappropriated this $32,833 in cash. It was not disputed that the Accused was an employee of RAPL at the relevant time.

335 To prove the elements of the cheating charges and the CBT charge, the Prosecution had relied on two main categories of evidence:

(a) Documentary evidence: invoices and sales agreements received by the cheated customers; and RAPL's records like its sales balance sheets^{[note: 985]}and bank account statement from OCBC.

(b) Oral evidence: testimony from the cheated customers that they paid the Accused cash or cheque deposits and received invoices and sales agreements in return; and testimony from PW20 that he did not receive the customers' money and that RAPL had no record of these transactions based on its records, and that the cheated customers' invoices and sales agreements were "fake" because of certain irregularities.

336 However, the Defence submitted that they had shown during the cross-examination of PW20 that the documentary evidence relied on by the Prosecution had been totally discredited^{[note: 986]} in that:

(a) RAPL invoices were totally unreliable.^{[note: 987]}

(b) RAPL’s sales balance sheets were completely unreliable^{[note: 988]}.

(c) RAPL’s bank statements showed that customer’s monies were unaccounted for^{[note: 989]}.

337 The Defence also submitted that the oral testimony of PW20 had been completely undermined in the course of cross-examination^{[note: 990]} in that:

(a) PW20 had lied on oath about the existence of the “petty cash” system.

(b) PW20’s testimony relating to the invoices was contradicted by PW22.

(c) PW20 had made damaging concessions, which had disproved the charges.

(d) PW20 had given incredible explanations, which made no sense at all.

338 Given the external and internal inconsistencies of PW20’s evidence, the Defence submitted that the Prosecution’s case against the Accused had to fail^{[note: 991]}.

339 The Defence was also of the view that five of the charges against the Accused had not been made because of reasonable doubts: DAC 941236-2016, DAC 912648-2017, DAC 912649-2017, DAC 912662-2017 and DAC 912668-2017^{[note: 992]}:

(a) With regard to DAC 941236-2016^{[note: 993]}, the Defence submitted that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Accused had taken $32,833:

(i) The Defence was of the view that there was no evidence that the Accused had misappropriated the monies.

(ii) The Defence was of the view that PW20’s evidence was unreliable and inherent incredible and no weight should be attached to his testimony whatsoever, including his testimony regarding the CBT charge. As for the evidence of PW2 and PW4, these only concerned their passing of the monies money to the Accused, and thus could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that RAPL did not receive these sums of money. None of them were privy to the internal operating procedures of RAPL, and they had actually received sales agreements and invoices. Indeed, the fact that they received sales agreements and invoices showed that it was possible that these sums of money were in fact received by RAPL — as argued extensively above, the fact of the matter was that there was no way of distinguishing between a "fake" and genuine invoice, and only PW22 and Ria could print these invoices.

(iii) In terms of the documentary evidence, the Defence noted that the Prosecution had adduced P31, a transcript of a voice recording between PW20 and the Accused. It appeared that the Prosecution was relying on P31 to prove the CBT charge was well, as the Accused appeared to have admitted to taking about $70,000 from a customer known as "Tan Chee Hong" and approximately $50,000 - $60,000 from a customer called James, which the Prosecution had submitted were PW2 and PW4 respectively by inference.

(iv) The Defence submitted that P31 was inherently unreliable in making out the CBT charge against the Accused, for the reason that it merely reflected crude estimates of the sums allegedly taken by him, which was sorely insufficient in proving the particulars of the CBT charge. For example, the Accused mentioned that the amount he took from "James" "should be around 60 thousands"^{[note: 994]}, and "James is plus minus 60. 50 plus I think 50,944 lah for James"^{[note: 995]}. For a customer named "Mervin", the Accused evidently was not clear as to the exact amount that he had taken, when he said, “Arh... Mervin Mervin 25... 24 25”^{[note: 996]}. The rest of the numbers which the Accused had quoted in the rest of Exhibit P31 were also rough estimates that lacked the specificity required for the Prosecution to prove the CBT charge beyond reasonable doubt.

(b) With regard to DAC 912648-2017 and DAC 912649-2017, the Defence submitted that the Accused had fully refunded PW13 the $31,924 that she passed to him:

(i) DAC 912648-2017 and DAC 912649-2017 alleged that the Accused had dishonestly induced PW13 to deliver $20,000 to him on 18 July 2016 and $11,924 to him on 12 September 2016 respectively. According to the charges, the Accused had deceived PW13 that her delivery of these sums of money would be handed over to RAPL when he had intended to retain these sums for his personal use.

(ii) However, as PW13 had testified during her EIC, while she did deliver a total of $31,924 to the Accused on both these occasions, the Accused later voluntarily refunded this sum because RAPL did not have any cars for her^{[note: 997]}.Indeed, the Accusedua made good on his "promise to refund [her] deposit' on the very same day that he made the promise, on 27 October 2016 itself.^{[note: 998]}

(iii) The Defence submitted that a key element of a cheating charge under s 415 PC was the dishonest inducement of a person to deliver property, and dishonesty was defined by section 24 Penal Code to be doing anything "with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person, or wrongful loss to another person". The fact that the Accused voluntarily offered to refund PW13's full deposit proved that his intentions were honest at the relevant time. If the Accused had wanted to cause wrongful loss to PW13 or to wrongfully enrich himself at her expense, he would not have volunteered to refund the full sum to her. Indeed, one would have expected the Accused to delay the refund with excuses.

(iv) As such, the Defence submitted that reasonable doubts had been raised for the DAC 912648-2017 and DAC 912649-2017. The fact that the Accused had fully refunded PW13's full deposit had raised reasonable doubts about the state of his mind at the relevant time.

(c) The Accused did not have any dishonest intention to induce PW10 $982.03 to Direct Asia Insurance (Singapore) Ltd:

(i) DAC 912661-2017 alleged that the Accused had dishonestly induced PW10 to deliver $982.03 to Direct Asia Insurance (Singapore) Ltd in his purchase of motor insurance. The Accused allegedly did so by deceiving PW10 into believing that a car, which he purchased, had chassis no, RUI-1206909 and engine no. L15B-4406908.

(ii) The Defence submitted that dishonesty was a key element of a cheating charge under section 415 Penal Code and was defined by section 24 Penal Code to be doing anything "with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person, or wrongful loss to another person". However, there was no evidence to show that the Accused harboured any such dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to PW10 by inducing him to make payment of $982.03 to Direct Asia Insurance (Singapore) Ltd. There was also no reason for the Accused to have done so.

(iii) Further, the Accused certainly did not and could not have made any personal gain from inducing PW10 to make the said payment to Direct Asia Insurance (Singapore Ltd), and therefore would not have intended to do so. Therefore, a reasonable doubt had been raised for DAC 912661-2017.

(d) The Accused did not ask PW6 to give him $29,444:

(i) DAC 91662-2017 alleged that on or after 27 October 2016, the Accused had attempted to cheat PW6 of $29,444, and in such attempt did an act towards the commission of this offence. However, based on PW6's own testimony, no such act took place.

(ii) In PW6's EIC, it was established that he made a total of two cash payments: $20,000 to PW21^{[note: 999]},and $49,444 to the Accused on 27 October 2016^{[note: 1000]}.More importantly, PW6 testified that these two cash payments were made; there were no later requests for further payments to secure his car^{[note: 1001]}. Indeed, PW6 confirmed in cross-examination that after the Accused had collected $49,444 from him on 27 October 2016, Chua never asked him for further payments^{[note: 1002]}.This meant that the Accused could not and did not do any act to attempt to cheat PW6, because the time period of DAC 912662-2017 was "on or after 27 October 2016”, and PW6’s evidence was that the Accused did not ask him for any further payments after 27 October 2016.

(iii) The Defence also pointed out that it was unclear whether PW6 was asked to make the balance payment of $29,444 (after subtracting $20,000 and $49,444 from $98,888), or whether this was something he deduced without being asked^{[note: 1003]}.The identity of who asked him to make this balance payment is also unclear^{[note: 1004]}.What was clear was that even if there was a request for the payment of the balance of $29,444 to be made, it took place before 27 October 2016^{[note: 1005]}, which meant that there was zero evidence for DAC 912662-2017.

(iv) The Defence therefore submitted that a reasonable doubt had clearly been raised for DAC 912662-2017.

(e) PW14 had handed his $29,444 cash payment to Shan:

(i) DAC 912668-2017 alleged that the Accused had engaged with a conspiracy with Shan to cheat PW14 to induce the delivery of the sum of $29,944 to Shan for the Accused and Shan's own personal use.

(ii) The Defence submitted that it was trite that abetment by conspiracy under section 107(b) Penal Code required proof of an agreement between parties. As explained by the learned authors of Yeo, Morgan and Chan's Criminal Law in Singapore and Malaysia ("YMC"), proof of this agreement was usually by circumstantial evidence because such agreements were usually in private, and one way of doing this was to show that the words and actions of the parties indicated that they must have acted in concert in pursuit of the common object or design^{[note: 1006]}.

(iii) The Defence submitted that it was undisputed that PW14 handed over his $29,944 to Shan, not the Accused, and Shan was not a Prosecution witness. As explained by PW14 in his EIC, Shan was his main contact person at RAPL, given that Shan was the one who had asked him to make the first payment^{[note: 1007]}.More importantly, Shan was the one who told him that he needed to make a further payment of $29,944 to "jump queue" and insisted that this payment be made in cash^{[note: 1008]}, and this sum of money was handed over to Shan, not the Accused^{[note: 1009]}. The Accused's sole involvement was to help Shan count the money^{[note: 1010]}, and Shan was the one who signed on the "fake" sales agreement form RA 1191 (page 2 of P16) to acknowledged receipt of $29,944.

(iv) As pointed out by YMC, “The very nature of an agreement also means that there must be two or more parties involved. A person cannot conspire with oneself.”^{[note: 1011]}Without Shan as a Prosecution witness to testify as to any agreement, the evidence adduced pointed solely in the direction of Shan as being the one who had cheated PW14, not the Accused. There was no evidence to show that there was a conspiracy between him and the Accused, given that the actions of the Accused failed to show that he was acting in concert with Shan — he did not even sign the acknowledgment of the monies received.

(v) Furthermore, the Accused's so-called admissions in the Prosecution's various exhibits did not remotely suggested or revealed any sort of conspiracy between Chua and the Accused. In Exhibit P27, which recorded Chua's iMessages to the mobile number +XXX the Accused made statements such as "im goin to surrender myself soon. u wan join or u don wan. if u don wan, I wont say anything about you”,^{[note: 1012]}and “One people die better than 2.”^{[note: 1013]}While these messages might have suggested at a prima facie level that the Accused and the recipient of the messages had some sort of prior arrangement, the degree of proof required of the Prosecution was that of proof beyond reasonable doubt. These statements were simply too inconclusive as to any meeting of minds between the Accused and Shan, and could have referred to any number of matters between them that have nothing to do with conspiring to cheat PW14. After all, there was no mention of PW14, nor was there any mention of any sum of money. The messages also failed to reveal the substance of any alleged conspiracy between the two, namely the common illegal object or design that they allegedly had intended to pursue.

(vi) The fact remained that Shan was the one who did almost all of the legwork in relation to PW14's payment; the Accused happened to help Shan count the money that was received. To say that the Accused had conspired with Shan on the basis of some vague messages in P27 required a leap of logic, and certainly was not sufficient for the purposes of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Prosecution would need Shan to testify as to his interpretation of P27 to bridge the evidential gap, but Shan was not called as a Prosecution witness.

(vii) As such, the Defence submitted that reasonable doubts had been raised for DAC 912668-2017. Without Shan being called as a Prosecution witness, it was equally possible that he and not the Accused was the one who cheated PW14.

b. No adverse inference ought to be drawn against the Accused

340 The Defence submitted that the law was clear that when an accused had elected to remain silent, the court in deciding whether he was guilty or not "may draw such inferences as appear proper from his refusal to give evidence, including inferences that may be adverse.” This was statutorily provided for in section 291(3) CPC.

341 However, the Defence also submitted that it was equally clear that the drawing of an adverse inference is not mandatory and much would turn on the facts and circumstances. The CA in Took Leng How v PP laid down this principle in no uncertain terms^{[note: 1014]}:

“An adverse inference should only be drawn in appropriate circumstances. A court would be in grave error if it were to draw an adverse inference of guilt if such an inference were used solely to bolster a weak case. As was observed by Prof Tan Yock Lin, citing the Australian decision of Weissensteiner v R [1993] HCA 65; (1993) 178 CLR 217, the silence of the accused "cannot fill in any gaps in the prosecution's case; it cannot be used as a make-weight". He further opined that "the inference was properly drawn where the silence of the accused affects the probative value of the evidence which has been given. Where evidence which has been given calls for an explanation which the accused alone can give, then silence on his part may lead to an inference that none is available and that the evidence was probably true": see [29] supra at ch XV para 3003.”

342 Indeed, GCK reaffirmed this aspect of Took Leng How. As explained by the CA in GCK, "the adverse inference that may be drawn from an accused person's silence is drawn precisely because the evidence adduced in the Prosecution's case calls for an explanation that only the accused person can give" — this is because the Prosecution had already discharged its evidential burden, which then shifted to the Defence^{[note: 1015]}.

343 However, the Defence submitted that as had been established abundantly above, the Prosecution had not discharged its evidential burden on any of the charges at all. In summary, the documentary records relied on by the Prosecution — the invoices, sales balance sheets, and bank statements — had been shown in cross-examination to be utterly flawed and unreliable. Indeed, it should be pointed out that the Prosecution had conspicuously failed to discharge its evidential burden in respect of the documentary evidence, given that the Defence had been able to prove that these documents were completely unreliable. For example, the Defence proved that duplicated invoice numbers (which the Prosecution relied on to prove the cheating charges) could be genuine, and that there was no way of conclusively proving what was a genuine or "fake" invoice; this was not addressed by the Prosecution in re-examination. The Defence had also proved that other genuine customers of RAPL might also not be listed on the RAPL sales balance sheets, and that PW20 could not account for customer monies received in the course of genuine transactions with RAPL; none of this was addressed by the Prosecution in re-examination.

344 As for PW20 himself, he was proven to be wholly without credit given his countless self-contradictions and deceitful evidence under oath; no weight could be accorded to his evidence at all. No effort was made by the Prosecution to rehabilitate PW20's evidence; to pick the most glaring example out of many; PW20 was proven by his own sister PW22 to have lied about the practice of keeping "petty cash", which strongly suggested that PW20 had misappropriated $10,000 in customer monies in July 2016 for himself. In addition, since a number of the cheating charges were alleged to have taken place in July 2016, this clearly raised more than a reasonable doubt in the Prosecution's evidence.

345 Applying Took Leng How and GCK, the Defence submitted that the evidence in this case was not the type of evidence that called for an explanation, which only the Accused could give. Rather, the Prosecution's evidence was so haphazard, inaccurate, and unreliable that the simple explanation was that no offence had been disclosed at all, and that there was a very real possibility that PW20 himself had committed the offences for which the Accused was accused of. In the words of GCK, "in the absence of corroborative evidence that can militate against this weakness such that the Prosecution's evidence as a whole can still prove the case against the accused person beyond a reasonable doubt, weaknesses in the Defence's case cannot ordinarily shore up what is lacking in the Prosecution's case to begin with".^{[note: 1016]} The Defence submitted that the Accused’s silence should not be used to shore up the Prosecution’s case that was riddled with gaping evidential holes. It would thus be wholly improper to draw an adverse inference of guilt against the Accused in the circumstances given these manifest inadequacies in the state of the Prosecution' evidence.

346 For all the above reasons, the Defence submitted that no adverse inference could or should be drawn against the Accused for choosing to remain silent.

c. Conclusion

347 The Defence therefore submitted that the Prosecution had not proven their cases against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the Court should find the Accused not guilty and acquit him of all the charges against him. The reasons being:

(a) DAC 941636-2016 (involving PW2 and PW4) was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because there was no conclusive evidence that Chua dishonestly misappropriated any monies from them given the unreliability of PW20's evidence and the lack of any other direct evidence in the circumstances.

(b) DAC 912648-2017 and DAC 912649-2017 (involving PW13) were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amounts stated in the "fake" invoices and sales agreements in Exhibit P14 could have been received by RAPL, and even though PW13's name was not in the database, this was not conclusive due to the unreliability of said database. Furthermore, it was possible that PW20 himself had misappropriated money from PW13 – DAC 912649-2017 alleged that the Accused had cheated PW13 of $20,000 on 19 July 2016, but PW20 was unable to account for $10,000 in July 2016. In any event, the fact that the Accused had fully refunded PW13's $31,924 showed that there were reasonable doubts as to whether the Accused's intentions were actually dishonest.

(c) DAC 912650 to 912652-2017 (involving PW7) were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amounts stated in the "fake" invoices and sales agreements in P7 could have been received by RAPL, and even though PW7^ts name was not in the database, this was not conclusive due to the unreliability of said database.

(d) DAC 912653-2017 (involving PW15) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amount stated in the “fake” invoice in P20 could have been received by RAPL, and even though PW15's name was not in the database, this is not conclusive due to the unreliability of said database.

(e) DAC 912654-2017 (involving PW5) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt; this was because the amount stated in the “fake” sales agreement in P64 could have been received by RAPL.

(f) DAC 912655-2017 and DAC 912656-2017 (involving PW4) were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amount stated in the “fake” invoices and sales agreements in P4 could have been received by RAPL

(g) DAC 912657-2017 (involving PW8) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amount stated in the “fake”invoice in P8 could have been received by RAPL.

(h) DAC 912658-2017 (involving PW3) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because PW20 was the one who told PW3 that the Accused had ran away with the money^{[note: 1017]}, but PW20's testimony could not be relied upon.

(i) DAC 912659-2017 (involving PW9) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amount stated in the "fake" invoice in P9 could have been received by RAPL.

(j) DAC 912660-2017 (involving PW10) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amount stated in the “fake” sales agreement in P10 could have been received by RAPL.

(k) DAC 912661-2017 (involving PW10) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because there was no evidence that the Accused had any dishonest intention to induce PW10 to pay the sum of $982.03 to Direct Asia Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd.

(l) DAC 912662-2017 (involving PW6) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because there was no evidence that the Accused attempted to cheat PW6 on or after 27 October 2016 on PW6's own evidence.

(m) DAC 912663-2017 (involving PW6) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amount stated in the "fake" invoice in P6 could have been received by RAPL.

(n) DAC 912664-2016 and DAC 912665-2017 (involving PW11) were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amounts stated in the "fake" invoices in P12 could have been received by RAPL.

(o) DAC 912666-2017 (involving PW2) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amounts stated in the "fake" invoices in P2 could have been received by RAPL.

(p) DAC 912667-2017 (involving PW12) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amount allegedly cheated ($5,321, on 20 July 2016) could have been part of the $10,000 in July 2016 that PW20 was unable to account for – PW20 could have misappropriated this sum of money for himself.

(q) DAC 912668-2017 (involving PW14) was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the amount stated in the "fake" invoice in P16 could have been received by RAPL. In any case, it is possible that Shan was the one who cheated PW14, and the Accused had nothing to do with it.

My findings and decision

a. Evidence adduced before the court at the trial

348 In the present case, all the evidence that I had before me were evidence from the Prosecution. The Accused had elected to remain silent after I had called for is his defence after the Prosecution had closed their case against the Accused. I had summarized the evidence relating to each of the charge as presented by the Prosecution:

I. DAC 941236-2016 (INVOLVING PW2 AND PW4)

349 The Accused was alleged to have misappropriated $32,833 of RAPL’s monies, which had been given to him by two of RAPL’s customers PW2 and PW4. The Accused was alleged to have kept $23,444 of PW2’s money and $9,389 of PW4’s money that they had given him as payment to RAPL for their cars.

350 PW2 had given evidence that she had wanted to buy a Toyota Sienta car from RAPL for $86,888 and she was required to pay a 50% deposit of $43,444 for the car, as she did not require any financing to buy the car. PW2 paid the Accused a sum of $10,000 on 2 October 2016: $5,000 by way of Nets payment and $5,000 cash. PW2 then went on to pay the Accused another $33,444 cash on 4 October 2016. The Accused then issued PW2 with an invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for the total sum of $43,444 that she had paid. On 20 October 2016, PW2 paid a further $43,444 cash to the Accused being the balance price of the car. The Accused did not issue PW2 with any invoice for this further payment of $43,444. In total, PW2 had paid the Accused $86,888: $5,000 by way of Nets payment and $81,888 in cash.

351 PW20 had testified that RAPL had only received a total of $20,000 from PW2: $5,000 by way of Nets payment and $15,000 cash. PW20 also testified that he was unable to find any records of RAPL issuing PW2 with the invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for $43,444 and that invoice no. RA-PO 0109 was a duplicated invoice number. PW20 was only able to find an invoice no. RA-PO 0208 from RAPL’s records which showed that RAPL had received $20,000 from PW2: $5,000 by way of Nets payment and $15,000 cash. This meant that there was still a sum of $66,888 owing by PW2 to RAPL.

352 The Prosecution also tendered an audio recording of a conversation between the Accused and PW20 (P30 and P31) whereby the Accused had admitted to taking admitted to taking about $70,000 from a customer known as “Tan Chee Hong” who was PW2:

“Accused :	Arh. Got one I remember got one also er …Tan Chee Hong
PW20 :	Okay
Accused :	Tan Chee Hong I take 70 also
PW20 :	70
Accused :	Em 70 Tan Chee Hong” [note: 1018]

353 I also noted in P30 that the Accused had admitted that he had taken money from other customers of RAPL and the amount that he had taken was about $300,000 plus and not exceeding $400,000^{[note: 1019]}. I also noted in Exhibit P30 that the Accused was able to identify ten customers whom he had taken money from. However, it was also clear from his conversation with PW20 that there could be other customers whom he had taken money from but he would need to check RAPL’s records before he could confirm anything:

“PW20 :	Somemore?
Accused:	No more I think. Maybe you got the list you can let because now I go no access I got nothing. …
Accused :	Okay..so..so the list is now in office is it?
PW20 :	Ya. The list is not with me. Its at Ria’s house. Because now I am outside
Accused :	Okay. At Ria’s house. Okay, nevermind. So how about later boss When you go back right, you tried to send the list. I see whether Correct or not?”[note: 1020]

354 The Prosecution had also tendered transcripts of text conversation between the Accused and Shan, which was extracted from the Accused’s hand-phone (P27) where the Accused had admitted to Shan that he had taken 300 to 400 thousand from RAPL’s customers:

“ Shan :	You still have the money with you ?
Accused :	Nope, the amount is not correct, go back I verify again, he tell me 700k ridiculous
Accused :	Dono where wrong or maybe customer try to attack royal as well
Shan :	What amount that U estimate
Accused :	300 – 400”[note: 1021]

The Accused had also admitted spending the monies on his personal expenses, including gambling in the casino, paying his sister’s medical fees and paying his father’s debt^{[note: 1022]}.

355 The Prosecution had also tendered the Accused’s statement to the police, which was recorded by PW16 (P32) where the Accused had admitted to the following^{[note: 1023]}:

(a) That he was asked by his boss from RAPL to collect a payment from a customer in August 2016 and the customer had handed him $2,000 plus which he did not hand over to RAPL.

(b) That between August and September 2016, he had been taking RAPL’s balance payments which he had used for his daily expenses.

(c) That he had taken balance payments from about six customers totalling about $20,000. However, the Accused did not name the six customers whom he had taken monies from.

(d) That there was once when he directed a customer to transfer about $30,000 to $40,000 to his UOB Savings account with the intention to misappropriate it.

356 As for PW4, PW4 had wanted to buy a Honda Vezel car from RAPL for $93,888 and he had paid RAPL $20,000 deposit for the car by way of fund transfer on 15 May 2016. PW4 had also given evidence in court that when he first decided to buy the Honda Vezel car; he had wanted to take a loan, which was equivalent to 50% of the price of the car. However, sometime in September 2016, PW4 decided to lower his loan to 40% of the price of the car, he was told by the Accused to top-up another $9,389 to offset the loan difference, and he proceeded to pay $9,389 cash to the Accused on 7 September 2016.

357 After PW4 had paid the Accused the $9,389, he paid the Accused another $17,555 when the Accused informed him that his car had arrived in Singapore and was ready to be delivered to him. The Accused had requested PW4 to pay the $17,555, which was the balance price of the car and PW4 proceeded to pay PW4 $17,555 cash on 15 September 2016. I also noted that the date of the invoice which was issued by the Accused had pre-dated the date of the payment by PW4.

358 In October 2016, the Accused contacted PW4 and informed him that RAPL was having a promotion and that they were giving selected customers $3,000 discount on their cars if they were prepared to pay for the balance of the car prices in cash instead of taking a loan. PW4 was tempted and he decided to take up the Accused’s offer. The Accused informed PW4 that the offer was only for one day and PW4 would need to pay the $43,944 (which was the balance price of $46,944 less the $3,000 discount) by the end of the day in order to qualify for the promotion. PW4 tried to withdraw the money from his bank but he was unable to do so. The Accused then requested PW4 to transfer the $43,944 into his UOB bank account and he promised to hand the money to RAPL the next day. PW4 then proceeded to transfer the money into the Accused’s UOB account on 26 October 2016. In total, PW4 had paid the Accused $70,888 in cash.

359 PW20 had testified that RAPL did not receive any of the $70,888 that PW4 had paid to the Accused in cash. PW20 also said that the invoices nos. RA-PO 0170 and RA-PO 0109, which the Accused had issued to PW4 for the payments of $9,389 and $17,555 and payment of $43,944, were fake invoices.

360 In P30 and P31, the Accused had also admitted to taking $50,000-$60,000 from a customer ‘James’. PW4 had also testified that he was known as James:

“Accused :	James is red Vezel, May customer.
PW20:	Red Vezel…Okay
Accused :	Ya. Okay. His side wait huh.. I think 20 er .. he cancel his loan he go for cash
PW20 :	Okay
Accused :	So total he paid 20 plus 17 so the balance should be around 60 thousands I take from him 60.
PW20 :	Okay
Accused :	So James is plus minus 60, 50 plus 1 think 50944 lah for James…”[note: 1024]

361 I was of the view that above evidence clearly showed that the Accused had taken the $23,444 from PW2 and $9,389 from PW4. In the present case, there was no evidence from the Accused to show that he had given these monies to RAPL save for PW20’s evidence that RAPL did not receive the monies. The Defence had submitted that PW20 was not a reliable witness and RAPL’s records were so poorly kept that we could not be sure if the monies had been taken by RAPL and there was a possibility that the Accused had given the money to RAPL. However, I did not agree with the Defence’s views on this point because the Accused’s conversation with PW20 (Exhibit P30 and Exhibit P31) clearly suggested he had taken the monies from “James” and “Tan Chee Hong” which he did not forward the monies to RAPL. In addition, the Accused had admitted to PW16 and Shan that he had taken monies of varying amounts from different customers of RAPL for his own use.

362 Given that there is a break in the money trail which had ended with the Accused, I was of the view that only the Accused could explain what had happened to the money. The Accused was also the only person who could explain the contents of his conversation with PW20 and Shan and what he meant by taking “300 to 400” from RAPL and who were the customers that he had taken the monies from and the reason for his doing so. These evidence were all of a nature that only the Accused could explain and I was of the view that the Accused should explain the same. However, the Accused had elected to remain silent.

ii. DAC 912648-2017 and DAC 912649-2017 (involving PW13)

363 PW13 had given evidence that she wanted to buy a Toyota Sienta car from RAPL for $96,000 and the Accused was the sales person who had dealt with her. The Accused then proceed to had prepare the Sales Agreement no. RA 1182 and PW13 paid the Accused a deposit of $20,000 cash on 19 July 2016. The Accused also acknowledged the receipt of the $20,000 on the sales agreement.

364 After the payment of the $20,000, PW13 made another payment of $11,924 to the Accused when the Accused informed her that her car had arrived at the Singapore port and he needed her to pay the balance price for her to get her car. The Accused also requested PW13 to transfer the $11,924 into his personal UOB bank account, as he was unable to meet her to collect the money from her.

365 PW20 had testified that Sales Agreement no. RA1182 was a fake sales agreement, as RAPL could not find any details of PW13’s sales agreement in their records. PW20 also testified that the invoice no. RA-PO 0109 which the Accused had issued to PW13 for the payment of $11,924 was a duplicate and fake invoice. The Accused also did not issue any invoice to PW13 for her initial payment of $20,000. He just acknowledged the receipt of the payment on the sales agreement.

366 The evidence from PW13 all pointed to her handing $20,000 and $11,924 to the Accused. PW20 had given RAPL’s side of the story to say that both the sales agreement and the invoice that were issued by the Accused were fake documents and RAPL did not receive the monies.

367 I noted that PW13 had deposited the payment of $11,924 into the Accused’s personal UOB bank account on 19 September 2016 upon the Accused’s request. I also noted that there was no invoice issued for the deposit payment of $20,000. I had considered all these evidence in the light of the Accused’s admission in P30 and P31 that he had taken monies from at least 10 customers and he was not sure if there were any other victims and that he need to look at RAPL’s records to see if there were other customers involved. I had also considered the fact that the Accused had, in his statement to PW16, admitted to taking monies from six customers of RAPL whom he did not name. Given all these, I was of the view that the burden had shifted to the Accused and it was up to him to explain what had happened to the monies. As there was no invoice issued for the $20,000, one could not assume that RAPL had received the $20,000. Only the Accused would be able to explain what had happened to the $20,000. As for the $11,924 that was banked into the Accused’s personal UOB account, I was of the view that only the Accused could explain what had happened to the $11,924 because the bank account belonged to him and he was only the one who had access the bank account. However, the Accused had elected to remain silent and not to give evidence from the witness stand.

iii. DAC 912650 to 912652-2017 (involving PW7)

368 PW7 had entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1171 with RAPL to buy a Toyota Sienta car for $98,888. The Accused had attended to PW7 and had prepared the sales agreement. PW7 had also made three payments to the Accused: $20,000 cash on 7 August 2016, $4,221 on 4 September 2016 and $9,766 on 11 September 2016. The Accused did not dispute collecting all these monies from PW7. The Accused had also issued PW7 with invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for the payments.

369 PW20 had given evidence that PW7’s sale agreement was a fake sales agreement and that PW7 was not a valid customer of RAPL. PW20 had also testified that the invoice no. RA-PO 0170 issued by the Accused was a duplicate and fake invoice and RAPL did not receive any of the monies that PW7 had paid to the Accused.

370 I also noted that the Accused had admitted to PW20 in Exhibit P30 that he had taken 31,000 from PW7:

“Accused :	Er … someone wait huh … I recall huh … and then got one is no sales in record . Er .. Hishamuddin
PW20 :	Hishamuddin. Okay.He contacted me .. about 30 plus right?
Accused :	Ya. 31.
PW20 :	31 okay”[note: 1025]

371 It was clear from the transcripts that it was the Accused who had brought up the topic of PW7 during his conversation with PW20 as the Accused had recalled that PW7 was a “no sales on record” case. This was consistent with PW20’s evidence that PW7’s sale agreement was a fake sales agreement.

372 All the above evidence pointed to the fact that the Accused had taken the monies from PW7 and he had not given the monies to RAPL. As such, I was of the view that it was necessary for the Accused to explain what had happened to the monies that he had taken from PW7. It was also evident that the nature of the evidence was the type that only the Accused could explain.

iv. DAC 912653-2017 (involving PW15)

373 PW15 had wanted to buy a Toyota Sienta car from RAPL for $94,888 and he had negotiated with the Accused to pay a deposit of $10,000 even though RAPL’s usual practice was to ask for a deposit of $20,000. PW15 paid the Accused $10,000 in cash on 15 September 2016. After PW15 had paid the $10,000 deposit to the Accused, the Accused issued PW15 with invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for the $10,000 payment.

374 PW20 had testified that PW15 was an undeclared customer of RAPL as the Accused had not declared the sales to RAPL. PW20 also pointed out the sales agreement that PW15 had signed with the Accused did not have any sales agreement number and the invoice no. RA-PO0170 that the Accused had issued to PW15 was a duplicate and fake invoice.

375 I also noted that in the Accused’s conversation with PW20 in Exhibit P30, the Accused had admitted to PW20 that he had taken $10,000 from PW15:

“Accused :	.. Then Wan. WAN
PW20 :	Wan is Ridwan is it?
Accused :	Yes Correct 10 thousand
PW20 :	Okay correct”[note: 1026]

376 The above evidence from Exhibits P30 and P31 was an admission by the Accused that he had collected the $10,000 from PW7 and he had not handed the money to RAPL. Given the circumstances, I was of the view that the Accused should take the witness stand and explain his “admission” to PW20 and also explain what had happened to the $10,000 that PW15 had given him. The Accused should also explain why he had allowed PW15 to pay $10,000 instead of the usual $20,000 deposit required by RAPL.

v. DAC 912654-2017 (involving PW5)

377 PW5 had wanted to buy a Honda Vezel car from RAPL for $89,999 and he had wanted to take a loan of $30,000 to buy the car. PW5 also paid a deposit of $20,000: $1,000 on 17 April 2016 and $19,000 on 18 July 2016. After that, the Accused informed PW5 that his COE was ready and that he had to pay the Accused the balance price of $40,000 in order for the Accused to obtain his COE. PW5 then proceeded to pay the Accused the $40,000: $5,000 cash on 22 July 2016 and $35,000 on 24 July 2016. The Accused did not issue PW5 with any invoice for the payment of the $40,000 but he did acknowledge receipt of the $35,000 on the sale balance sheet when PW5 paid the $35,000 to him on 24 July 2016.

378 PW20 testified that RAPL had only received the $20,000 deposit but they did not receive the $40,000. PW20 also testified that when he spoke to the Accused, the Accused had admitted to him that he had taken money from PW5:

“PW20 :	Chua . I don’t have the record right now because I am outside discussing how to resolve this registration issue. Arh … like Mervin Mervin
Accused :	Arh … Mervin Mervin 25 --- 24 25.
PW20 :	Okay. Somemore who else huh? As from what I can remember, because you need to assist me. So now where are all the money? Chua?
Accused :	All gone already. Boss”[note: 1027]

379 All these evidence would suggest that the Accused had taken money from PW5 and he had spent the money on himself. Given such evidence, it would be incumbent on the Accused to give his explanation as to exactly what had happened to the monies that PW5 had given to him. The Accused would also need to explain why he had issued a fresh sales and purchase agreement in place of the original sale and purchase agreement.

vi. DAC 912655-2017 and DAC 912656-2017 (involving PW4)

380 From the evidence presented, it was clear that the Accused had collected the sums of $17,555 and $43,444 from PW4. The Accused had also confessed to PW20 that he had taken the monies from PW4 which belonged to RAPL. Only the Accused could explain his conversation with PW20 and what had happened to the monies that PW4 had given him.

381 I also noted that for DAC 912656-2017, PW4 had transferred the $43,944 to the Accused’s personal UOB account. There was no evidence that the Accused had transferred the money to RAPL as promised by him to PW4. The Accused was the owner of the UOB account. Only he could access the account and explain what had happened to the monies in the account. As such, the Accused was the only person who could explain what had happened and the Accused had chosen to remain silent.

382 Given the above, I was of the view that it was not right for the Accused to remain silent as he should explain to the Court the context of his conversation with PW20, as well as what had happened to the monies that he had taken from PW4. The Accused’s explanation was necessary given that PW4 had transferred $43,944 into the Accused’s personal UOB account.

vii. DAC 912657-2017 (involving PW8)

383 PW8 had given evidence that she had purchased a Honda Vezel car from RAPL for $91,888 and she had paid $20,000 deposit to RAPL. Later on, the Accused asked PW8 to make another payment of $2,468 because her car was ready. PW18, who was PW8’s father, then met up with the Accused on 5 August 2016 and he wanted to pay the $2,468 by way of cheque payment but the Accused had insisted on cash payment instead. The Accused had asked for cash payment because RAPL’s accounts “were going to closed till Monday”. As a result, PW18 had to return to RAPL the next day to pay the Accused $2,468 in cash. After PW18 had paid the $2,468 in cash to the Accused, the Accused issued PW8 with invoice no. RA-PO 0178 for the said payment.

384 PW20 testified that RAPL did not receive the $2,468 that PW8 had given to the Accused. PW20 also testified that the invoice no. RA-PO 0178 which the Accused had issued to PW8 was not a valid invoice.

385 I also noted from Exhibit P30 that the Accused had admitted to taking “2,000” from Amirah^{[note: 1028]}. The Accused had also admitted in Exhibit P32 that “sometime in August 2016, my boss asked me to collect a payment from a customer. I remembered that the customer handed over the balance of $2,000 plus to me which I did not hand over to my company … Whenever, my boss asked me about the payments, I would tell him that the customers had not made the payments”.^{[note: 1029]} Although the victim was not named in Exhibit P32, the amount and timing of the payment strongly suggested that the Accused was referring to PW8 in Exhibit P32.

386 It was clear to me that the evidence presented by the Prosecution clearly showed that PW8 and PW18 had handed over $2,468 cash to the Accused and the Accused had had kept the money for his own use. I was of the view that an explanation from the Accused was necessary for this case and only the Accused was in a position to give the explanation.

viii. DAC 912658-2017 (involving PW3)

387 PW3 had purchased a Honda Vezel car from RAPL for $91,888 and he had taken a loan of $64,321 to buy the car. PW3 had also paid a deposit of $20,000 to RAPL by way of bank draft on 2 June 2016. After the payment of the $20,000 deposit, the Accused informed PW3 that his car was ready and he needed PW3 to pay him the sum of $7,567, which was the balance payment of the car. Before PW3 paid the $7,567 to the Accused, the Accused informed PW3 that he had bid for the COE on PW3’s behalf. PW3 then proceed to pay the $7,567 by way of cash payment to the Accused. The Accused did not issue PW3 with any invoice for the payment. I noted that PW3 had informed the police that he had paid $7,567 to the Accused on 21 September 2016^{[note: 1030]}.

388 When PW3 paid the $7,567 to the Accused, the Accused informed PW3 that his car would be ready in two days. However, PW3 did not get his car and the Accused went missing. PW3 subsequently found out from PW20 that there was no bidding done by the Accused on his behalf. PW20 also confirmed that RAPL had not received the $7,567 from PW3.

389 I also noted that the Accused had admitted to PW16 in Exhibit P32 that “There was another time when I received $7,000 plus balance payment from a customer which I had also used for my own expenses. Whenever my boss asked me about the payments, I would tell him that the customers had not made the payments”^{[note: 1031]}. Although the Accused did not give PW16 the name of the customer, the timing and the amount involved highly suggested that the Accused was talking about PW3.

390 All these evidence clearly showed that PW3 had given the Accused $7,567 cash and his admission to PW16 suggested that he had taken the $7,000 plus from PW3 for his own use. As Exhibit P32 was the Accused’s statement to PW16, only the Accused would be able to explain to the Court whom he was referring to in Exhibit P32.

391 Given all these evidence and having taken into account the Accused’s statement to PW20 that there could have been other customers whom he might have taken money from, as well as his remarks to PW20^{[note: 1032]} and Shan^{[note: 1033]} that he had taken $300,000 to $400,000 from RAPL’s customers, I was of the view that the Accused would need to explain what he had done with the money that PW3 had given him and what he was taking about in Exhibit P32.

ix. DAC 912659-2017 (involving PW9)

392 PW9 had purchased a Honda Vezel car from RAPL for $98,000. PW9 had also made four payments to the Accused. The first three payments were $1,000, $9,000 and $10,000, which were part of the $20,000 deposit for the car. Subsequently, the Accused informed PW9 that he could expedite the delivery of his car by arranging PW9 to have one of the cars, which had already arrived and was already in RAPL’s showroom if PW9 were to pay him the balance payment of $9,400 in cash. PW7 agreed to the Accused’s proposal and he paid the Accused $9,400 in cash a few days later. When PW9 paid the Accused the $9,400, the Accused issued PW9 with invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for the payment. Invoice no. RA-PO 0170 was dated 5 September 2016. The Accused also did not dispute having received $9,400 from PW9.

393 The Accused had promised to deliver PW9’s car to him within one to two weeks after he had paid the $9,400. However, the Accused did not keep his promise and PW9 found out from PW20 that RAPL did not have any record of his payment of $9,400. PW20 also informed PW9 that the invoice no. RA-PO 0170 that the Accused had issued to him was a duplicate and fake invoice.

394 PW20 also testified that he had checked RAPL records and RAPL did not receive the payment of the $9,400. PW20 also confirmed that invoice no. RA-PO 0170 was not a genuine invoice and that invoice no. RA-PO 0170 was validly issued to PW11. PW20 also spoke to the Accused and the Accused admitted to PW20 in Exhibit P30 that he had taken the money and had used the money to gamble and for medical fees:

“Accused :	… arh …I take Kassim 9000.
PW20 :	Okay
Accused :	Kassim 9000 …”[note: 1034]
“PW20 :	Where where … what you do with the money? Chua.
Accused :	I got give my family
PW20 :	Okay
Accused :	I got gamble as well.
PW20 :	What you gamble .. Chua .. What you gamble?
Accused :	I gamble Casino
PW20 :	Aiyo okay
Accused :	Ya Some more no body bear my sister medical fee lor…
Accused :	Because initially before my sister sent to private hospital, I told her I sell lots of cars already and I earn the money
PW20 :	Okay
Accused :	So I tell my father not to worry but when I already exceeded. They starting charge and then they pressure my father. They want to sue my father. So I got no choice. This is the first time
PW20 :	Okay
Accused :	So slowly slowly I take take take then I paid paid paid then I paid my father’s debts too
PW20 :	Okay
Accused :	Okay after I paid my father’s debts, my father’s debts Malaysia ringgit already 300 already. 270
PW20 :	So now … Okay … is that any other way that I can claim back my money or you can actually pass me back the money? So as to minimise my burden to register some cars and to gain back the trust from customers.
Accused :	Okay .Er … maybe you could give me some time …”[note: 1035]

395 The above evidence clearly showed that the Accused had received the $9,400 from PW9 and he did not hand the money to RAPL. It was also clear from Exhibit P30 that the Accused had used the all the monies that he had taken from RAPL to give to his family, to gamble, to pay for his sister’s medical fees and to pay for his father’s debts in Malaysia.

396 Given all these, I was of the view that the Accused would need to explain his actions by taking the witness stand, as the nature of the evidence was one that only the Accused could explain.

x. DAC 912660-2017 and DAC 912661-2017 (involving PW10)

397 PW10 had entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA1174 with RAPL to purchase a Honda Vezel car at $101,888 and he had paid RAPL a deposit of $50,944 by way of cheque payment for the car. After entering into Sales Agreement no. RA 1174, PW10 saw from RAPL’s Facebook that the price of the Honda Vezel car had fallen because the COE had dropped. PW10 then went to check with the Accused if RAPL was prepared to lower the price. The Accused told PW10 that RAPL was prepared to lower the price to $98,888 on condition that PW10 paid the balance price in cash. PW10 agreed to the same. The Accused then proceeded to prepare a fresh Sales Agreement no. RA 1188 between RAPL and PW10 on 23 August 2016 for PW10 to buy the Honda Vezel car at a new price of $98,888 and he transferred the original payment of $50,944 to the new sales agreement.

398 PW10 then proceeded to pay the Accused the balance sales price of $47,944 in cash. When PW10 paid the Accused the $47,944, PW10 had requested for a receipt but the Accused was not able to issue him with an invoice. The Accused then went on to acknowledge the receipt of the $47,944 cash by writing on the second sales agreement that he had received the cash from PW10. The Accused wrote down the words “Received cash 47,944 on 23/08/16 9.15 pm” and he signed his signature next to the written words^{[note: 1036]}.

399 After paying the Accused the $47,944, PW10 requested the Accused for the chassis number of the car, as he wanted to purchase car insurance and HDB car park for his new car. The Accused messaged PW10 and gave PW10 the chassis number as “RUI-1206909”. PW10 then proceed to purchase car insurance from Direct Asia Insurance using the chassis number given by the Accused and he paid Direct Asia Insurance $982.03 for the car insurance. Direct Asia Insurance issued their Certificate of Insurance for the car on 29 October 2016^{[note: 1037]}. Given these facts, it was clear to me that the Accused was aware that PW10 had asked him for the chassis number for the purpose of buying car insurance and HDB parking and the necessary inference must be that he would have known that PW10 would rely on the information given by him to purchase the car insurance.

400 PW10 also testified that the Accused did not given him any invoice for his payment of $47,944. PW10 subsequently met up with PW20 who informed him that the Accused had run away with his money.

401 PW20 testified that RAPL records only captured PW10’s 1st Sales Agreement no. RA 1174. RAPL did not have any record of PW10’s 2nd Sales Agreement no. RA 1188. PW20 also testified that RA 1188 was assigned to another customer Mohd Faud Bin Abdul Rahman. PW20 was also not able to find any record of PW10 paying the $47,944 to RAPL. PW20 also spoke to the Accused and in Exhibit P30, the Accused admitted to PW20 that he had taken about $50,000 from “William” who was PW10:

“Accused :	Okay. Someone the big one .. Er .. William.
PW20 :	William William okay. William,
Accused :	William 50
PW20 :	William?
Accused :	50
PW20 :	50. Okay …”[note: 1038]

The above evidence clearly showed that the Accused had received the $47,944 from PW10 and he had not handed the money to RAPL.

402 Given that the Accused did not forward the $47,944 to RAPL, it would have meant that PW10 would not be able to get any car from RAPL, as he had not paid for the car in full. That being the case, I would agree with the Prosecution that when the Accused gave the chassis number to PW10, he must have known that the car with the given chassis number was not meant for the Accused. This was because he not no intention of paying the balance price of the car which he had collected from PW10 to RAPL. By doing that, the Accused must have known that PW10 was not going to get his car. As such, one could infer that that the Accused had falsely induced PW10 to pay $982.03 to Direct Asia Insurance to purchase car insurance on the car.

xi. DAC 912662-2017 and DAC 912663-2017 (involving PW6)

403 PW6 had entered into a Sales Agreement no. RA 1180 with RAPL to buy a Toyota Sienta car at a price of $98,999 and the Accused was the sales person who was in charge of the sales. Pursuant to the sales agreement, PW6 paid RAPL a deposit of $20,000. PW6 had paid this $20,000 to PW21. In October 2016, the Accused informed PW6 that his car was ready for collection. The Accused gave PW6 the engine and chassis number of the car and told him to pay the balance payment. PW6 had originally wanted to take a 50% loan for the car but he had changed his mind because of the high interest rate and he decided to pay for the car in full. The Accused then asked PW6 for balance payment of the car. PW6 asked the Accused if he could pay the same by way of cheque payment but the Accused told him “even if you wanted to pay in full, you still have $49,444 because your car is ready and you need to pay in cash”. PW6 then proceeded to withdraw the $49,444 from OCBC Bank at VivoCity Mall and he handed the $49,444 cash to the Accused at the bank’s premises on 27 October 2016. The Accused issued PW6 with invoice no. RA-PO 0109 and he acknowledged the receipt of the $49,444 cash by writing and signing on the invoice.

404 PW6 also testified in Court that when the Accused told him that his car was ready and asked for the balance payment, his understanding was that the whole of the balance payment was due and that meant that PW6 would have to pay the Accused $29,444 plus $49,444.

405 After PW6 had paid the Accused the $49,444, he kept texting the Accused to find out when his car would be ready and this went on until November 2016 when he decided to go down to RAPL and he found out that the Accused had absconded. When PW6 went down to RAPL, he met up with PW21 and PW21 confirmed that RAPL had only received $20,000 from PW6 and they did not receive the sum of $49,444. PW6 also informed the Court that he decided not to pay the $29,444 when he found out that the Accused had absconded and he did not receive his car. PW6 also met up with PW20 in November 2016 and PW20 informed PW6 that the Accused had taken the $49,444 and RAPL did not receive the money from the Accused. PW20 also checked RAPL’s records and he confirmed that RAPL had only received $20,000 from PW6. PW20 also confirmed that RAPL did not receive the $49,444 that PW6 had paid to the Accused and this money was not banked into RAPL’s bank account. PW20 also testified that the invoice no. RA-PO 0109 which the Accused had issued to PW6 was a duplicate and fake invoice as invoice no. RA-PO 0109 had been validly assigned to another customer Seah Han Chong.

406 PW20 also spoke to the Accused and the Accused had admitted to PW20 that he had taken money from PW6:

“Accused :	…. Okay . Then Yip…
PW20 :	Yip?
Accused :	Arh. Yip.
PW20 :	Okay
Accused :	Okay Yip is a Sienta
PW20 :	Yip Sienta. Which month is that?
Accused :	Er … July July or August…
PW20 :	July or August. Yip, Yip, Yip got a few Yip. I also don’t know. This one is under declare also have you know? Yip.
Accused :	Arh. Ya. This one got, that why I tell you. Yip got.
PW20 :	What is the full name of the Yip?
Accused :	Er … Yip Yip Boon Yew
PW20 :	Yip Boon Yew?
Accused :	Arh
PW20 :	Okay I try to, I try to see whether I have this in the system. Okay?
Accused :	Ya. For Yip one is the loan amount.
PW20 :	Loan amount?
Accused :	Y. If I not mistaken is 49 thousand. 49 thousand.
PW20 :	Orh. So you take the 49 thousand cash lah.
Accused :	Yes. Correct”[note: 1039]

407 In DAC 912663-2017, the Accused was alleged to have cheated PW6 by deceiving him to believing the $49,444 was for the purchase of his car when the Accused intended to retain the money for his own use. From the evidence presented, it was clear that PW6 had handed $49,444 cash to the Accused and the Accused had also admitted to PW20 that he had kept the $49,444 for his own use.

408 As for DAC 912662-2017, it was clear from PW6’s evidence that the Accused had asked for the payment of the whole of the balance sum when he informed PW6 that his car was ready for collection. In order to induce PW6 to hand over the money to him, the Accused had proceeded to give PW6 an engine and chassis number which purportedly belonged to PW6’s car. It was also very clear from PW6’s evidence that the Accused had wanted the whole of the balance sum because he had told PW6 “even if you want to pay in full, you still have to pay $49,444 (which was the original loan amount)… and you need to pay in cash”. The only inference that one could derive from the Accused’s statement to PW6 was that he had wanted to PW6 to pay the full balance amount of $29,444 plus the loan of $49,444 but the $49,444 had to be paid in cash because PW6 had decided not to take any loan to buy the car. PW6 decided not to pay the balance $29,444 because he did not get his car.

409 From the evidence above, I was of the view that the Accused had taken $49,444 of PW6’s money, which was meant for RAPL for his own use and he had also attempted to ask PW4 to pay the $29,444. Given all these evidence, I was of the view that there was enough evidence to support the two charges against the Accused and the Accused was required to give his evidence if he wanted to explain otherwise.

xii. DAC 912664-2016 and DAC 912665-2017 (involving PW11)

410 PW11 had purchased a Honda Vezel car from RAPL for $99,888 and he had paid RAPL a deposit of $20,000 by way of cheque payment. PW11 had testified that when he first entered into the sales agreement with RAPL, he had wanted to take a loan of $30,000 to buy the car. Subsequently, he decided not to take the loan and he informed the Accused of his decision. The Accused told PW11 that he had already signed up for the loan and in order for PW11 not to incur any penalty on the loan; he would need to pay the $30,000 immediately. PW11 then proceed to pay the $30,000 to the Accused by cash payment: $5,000 on 14 August 2016 and $25,000 on 16 August 2016. The Accused acknowledged the payment of the $30,000 by writing the amounts paid and signing against the amounts stated on PW11’s actual sales agreement. PW11 had also requested the Accused for an invoice for all the monies that he had paid and the Accused issued PW11 with an invoice no. RA-PO 0175 for the total payment of $50,000 about 5 to 7 days after he had paid the $30,000.

411 After PW11 had paid the Accused the initial $50,000, he chased the Accused for the delivery of his car because his old car was due to be scrapped in November 2016. The Accused contacted PW11 and informed him that his car had arrived and he needed PW11 to pay the balance price of $50,000. PW11 told the Accused that he needed proof that his car had arrived and he wanted sight of his car before paying the balance $50,000. A few days later, the Accused contacted PW11 and told him that he could view his car in RAPL’s showroom. PW11 did go down to the showroom to view his car and he also paid another $50,000 cash to the Accused. When PW11 paid the Accused the $50,000, the Accused acknowledged receipt of the $50,000 cash by writing the same on PW11’s copy of the sales balance sheet. The Accused also promised to refund PW11 the overpayment of $112 and the trade in value of his old car upon delivery of his new car. The Accused had written on PW11’s sales balance sheet the following words: “Balance 112 refund upon delivery”, “Cash 50,000 received on 8/10/2016” and “Balance and trade-in will be settled upon delivery. Refund to customer”^{[note: 1040]}. A few days after PW11 had paid the $50,000 to the Accused, the Accused issued PW11 with invoice no. RA-PO 0170 for the $50,000. The Accused also indicated on the invoice that he would refund PW11 the sum of $112.

412 After the Accused had paid the Accused the second $50,000, he did not get his car from the Accused. PW11 then heard from his son that RAPL was having problems and he went down to RAPL to check on his case. He then proceeded to make a police report against RAPL.

413 PW20 checked RAPL’s records and he found out that for the first payment of $50,000 by PW11, RAPL had only received $20,000 from PW11 and they did not receive the $30,000 cash that PW11 had given to the Accused. PW20 also found out that RAPL had issued PW11 with invoice no. RA-PO 0175 but the invoice that RAPL had issued was only for $20,000 and not $50,000. PW20 commented that someone had amended the invoice to add in the payment of $30,000 onto the invoice. PW20 was of the view that the invoice that the Accused had issued to PW11 was a duplicate invoice and it was not a genuine invoice.

414 As for the second payment of $50,000, PW20 also confirmed that RAPL did not receive this $50,000 and the invoice no. RA-PO 0170 which the Accused had issued to PW11 was not a genuine invoice.

415 In this case, PW20 said that they had not received the $80,000 cash that PW11 had paid to the Accused. PW20 also spoke to the Accused and the Accused admitted to PW20 in Exhibit P30 that he had taken the $80,000 from PW11:

“PW20 :	And then er …besides Yip?
Accused :	Lim Huay Chuen
PW20 :	Okay. Lim Huay Chuen. That one is Rasidah’s friend right?
Accused :	Yes.Correct
PW20 :	Okay. He told me that he took … he gave you about 80 thousand. Is that true?
Accused :	Correct.
PW20 :	Okay”[note: 1041]

416 The above evidence clearly showed that PW11 had given $30,000 and $50,000 cash to the Accused for payment to RAPL and the Accused and kept the monies for his own use. The nature of the evidence presented by the Prosecution was also one that only the Accused could explain but the Accused had elected to remain silent and not give evidence in his defence.

xiii. DAC 912666-2017 (involving PW2)

417 From the evidence presented, it was clear that the Accused had collected $43,444 from PW2. As mentioned earlier, PW2 had paid the Accused a total of $81,888 in cash and RAPL had only received $15,000 in cash from the Accused. That meant that there was a sum of $66,888 that was unaccounted for. The Accused had also confessed to PW20 that he had taken the monies from PW2 totalling $70,000 which belonged to RAPL. All these evidence pointed to the Accused having taken the $66,888. Only the Accused could explain his conversation with PW20 and what had happened to the monies that PW2 had given him. Given all this, I was of the view that it was not right for the Accused to remain silent as he should explain to the Court the context of his conversation with PW20 and what had happened to the monies that he had taken from PW2.

xiv. DAC 912667-2017 (involving PW12)

418 PW12 had entered into a sales agreement with RAPL to purchase a Honda Vezel car from RAPL for $101,888 and he had paid a deposit of $20,000 towards the purchase of the car. The Accused was the sales person in charge of the case. When PW12 decided to buy the Honda Vezel car from RAPL, he had initially wanted to take a loan of $71,321 to buy the car. Later PW12 decided to lower the amount to $66,000 and he was told by the Accused to pay up the difference of $5,321. PW12 then proceeded to pay the $5,321 by way of cash payment to the Accused on 20 July 2016. The Accused did not issue PW12 with any invoice for the $5,321 and PW12 did not ask for any receipt because he trusted the Accused.

419 After PW12 paid the Accused the $5,321, he tried to find out from the Accused the status of his car and the Accused told him that he would get back to him but he never did. After that, the Accused became uncontactable.

420 PW12 then decided to go down to RAPL and he spoke to PW20 about his case. PW20 informed PW12 that the Accused had taken monies from a group of customers. PW20 also checked RAPL’s records and he confirmed that RAPL did not receive the $5,321.

421 I noted that the Accused did not dispute the fact that he had received the $5,321 from PW12. I also noted that there was no invoice issued by the Accused or the payment of $5,321. As there was no invoice issued in this case, it would suggest that the Accused did not hand over the money to RAPL. I also noted the Accused’s admission in Exhibits P30 and P31 that he had taken monies from at least 10 customers whom he had named and that he was not sure if there were any other victims, as he needed to go through RAPL’s records to confirm if there were other customers involved. I further noted that the Accused had, in his statement to PW16 (Exhibit P32), admitted to taking monies from six customers of RAPL whom he did not name. Having considered all these evidence as a whole, I was of the view that the burden had shifted to the Accused and it was up to him to explain what had happened to the $5,321 that he had taken from PW12. However, the Accused had elected to remain silent and not to give evidence from the witness stand.

xv. DAC 912668-2017 (involving PW14)

422 PW14 had purchased a Honda Vezel car from RAPL for $99,888 and he had paid a deposit of $20,000 for the car by way of bank transfer. It was not disputed that Shan was the sales person who had attended to PW14. After PW14 had paid the deposit of $20,000, Shan contacted PW14 and informed him that he could arrange for PW14 to jump queue and for his car to be delivered to him earlier if he was prepared to pay the balance payment of $29,944 by way of cash payment. PW14 decided to accept Shan’s proposal, he proceeded to withdraw $29,944 from his bank account on 30 October 2016, and he brought the money to RAPL on the same day to pay for his car.

423 PW14 had also tendered transcript of text messages between Shan and himself that was extracted from PW14’s hand-phone, which had suggested that the Accused was also involved in the arrangement to allow PW14 to jump queue and get his car earlier:

“Shan :	I check with my manager if you want to jump queue then our management can assign this white vezel to you. but you have to ready ur balance payment …
PW14 :	Sure, I can even pay you now if my car is ready for collection
Shan :	OK, so if you come down make your payment and do the remaining documentation, delivery on November …
PW14 :	So I come down tomorrow for payment? How about COE? Can you Provide me the car chassis number?
Shan :	COE can use open cat or bid under ur name anytime as long as ur car cleared. yes chassis can assign
Shan :	Today is it possible? First come first serve basis. If anyone clear balance earlier than you the car will be assign to them first
PW14 :	U all open till 7 pm?
PW14 :	Can I have the assurance document also? Like COE and chassis number?
Shan :	Coe and chassis can add into your agreement
Shan :	Definitely sir
PW14 :	Ok. I come down later.
PW14 :	If I come down after 7 pm?
Shan :	Ok then I ask chua to be here together he is in charge of assignation chassis
Shan :	Can sir, see you at 8 pm ok?
Shan :	Btw, payment by transfer?
PW14 :	Yes, bank transfer like last time
Shan :	Can withdraw cash instead of transfer? As if you transfer we cannot cut queue for you ...
Shan :	If you transfer then our boss know then we cannot cut queue”[note: 1042]

The text messages suggested that the Accused was in charge of assigning cars to customers. However, it was not true because PW21 had given evidence in court that he was the one who was in charge of getting the cars ready and assigning the cars to customers. PW21 would then hand the car to the sales representatives for them to deliver the cars to the customers.

424 When PW14 went down to RAPL, he met up with Shan and the Accused and both of them attended to him. Before PW14 handed the money to Shan, he asked for the chassis number of his car and Shan told him that the Accused would give him the chassis number. Later on, the Accused provided PW14 with the chassis number RUI-1206847 and he wrote the chassis number down on PW14’s copy of the sales agreement. PW14 then passed the money to both of them and both of them sat down at the table and counted the money. Shan also proceeded to prepare a sales balance sheet to show PW14 his payments and Shan dated the sales balance sheet 26 October 2016 even though PW14 had paid the $29,944 on 30 October 2016. Shan also explained to PW14 that he had dated the document 26 October 2016 in order for PW14 to jump queue to get his car earlier.

425 PW14 also testified that on the day in question, the Accused and Shan were the only employees of RAPL who were present in the office. PW14 further testified that when he paid the Accused and Shan the $29,944, he had asked them for a receipt as evidence of his payment and both the Accused and Shan then went into the office together and they came back with invoice no. RA-PO 0109 for the payment and they gave the invoice to PW14. PW14 also asked both the Accused and Shan as to when he could collect his car and they told him that his car would be ready in the first or second week of November 2016. The Accused then amended the delivery day of PW14’s car on the sales agreement from January to February 2017 to November 2016.

426 PW20 testified that RAPL had only received $20,000 from PW14 and RAPL did not receive any other payment from PW14. PW20 also testified that invoice no. RA-PO 0109 which the Accused and Shan had issued to PW14 for the payment of $29,944 was a duplicate invoice and was not a genuine invoice.

427 I also noted that on 2 November 2016, after PW14 had paid the $29,944, PW14 did text Shan to ask for updates on the delivery of his car and Shan told PW14 that he would need to check with the Accused on the delivery of the car. Shan later informed PW14 that he was told by the Accused that the car would be arriving at the port shortly^{[note: 1043]}.

428 Shan also created a WhatsApp chat group between PW14, the Accused and Shan^{[note: 1044]}. On 3 November 2016, PW14 sent a message to the group to ask when his car would be ready and the Accused replied to PW14 that his car would be reaching RAPL’s showroom between 9 to 11 November 2016. In his reply to PW14, the Accused also informed PW14 that the Accused would require three days to get the car ready for PW14. On 4 November 2016, PW14 sent another message to the Accused and Shan to ask them if he could collect his car by 13 November and both of them replied to PW14 that it would be dependent on the COE bidding. On 7 November 2016, PW14 sent another message to the group to inform them that he had heard news relating to RAPL and he enquired about his car. The Accused replied to PW14 the next day and he informed PW14 that he was towing 4 cars to the showroom the next day and he would update PW14 on the status of his car^{[note: 1045]}. The Accused was not telling the truth because the text messages between the Accused and Shan on 2 November 2016 extracted which from the Accused’s hand-phone clearly showed that PW20 was suspicious of them and he was looking into their cases. The messages between the Accused and Shan also suggested that they had done something illegal:

“Accused :	I got a big problem here. Don’t sleep
Accused :	We need to talk already
Accused :	Boss won’t shut down
Accused :	Now I with them
Accused :	Later find you
Accused :	later I need to go casino I need win money this week
Accused :	If not all thing will burst bro
Accused :	Seriously
Shan :	I cannot cover Liao .. I left few thousand .. I go casino just now
Shan :	Shittttt !!!!
Shan :	Later come talk
Accused :	Wad fuck oh why u go
Shan :	I wanna win big ma take more shit. I buy phone some more
Shan :	Fuck this shit! This time die
Accused :	U left how much now
Accused :	Really fuck already I also die”[note: 1046]

429 I was of the view that the above evidence clearly suggested that both the Accused and Shan were involved in the improper arrangement whereby they could allow customers to jump queue to collect their cars earlier if the customers were prepared to pay them the balance payments in cash and they know they were doing something wrong.

430 The Prosecution had also tendered transcripts of text messages between the Accused and Shan on 2 November 2016, which were extracted from the Accused’s hand-phone, which had suggested that the Accused knew that Shan had taken the $29,944 from PW14:

“ Accused :	U left how much now. Tell me
Shan :	1.5
Accused :	Bro . 25k who spend so much in 2 day
Accused :	Omg!
Shan :	I send back Malaysia. Hospital fee Singapore debts buy phone buy watch”[note: 1047]

431 There were also extracts from P27 that were dated 11 November, which suggested that both the Accused and Shan were involved in PW14’s case:

“Accused :	Ur case he know or not, I will call him.
Accused :	If he don our case i wont say anything.
Accused :	One people dies better than 2
Accused :	He know
Accused :	Then he din find u?
Accused :	I told him everything
Accused :	I just texted him, he haven reply me yet
Shan :	I also don’t want to die, but what to do….
Accused :	Like wht you said, the moment we did , we shud expect the worst case. i break his trust, i really felt sorry to him and company as well, i witness and stay together with royal from nothing to something
Accused :	I also do shit thing. i deserve the punishment
Accused :	So u goin to surrender urself or not, if boss never blame you then i will go alone
Accused :	I wont sAy anything about your thing to anyone else
Shan :	I will call him now
Shan :	See what he say
Accused :	Bro , u try convince him
Accused :	U push everything to me
Accused :	U say i force u to do so
Shan :	No we go discuss together
Accused :	I told u already 1 people die better than 2
Shan :	This is not you alone, when you ask me I say yes
Accused :	I go alone
Shan :	Wait me”[note: 1048]

432 I agreed with the Prosecution that the law on conspiracy did not require the Accused to be aware of every aspect of the conspiracy. All that was required was knowledge of the general purpose of the plot. There was also no requirement in law for the Accused to know all the co-conspirators. The law on conspiracy also required all the conspirators in a conspiracy to agree on the subject of the conspiracy, which was commonly referred to as the ‘meeting of the minds’ and the ‘meeting of the minds’ did not require any explicitly conveyed intention. It was also clear that there was no requirement for any physical meetings of the persons involved and proof of an agreement between the parties could be inferred from the words and actions of the parties.

433 In the present case, the evidence from Exhibit P18 and Exhibit P27 clearly showed that both the Accused and Shan were involved in doing something illegal and the Accused was prepared to take the blame for everything. And having considered all the other evidence presented, there was clear inference that both the Accused and Shan knew what the payment of $29,944 by PW14 was going to be kept by them and would not be forwarded to RAPL. As such, I agreed with the Prosecution that there was clear evidence that the Accused and Shan were part of a conspiracy to take the $29,944 from PW14 and not to forward the same to RAPL.

xvi. Accused’s gambling habits and purchases

434 I also noted that the Accused, in Exhibit P30, had told PW20 that he had used the monies that he had taken from RAPL to give to his family, to gamble at the casino, to pay for his sister’s medical bills and to pay for his father’s debts^{[note: 1049]}. The Accused also informed Shan that he had gone to the casino with the monies that he had taken from RAPL. The Accused’s gambling habits were confirmed by PW17 and PW19 who were representatives of Marina Bay Sands casino and Resorts World Singapore casino. PW17 had tendered Exhibit P35, which showed that the Accused had patronised the Marina Bay Sands casino on numerous occasions and he had visited the casino on 13 days in August 2016, 18 days in September 2018 and 16 days in October 2016. PW17 had also tendered the Accused’s play history at the casino using his membership card (Exhibit P36) and Exhibit P36 showed that the Accused had had suffered a net loss of $50,879 from his visits to Marina Bay Sands casino using his membership card.

435 PW17 also tendered another printout from Marina Bay Sands casino, which showed the Accused’s gaming history whenever he used cash to purchase chips to play at a gambling table or to purchase a ticket to play at a slot machine (Exhibit P37). According to Exhibit P37, the Accused had cashed in $768,326 and cashed out $518,902 at the casino. That would mean that the Accused would have lost about $250,000 at the casino.

436 PW19 had also testified that the Accused had visited Resorts World Singapore casino on four separate occasions between January to October 2016.

437 PW20 had testified that the Accused was paid a salary of $600 a month when he was on probation and his salary was increased to $1,000 a month after his confirmation in July. I found it hard to believe that a person who was earning $1,000 a month was able to amass a sum of $768,326 to gamble at Marina Bay Sands casino. The Accused would need to explain how he was able to get so much money to gamble based on an income of $1,000 a month. This was something that only the Accused could explain.

438 The Prosecution had also tendered evidence of the Accused using large amounts of cash to purchase a Malaysian car bearing registration number MCT 86 during the relevant period. PW16 had seized 7 deposit slips, which were found in the Accused’s Malaysian registered car, which showed that the Accused had deposited RM 64,200 cash into NS Motor (M) Sdn Bhd on 27 October 2016 for the purchase of his Malaysian registered vehicle. PW16 had also seized another invoice from Your Auto Service Sdn Bhd dated 12 November 2016 from the Accused’s car, which showed that the Accused had paid RM 2,862 to Auto Service Sdn Bhd to service and upgrade his car. I also questioned the Accused’s ability to purchase a car using so much cash money given his financial situation.

b. The Accused’s decision to remain silent after his defence was called

439 In the present case, the Accused had elected to remain silent after I had called upon him to enter his defence. While it was trite law that the Accused could not be compelled to give evidence on his own behalf, it was also clear that the Court could draw appropriate inferences from his refusal to take the witness stand or his refusal to answer any question without good cause when determining whether he was guilty of the offences charged.

440 According to the editors of Practitioners’ Library: Evidence in Criminal Trials, LexisNexis, 2002, at [Page 415]:

“ The appropriate inferences will depend on the circumstances of the case, and will be determined by common sense: Haw Tua Tau v PP [1908-1981] SLR 73. The Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau also acknowledged that by virtue of …the Criminal Procedure Code, the law in Singapore permits adverse comment to be made in relation to a failure to answer questions before trial or to give evidence at trial: see also Taw Cheng Kong v PP [1993] 1 SLR 512 for further observations on the statutory qualifications to the right of silence. Apart from adverse inference, the accused’s silence may also result in a failure to raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. In cases where a statutory presumption is operative, it may mean that the accused has failed to discharge his burden of rebutting the presumption on a balance of probabilities. The approach taken by the court is to assess the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution together with any inference that could be properly drawn from the accused’s silence to determine whether guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, if the evidence taken alone or in combination with other facts clearly calls for an explanation which the accused ought to be in a position to give, his silence may lead to an inference that he has no explanation to offer. The inference that may be drawn includes ultimate inference that the accused is guilty of the offence charged.”

441 In PP v Gan Lim Soon [1993] 3 SLR 261, Yong Pung How CJ had held that if an accused who was called upon to enter his defence chose not to give evidence or call witnesses, the judge would have to assess the credibility of the witnesses before deciding whether the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, there was one qualification to that, “if apart from the disputed facts and the credibility of the witnesses, there is hard evidence, whether in the shape of documents or photographs or what are known as “silent facts”, which is itself sufficient to constitute a prima facie case on the charge, the accused cannot choose to remain silent when called upon. If he does remain silent, the unavoidable result is that the case would then have been effectively proved against him beyond reasonable doubt by default”^{[note: 1050]}.

442 In the present case, the Defence had submitted that the Prosecution had failed to prove their case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt because PW20 was a unreliable witness and RAPL’s records were in a complete mess. Looking at the PW20’s evidence in court, I would agree with the Defence that PW20 was not the ideal type of witness that one would want to see in court and there were inconsistencies in his evidence in court. I also agreed with the Defence that RAPL’s records were not 100% accurate and there were incomplete parts in their records, which PW20 could not explain.

443 However, as pointed by Yong Pung How CJ in Gan Lim Soon, that apart from the disputed RAPL’s documents and credibility of PW20, I would have to consider all the evidence that had been brought before me as a whole and I would have to consider whether there were any other hard evidence which by itself would constitute a prima facie case which would require the Accused to not to remain silent and to give evidence.

444 In the present cases, the evidence from all the victims all pointed to them giving cash to the Accused. The only exception was PW14 who testified that he had given his $29,944 to both the Accused and Shan. It was also not disputed that all the victims had handed their monies to the Accused for buying cars and these monies to be handed over to RAPL.

445 Other than the evidence from the 14 victims, the Prosecution had also tendered the following documentary evidence in court:

(a) Exhibits P30 and P31, which contained the Accused admission to PW20 that he had taken monies from at least 10 of RAPL’s customers, which were meant for RAPL for his own use and to feed his gambling habits. The Accused had admitted that he had taken about $300,000 to $400,000 of RAPL’s customers monies and he had indicated that there could be more victims but he had to go through RAPL’s records to confirm the same.

(b) PW17 had also tendered documents, which showed that the Accused had spent large amounts of cash at Marina bay Sands casino and he could have lost more than $250,000 at the casino (Exhibit P35 to P37).

(c) The Accused in his statement to the police (Exhibit P32) had admitted to taking balance payments monies at least six customers of RAPL for his own use. The Accused had also admitted to taking $20,000 plus of RAPL’s monies in Exhibit P32.

(d) The police had also tendered extracts of text conversations between the Accused and Shan from the Accused’s hand-phone which clearly showed that the Accused had committed the offences and he had taken about “300-400” thousands of dollars from RAPL (Exhibit P29). The text conversations between the Accused and Shan also clearly suggested that there was a conspiracy between the Accused and Shan whereby they had taken monies from some RAPL customers.

(e) PW14 had also tendered extracts of his text conservations between himself and Shan (Exhibit P18) and the three-way WhatsApp conversation between the Accused, Shan and himself (Exhibit 17) which clearly showed that the Accused knew what Shan was planning to cheat PW14 of the $29,944.

446 I also noted that there were a number of cases where the Accused had not issued any invoices after receiving the payments from the customers. I was of the view that since no invoices were issued, it would suggest that the monies were not handed over to RAPL and the onus would be on the Accused to explain what had happened to the monies.

447 There were other acts by the Accused which were very suspicious in nature. For example, the Accused had issued PW4 with an invoice for the payment of the $17,555, which invoice had pre-dated that date of the payment. The Accused had also insisted on only cash payments from PW4, PW5, PW6, PW8, PW10 and PW11 when RAPL’s payment modes allowed for other modes of payments including bank transfers to RAPL’s accounts and cheque payments. The Accused had also requested PW4 and PW13 to deposit monies due to RAPL into his personal UOB account when this was not allowed by RAPL. The Accused had also allowed PW15 to pay a lesser amount of deposit that the $20,000 that was required by RAPL when customers place their bookings for cars.

448 In the present case, the Prosecution was not only relying on the evidence of PW20. Therefore, even though there might be concerns about the credibility of PW20 and the records kept by RAPL, I was of the view that the other evidence, which had been tendered by the Prosecution, were clear hard evidence, which was sufficient to constitute prima facie against the Accused for all the 22 charges.

449 Moreover, as discussed earlier, I was of the view that only the Accused was in a position to clarify the documentary evidence and his conversation with PW20 and Shan. Since the Accused had decided to remain silent, adverse inference ought to be drawn against him. In the circumstances, the unavoidable result would be that I would accept the Prosecution’s evidence and held that the Prosecution had effectively proven their cases against him beyond reasonable doubt.

450 At this point, I wished to make some comments about the Defence’s submission. The Defence had submitted that the names of the victims and the amounts given in Exhibit P30 were different from the names of the victims and amounts stated in the charges against the Accused. Whilst I agreed that there were slight difference in the names and the amounts stipulated, it was clear to me that the Accused was able to recall the names of the victims without much prompting from PW20 and there were many similarities in the Accused recollection and the evidence of the victims. Given all these, I was of the view that the victims referred to in Exhibit P30 were the victims named in the charges.

451 With regard to PW13, the Defence had pointed out that the Accused had voluntarily refunded PW13 a sum of $32,400 and the Defence had submitted that the Accused’s action clearly showed that there was no dishonest intent on the part of the Accused and that had raised a reasonable doubt in respect of the Prosecution’s case in relation to DAC 912648-2017 and DAC 912649-2017. However, I noted that in Exhibit P32, the Accused had informed PW16 “there was once he had directed a customer to transfer his balance payment of about $30,000 to $40,000 to the Accused’s UOB account with the intention to misappropriate it”. The Accused did not identify the customer was in Exhibit P32. In any event, for cheating charges, the mens rea was to be taken at the time the cheating act was committed and that would be the time that the Accused had induced PW13 and PW13 had transferred the monies to the Accused. If there were any change of heart by the Accused, the onus would be on the Accused to explain his conduct rather than remaining silent.

c. Conclusion

452 For the cheating charges, I agreed with the Prosecution that the elements to be proven were (a) victims were deceived, (b) there was inducement to victims to deliver properties and (c) there was dishonest intention.

453 From the evidence presented, there was clear evidence that the Accused had induced all the victims to deliver monies to him by informing them that they needed to make further payments for their cars. There was also clear evidence from Exhibits P29, P30, P31 and P32 that the Accused did not hand the monies to RAPL and he had kept the monies for his own use. The Accused’s dishonest intention could clearly be inferred from his actions and from his admission to PW20 and Shan.

454 As for the attempted cheating charge, it was clear from PW6’s evidence that the Accused had asked for the payment of the whole of the balance sum when he informed PW6 that his car was ready for collection. In order to induce PW6 to hand over the money to him, the Accused had proceeded to give PW6 an engine and chassis number which purportedly belonged to PW6’s car. It was also very clear from PW6’s evidence that the Accused had wanted the whole of the balance sum because he had told PW6 “even if you want to pay in full, you still have to pay $49,444 (which was the original loan amount)… and you need to pay in cash”. The only inference that one could derive from the Accused’s statement to PW6 was that he had wanted to PW6 to pay the full balance amount of $29,444 plus the loan of $49,444. In the present case, it was fortuitous that PW6 had decided not to pay the balance $29,444 because he did not get his car. I also noted that the Defence was also disputing the date of the offence as being 27 October 2016. As the Accused had informed PW6 that he was supposed to pay in full balance amount and the date that PW6 had made the partial payment of $49.444 was on 27 October 2016, I was prepared to accept the date of the attempt as being on 27 October 2016.

455 As for the conspiracy to cheat charge, PW14 had given evidence the Accused was present with Shan when he handed the $29,944 to Shan at RAPL’s premises and both of them had proceeded to count the money together. When PW14 requested for an invoice, both of then went to the office together and handed him a fake invoice. There was no one else at the office at that time. The Accused also gave PW14 the chassis number of the car and changed the delivery date to November 2016 in the sales agreement. Exhibits P17, P18 and P27 also clearly showed that the Accused was involved in the arrangement for the jumping of queue because he was the person who was in charge of assigning the cars. The evidence from PW21 clearly showed that PW21 was in charge of assigning and delivering the cars and not the Accused. The Accused’s conversation with Shan on 2 November 2016 clearly showed that both of them were involved in a conspiracy where they had taken monies from customers. In the conversation, the Accused was upset with Shan for having spent $25,000 in just 2 days. Given that both of them had taken $29,944 from PW14 on 30 October 2016, which was just 2 days before 2 November 2016, I was of the view that they were clearly talking about the monies that they had taken from PW14. There was clear inference, from evidence presented by Prosecution, that there was “meeting of minds” between the Accused and Shan on the agreement to cheat PW14 of the $29,944 and both of them did carried out their plan and had taken the money from him.

456 In the present case, despite having all these evidence before him, the Accused had elected to remain silent and not to give his defence. I was of the view that adverse inference should be drawn against the Accused for remaining silent and I was prepared to accept to the Prosecution’s evidence as presented.

457 Having considered all the above evidence, I was of the view that the Prosecution had proved all the 22 charges against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and I accordingly convicted the Accused of all the 22 charges.

Sentencing

a. Punishment prescribed by law

458 The punishment prescribed under section 408 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) was imprisonment for a term, which would extend to 15 years, and would be liable to fine.

459 The punishment prescribed under section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) was imprisonment for a term, which would extend to 10 years, and would be liable to fine.

460 Section 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) provided that any person who abetted any offence would be punished with the punishment that was provided for that offence.

461 Section 511 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) provided that any person, who had the intention of committing an offence, and had taken a substantial step towards the commissioning of that offence, shall be guilty of an attempt to commit that offence.

b. Antecedents

462 The Accused was untraced for any previous offence.

c. Prosecution’s Positon on Sentence^{[note: 1051]}

463 The Prosecution submitted that a global custodial sentence of at least 66 months’ imprisonment ought to be imposed in the present case.

i. Section 408 Penal Code offence

464 The Prosecution submitted that a sentence of at least 14 months’ imprisonment ought to be imposed in respect of this charge.

465 The Prosecution submitted that in CBT offences, all other things being equal, the larger the amount, the greater the culpability of the offender and the more severe the sentence of the court: Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP [1990] 2 SLR(R) 361 at [18].

466 The Prosecution also pointed out that it was also well established that a timeously-effected plea of guilt would merit a sentencing discount in certain situations. This discount ranged from a quarter to a third of what would otherwise be an appropriate sentence: Tan Kay Beng v PP [2006] 4 SLR(R) at [36]. In the present case, the Accused was convicted after a lengthy trial and he should not be given any sentencing discount.

467 The Prosecution noted that the section 408 charge involved a significant sum of $32,833 being dishonestly misappropriated by the Accused.

468 The Prosecution submitted that, based on the precedents tendered, a sentence of 14 to 15 months’ imprisonment was appropriate:

S/No	Accused	Brief Facts	Sentence
1.	PP v Lee Lay Yoke SC-909311-2017 *Appeal pending	The accused was employed as a senior finance manager at the Singapore Human Resources Institute (“SHRI”). She was responsible for banking in cash payments made by students of SHRI. On 28 occasions between 4 February and 19 May 2017, instead of depositing the cash payments, the accused pocketed a total of $43,336 and forged 28 DBS transaction slips to conceal the fact that she had dishonestly misappropriated the money. The accused faced 1 charge under s. 408 Penal Code and 28 charges under s. 465 Penal Code. She claimed trial to the charges and was convicted after a 3-day trial.	s. 408 charge: 14 months’ imprisonment s. 465 charges: 3 weeks to 3 months’ imprisonment (depending on amount involved)
2.	Kumarasamy s/o Govindasamy SC-906052-2016 MA 9078/2019 (Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed)	The accused was employed as a supervisor of Singapore Food Industries and was tasked to receive and account for cash payments from delivery drivers. Between 14 and 24 November 2014, he misappropriated cash of $29,119.04. The accused faced 1 charge under s. 408 of the Penal Code. He claimed trial and was convicted after an 8-day trial.	s. 408 charge: 15 months’ imprisonment and $29,000 fine (to disgorge illegal proceeds)
3.	Kavitha d/o Mailvaganam [2017] 4 SLR 1349	The accused was employed as a customer service officer by JPB Maid Specialist and was tasked to collect and record payments in the accounting system. Between 1 June 2015 and 3 November 2015, she dishonestly misappropriated a sum of $30,423.96 in cash that she had collected. The accused pleaded guilty to 1 charge under s. 408 of the Penal Code.	s. 408 charge: 7 months’ imprisonment (on appeal)

469 The Prosecution also pointed out that sentence of ten months’ imprisonment identified by the High Court in Kavitha as an appropriate sentence for offenders misappropriating sums in the region of $30,000 was premised on the offender having pleaded guilty (at [22]). This position was consistent with the sentences imposed in Lee Lay Yoke and Kumarasamy as the offenders in those cases claimed trial and so did not receive any sentencing discount.

ii. Section 420 Penal Code offences

470 The amounts in the section 420 charges involved sums ranging from $982.03 to $50,000. Like CBT offences, the quantum involved in cheating offences under s. 420 provided the basis on which sentences is determined: PP v Fernando Payagala [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 at [47].

471 The Prosecution submitted that the following sentences were appropriate:

(a) For charges involving $982.03 to $11,924, between 1 to 6 months’ imprisonment;

(b) For charges involving $17,555 to $30,000, between 10 to 15 months’ imprisonment; and

(c) For charges involving $40,000 to $50,000, between 15 to 18 months’ imprisonment.

iii. Aggravating factors

472 The Prosecution submitted that it was well established that premeditation was an aggravating factor. In PP v Tan Fook Sum [1999] 2 SLR 523, the High Court stated at [18] that:-

“it is well established that where an act is done after deliberation and with premeditation as opposed to the situation where it is done on the spur of the moment and ‘in hot blood’ that is an aggravating and not a mitigating circumstance.”

[Emphasis added]

473 The Prosecution was of the view that the cheating offences were clearly premeditated. The Accused had issued invoices to the victims when collecting cash from them. He had also directed two victims to transfer their payments directly into his bank account instead of to RAPL’s bank account, and had insisted that a victim paid in cash when the victim offered to pay by cheque.

474 The Accused faced 21 cheating charges. In PP v Syamsul Hilal bin Ismail [2012] 1 SLR 973 at [33], the High Court opined that an offender facing multiple cheating charges would receive a higher sentence than one who faced only a single charge, even if the sums involved in both scenarios were the same or similar. An offender facing multiple charges would be rightly regarded as being more culpable, and could not credibly submit that his conduct was the result of momentary indiscretion.

475 In addition, an untraced offender who faced multiple charges would not be treated as a first offender: Chen Weixiong Jerriek v PP [2003] 2 SLR(R) 334 at [17].

iv. Precedents

476 Given the sums involved, the Prosecution submitted that the following precedents were relevant in guiding the court on the sentences to be imposed on the cheating charges:

S/No	Accused	Brief Facts	Sentence
1.	PP v Yeo Lai Heng FM (PG) on 14 September 2015 Traced for drug offences and s417 PC in 2005	The accused made various false representations to a single victim pertaining to the purchase of a Buddha statues and the building of a temple in Nepal. He dishonestly induced the victim to deliver a total of $75,000. The proceeded charges involved sums of $15,000, $20,000 and $20,000. The accused gambled the money away.	S420 ($20,000): 11 months’ impt each* S 420 PC ($15,000): 8 months’ impt Global sentence: 22 months’ imprisonment
2.	PP v Lye Chong Kan DAC 39160-2013 FM(S) on 22 November 2013 Traced for theft related offence in 1987	Amongst other offences, the accused falsely represented to the 1st victim that he had was the sub-tenant of a coffee shop and asked her to invest money as a silent partner, promising that he would pay her returns regardless of whether the coffee shop made money. He then signed a document with her at a law firm which placed this agreement in writing, and the victim delivered $30,000 to him as a result of his representation to her. No restitution was made. The accused pleaded guilty to 4 charges, including 1 charge under s. 420 of the Penal Code.	S 420 ($30,000): 16 months’ imprisonment Global sentence: 24 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment
3.	PP v Ziba Choong Yi Shi DAC 939104-2015 & Ors FM(PG) on 8 April 2016 Traced for property-related offences in 1994, 1996, 2002 and 2005	The first victim was Li Qing, a PRC national. Li Qing knew the accused as the owner and teacher of her son’s tuition centre. The accused would make nightly calls to Li Qing to talk to her about Li Qing’s son and other personal matters. The accused promised Li Qing that she could obtain PR status for both her and her husband, thereby dishonestly inducing her to hand over an “application fee” of $20,000. The accused also misrepresented that Li Qing’s husband needed to be listed as a shareholder in the accused’s purported gold business as part of the application process and there by dishonestly induced Li Qing to hand over a sum of $50,000 as investment into the business. For the other charges, the accused promised to secure school admission for Li Qing’s son. Li Qing handed over a total of $90,400 to the accused. The accused made restitution of $10,000. In respect of the charge involving $30,000, the accused induced another victim to hand over the money to her as a purported investment into gold. The accused made restitution of $6,000	s. 420 ($50,000): 24 months’ imprisonment* s. 420 ($30,000): 18 months’ imprisonment* s. 420 ($20,000): 15 months’ imprisonment Global sentence: 42 months’ imprisonment
4.	PP v Joshua Koh Kian Yong DAC 500252- 2012 & ors FM(S) on 1 February 2013 Untraced	For the two s. 420 charges, the accused cheated the victim by telling him that he would purchase shares on his behalf, when he never intended to do so, and thus persuaded him to hand over $30,000 in cash in December 2010. The accused then told the victim that he would purchase another lot of shares and persuaded him to handover another $30,000 in cash in January 2011. While under investigation for s 420 PC offences, the accused misappropriated IT equipment and shopping vouchers amounting to $45,896 from the company he was employed by. The accused pleaded guilty to 4 charges, including 2 charges under s. 420 of the Penal Code.	s. 420 (30,000): 15 months’ imprisonment s. 420 (30,000): 15 months’ imprisonment (concurrently) Global sentence: 28 months’ imprisonment
5.	PP v Nuraszila binte Ai’Nal FM(PG) on 3 Nov 2014 Untraced	The accused deceived her former employer using false rental agreements to enable her to take custody of the company’s vehicles. She would fabricate reasons as to why the fictitious clients had not paid up. The accused then rented the vehicles out to her friends at cheaper rates and pocketed the rental proceeds.	S420 PC ($18,960): 9 months’ imprisonment S420 PC ($30,365.28): 12 months’ imprisonment S420 PC ($70,950): 18 months’ imprisonment S408 PC: 3 months’ imprisonment Global sentence: 30 months’ imprisonment