District Court of Singapore

Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Fayyadz bin Halim Angullia
[2020] SGDC 86

[LawNet Editorial Note: An appeal to this decision has been filed in MA 9290/2019/1.]

7 April 2020

District Judge Terence Tay:

Introduction

1 The accused had claimed trial to 8 charges of cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, Rev Ed 2008) (the “PC”) whereby he deceived various victims into delivering different amounts of money into his POSB Bank account bearing number XXX (the “Bank Account”), as follows:

DAC No	Victim	Amount	Date	Nature of Deception
909485-2018 (“C1”)	Abdul Rashid Bin Abdul Khalid (“Rashid”)	$10,000	23 Jun 2014	Deceived into believing that the accused person was able to help him invest with a trading company with which the accused person was employed.
909486-2018 (“C2”)	Rashid	$20,000	23 Oct 2014
909487-2018 (“C3”)	Rashid	$5,000	28 Nov 2015
909488-2018 (“C4”)	Farahyn Banu Bte Mohd Hasrat (“Farahyn”)	$10,000	28 Jan 2016	Deceived into believing that the accused person was able to help her invest with a trading company with which the accused person was employed.
909489-2018 (“C5”)	Muhammad Nasrul Bin Mohamed Nahadi (“Nasrul”)	$10,000	25 Apr 2016	Deceived into believing that the accused person was able to help him invest with a trading company with which the accused person was employed.
909490-2018 (“C6”)	Muhammad Imran Bin Abdul Ghani (“Imran”)	$5,000	Mid-May 2015	Deceived into believing that the accused person was able to help him invest with a trading company with which the accused person was employed.
918925-2018 (“C7”)	Nurul Syafiqah Binte Mohd Omar (“Syafiqah”)	$1,000	29 Jan 2016	Deceived via representations made through Farahyn into believing that the accused person was able to help her invest with a trading company with which the accused person was employed.
929404-2018 (“C8”)	Naziehah Binte Mohamed Hatta (“Naziehah”)	$3,000	8 Mar 2017	Deceived into believing that the accused person was able to help her invest with a trading company with which the accused person used to be employed.

2 The prescribed punishment for each of the charges was up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The accused person was also liable to a fine.

3 At the end of the trial, I found the accused person guilty and convicted him of all 8 charges.

4 The accused person had no antecedents and I sentenced him to a global sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.

5 I allowed the accused person’s request to defer his sentence to 18 November 2019 and released him on bail. On 15 November 2019, the accused person filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence. On 18 November 2019, I allowed bail pending appeal.

Prosecution’s case

6 The prosecution had called the following witnesses to establish its case:

Marking	Name	Purpose
PW1	Rashid	Victim of C1, C2 and C3
PW3	Farahyn	Victim of C4
PW2	Nasrul	Victim of C5
PW8	Imran	Victim of C6
PW9	Syafiqah	Victim of C7
PW6	Naziehah	Victim of C8
PW4	Pamela Tan Pei Hsiang	Representative of IG Asia Pte Ltd
PW5	Mohamed Ayub Bin P N Shahul Hameed	Representative of Varus Evans Pte Ltd
PW7	Mohamad Pauzi Bin Ali	Representative of DBS Bank Ltd
PW10	Gan Ren Jian	Former investigation officer
PW11	Djong Nam Him, Nicholas	Current investigations offer

Evidence of Rashid - C1, C2 and C3

7 Rashid testified that he was first acquainted with the accused person in polytechnic in 2006 and he became best friends with the accused person when they met each other again during national service days.

8 Sometime in 2014, after they had completed national service, the accused person told Rashid that he was working as a trader for a company called “Varius Evans” and introduced Rashid to “the world of trading and investing”.^{[note: 1]} According to Rashid, the accused person was “always dressed nicely, smart attire, carrying a briefcase. And a few times, [the accused person] showed [Rashid] … stacks of cash like 50s and 100s.” The accused person also gave details of his office, relationship with his colleagues and how profitable “Varius Evans” was.^{[note: 2]}

9 On 22 June 2014,^{[note: 3]} the accused person sent a message on the Whatsapp Messenger communication application (“Whatsapp”) to ask Rashid if wanted to invest in some oil stocks, purportedly “a very safe trade investment”, with “Varius Evans” through the accused person and his colleagues. The accused person informed Rashid that the amount of investment was $10,000 and Rashid would earn a profit of $3,100 at the end of 3 months.^{[note: 4]} The accused person gave Rashid an hour to decide whether to invest as the company “needed to close the accounts quickly or soon, so they can start trading.”.^{[note: 5]}

10 Rashid thought that it was a “safe and sure way… to get some money” and agreed to invest with “Varius Evans” through the accused person (the “1^stInvestment”).^{[note: 6]} As Rashid did not have $10,000 with him at that time, the accused person informed Rashid that he will “get his colleague to put in the money for [Rashid] first”. Thereafter, Rashid obtained a loan from his mother, Takako Tomizawa, who transferred $10,000 from her POSB Bank account to the Bank Account the next day, ie. 23 June 2014.^{[note: 7]} This transfer was documented in a POSB Bank withdrawal slip dated 23 June 2014.^{[note: 8]}R

11 Rashid checked with the accused person in September or October 2014 when Rashid did not receive his returns from the 1^st Investment more than 3 months’ later. The accused person told Rashid that there was “a bank delay” as the company had to “finish and closed (sic) their account”.^{[note: 9]} The accused person also told Rashid that here was a “bank audit”.^{[note: 10]}

12 On 22 October 2014, the accused person again asked Rashid to invest with “Varius Evans” through him. In court, Rashid recalled that the new investment was for a period of less than 1 year. Rashid agreed to invest $20,000 with Rashid (the “2^ndInvestment”) as he was “happy with the progress of [the 1^st Investment] and it came across to [Rashid] that it was really safe and secure”. The accused person gave Rashid an hour to confirm if he wanted to make the investment as “the company will be closing their account, soon to be---soon to be traded”.^{[note: 11]}

13 Rashid was prepared to make the 2^nd Investment even though he had not received the proceeds from the 1^st Investment as he believed that the delay was not the fault of the accused person or “Varius Evans”:^{[note: 12]}

A	According to him [ie. the accused person], the funds from the 1st investment were out his company and close their account. And the delay was due to bank processing. And eventually, it would add on to, uh, bank audit.
Q	So, why would that make you invest with him a second time?
A	Because I did not see the delay as his fault or his company’s fault.

14 For the second time, Rashid turned to his mother for a loan for the 2^nd Investment. On 23 October 2014, Rashid went with his mother to the DBS Bank branch at Raffles City Shopping Centre where his mother withdrew $20,000 from her POSB Bank account and deposited the same into the Bank Account.^{[note: 13]} The withdrawal and deposit were documented in a DBS Bank withdrawal transaction receipt^{[note: 14]} and a DBS Bank deposit transaction receipt^{[note: 15]}, respectively, both of which were dated 23 October 2014. Thereafter, the accused informed Rashid that he had received the money and that “it was good to be traded with”.^{[note: 16]}

15 After the 2^nd Investment was made, the accused person periodically updated Rashid on the Facebook Messenger communication application (“Facebook Messenger”) on the progress of the 2^nd Investment and the reasons for the delay in the return of the capital and profit from the 1^st Investment (the “Messenger Log”).^{[note: 17]}

16 An extract of the Messenger Log and Rashid’s corresponding testimony in court, from the Prosecution’s closing submissions,^{[note: 18]} is reproduced below:

Date	Messenger Log	Rashid’s Testimony
18 Dec 2014 (Page 2)	Accused person: “Apologies for the late reply, I off my message notification. Still no news at all. We’re playing the waiting game till it’s transferred to us… For the 2nd investment, there’s a slight hiccup cause of the record low brent oil prices.”	The “waiting game” referred to the bank processing time for the 1st Investment. The reference to the 2nd investment was an example of the constant updates provide for the second investment.[note: 19]
	Rashid: “If you had to give a very loose estimate, when do you reckon we have a chance of getting it?”	Rashid was asking the accused person when he could get back the monies for the 1st Investment since it had been delayed for close to 2 months.[note: 20]
20 Dec 2014 (Page 4)	Accused person: “Hmm, I don’t like to give estimates bro… It was just unfortunate that our books were audited during the period where we processed the withdrawal. We have submitted all the paperworks, audit’s over, our company’s in the clear, taxation done, etc, so, it will just be a matter of time when it will be credited to the company. Once I receive news that the money is in, I’ll personally ask for the cash cheque from my MD, cash in and transfer to your account.”	After Rashid heard the accused person’s reply regarding when he could get back the 1st Investment, Rashid felt confident and believed that he could get back his money eventually.[note: 21]
21 Jul 2015 (Page 5)	Rashid: “They still holding back the first investment” Accused person: “yeah all investments from 18 march 2014 to 21 november 2014” Accused person: “OH YOUR SECOND ONE TOUCHES 60 k last week”	The accused person explained that the 1st Investment was still under the bank audit, and that the 2nd Investment had earned a profit of $60,000. While Rashid felt unhappy about the delay, he did not blame the accused person or “Varius Evans” because he thought that the delay was due to the bank.[note: 22]
4 Sep 2015 (Page 9)	Accused person: “wait ah let me settle all this, transfer you 13.1k, then after 9 working days, transfer your mum 64.4k then sedap sikit. hahaha i closed the second investment yesterday bro!”	The “13.1k” refers to the monies for the 1st Investment while the “64.4k” refers to the monies for the second investment. “Sedap sikit” means that after Rashid received the investment sum and returns, the weight would be taken off Rashid’s shoulder.[note: 23]
27 Sep 2015 (Page 16)	Rashid: “Any update on the investments?” Accused person: “…not yet in because both parties are drafting out papers for our case to be officially over… just the small matter of signing and handing over the documents to the Singapore securities and exchange commission and MAS, thennnnnn get the money.”	Rashid did not get back the 2 sums of monies on time because the accused person said that there would be another delay.[note: 24]

17 By September 2015, Rashid still had not received any returns from the 1^st Investment and the 2^nd Investment. Nevertheless, the accused person contacted Rashid on Facebook Messenger on 28 November 2015 to ask him to make yet another investment (the “3^rdInvestment”):^{[note: 25]}

supp you wanna do a personal investment with all of my colleagues? it’s just 1 week of trades. we’re estimating returns of at least 32 percent. that’s a modest estimate as you can tell. that’s the returns that I can promise you ah. we’ll log in our trades at 7pm today and start trading from monday to saturday morning. we’ve raised 3 million dollars from my colleagues and from my company. We’re doing this twice a year whereby everyone pool their money for a short time. Don’t care about how small or big the amount is but of course, if it’s a big amount, you feel the rewards but whatever it is, i think you should go for it! small investment will do too! haha i mean you already have 2 portfolios with my company. haha let me know! you can grow your money without any risk and you’ll get it back v fast too.

(Emphasis added.)

18 Notably, the accused person had also referred to the 1^st Investment and the 2^nd Investment in the same message.

19 Rashid understood that the 3^rd Investment was for a period of 1 week. However, it would take up to 9 working days for him to receive the returns.^{[note: 26]} As with 1^st Investment and 2^nd Investment, the accused person gave Rashid an hour to decide whether to participate in the 3^rd Investment.^{[note: 27]}

20 Rashid decided to invest $5,000 in the 3^rd Investment but told the accused person that he could only make a payment of $3,000 that day, ie.28 November 2015, due to a $3,000 withdrawal limit on his bank account, and the balance of $2,000 the next day.^{[note: 28]}

21 Accordingly, Rashid transferred $3,000 to the Bank Account on 28 November 2015 at 7:03 pm and a further $2,000 after midnight, ie. on 29 November 2015, at 2:09 am.^{[note: 29]} The funds transfers were confirmed by way of a letter dated 15 February 2017 from DBS Bank to Rashid.^{[note: 30]}

22 After Rashid invested in the 3^rd Investment, he continued to correspond with the accused person on Facebook Messenger and periodically checked with the accused person on the status and the promised returns on the investments. However, the accused person was slow to respond and continued to give many reasons why the returns were not forthcoming.^{[note: 31]}

23 By January 2017, about 2½ years after the 1^st Investment and 1¼ year after the 3^rd Investment, Rashid still had not received any returns on all three investments. Rashid started to feel that something was wrong when the accused person “started to play the disappearing game like… he wouldn’t be contactable”.^{[note: 32]} As the accused person had previously informed Rashid that some of their mutual friends had also invested with him, Rashid decided to reach out to them to find out if they were in a similar situation.^{[note: 33]}

24 Rashid contacted Farahyn and her husband and found out that Farahyn had similarly invested money with the accused person and the accused person had not paid her any returns from her investment. The reasons that the accused person gave to Farahyn for the delay were similar to the reasons that the accused person had given to Rashid.^{[note: 34]} Rashid “felt heartbroken” when he heard this “[b]ecause more or less, it kind of confirm thatt something was amiss”.^{[note: 35]} Subsequently, Rashid also found out from Farahyn that her friend, Naziehah, had also invested in “Varius Evans”.

25 On 25 June 2017, Rashid filed the following police report at the Bedok Police Division:^{[note: 36]}

26 Rashid never received any returns (ie. capital and/or profit) from the accused person for the 1^st Investment, the 2^nd Investment and the 3^rd Investment.

27 For all 3 investments, Rashid testified that he would not have given the monies to the accused person to invest if he had known that the accused person did not have the intention or the ability to help him invest with the trading company that the accused person was purportedly working for, ie. “Varius Evans”, which was not true.^{[note: 37]}

Evidence of Farahyn - C4

28 Farahyn was acquainted with the accused person through her husband, Abdul Haliim Khan s/o Mohamed Hapiz Khan (“Haliim”), at the polytechnic and had known the accused person for about a decade as at February 2019. Farahyn became closer to the accused person in 2014 or 2015.^{[note: 38]}

29 Sometime in January 2016, while the Farahyn and the accused were communicating with each other on Whatsapp, the accused person mentioned that he was already a millionaire and that he had given Farahyn’s cousin money for his wedding.^{[note: 39]} Farahyn then asked the accused for advice on how to invest. The accused person told her that he had been working with “Varius Evans” as a trader since 2015. According to Farahyn, the accused person came across as knowledgeable about investments:^{[note: 40]}

Q	So from your interactions with Fayyadz, what was your impression about Fayyadz in terms of his involvement in investment?
A	He seemed like a very knowledgeable guy. Um, he certainly, un, did know the jargon of trading. Something which I’m not very well-versed in. Um, and he came off as genuine---as a genuine trader.

30 As the accused person continued to expound his knowledge and success in investments, Farahyn asked the accused person whether she could pass him her money and let him “handle it” for her^{[note: 41]} The following is the relevant extract of the Whatsapp communication between Farahyn and the accused person:^{[note: 42]}

[27/1/16, 5:37:16 AM]	Accused person: You want guaranteed returns?
[27/1/16, 5:37:21 AM]	Farahyn: When I actually have some money
[27/1/16, 5:37:24 AM]	Farahyn: I wna invest
[27/1/16, 5:37:29 AM]	Accused person: But super low returns
[27/1/16, 5:37:39 AM]	Farahyn: It'll be good to have a constant side income
[27/1/16, 5:37:57 AM]	Farahyn: Or at least something I can tap on in future
[27/1/16, 5:38:13 AM]	Farahyn: Can I just give you my money and you handle it for me
[27/1/16, 5:38:30 AM]	Accused person: You need to have a lot of money...save first. Then hire a portfolio manager to invest for you. He will diversify your investments and you ask for fixed monthly returns.
[27/1/16, 5:38:45 AM]	Farahyn: How much is a lot?
[27/1/16, 5:38:48 AM]	Accused person: I won't be trading that time.
[27/1/16, 5:39:09 AM]	Accused person: If you wanna rasa the profits then you save 50k.
[27/1/16, 5:39:12 AM]	Accused person: 20-50

31 The accused person also mentioned that other people had invested with “Varius Evans” through him:^{[note: 43]}

[27/1/16, 5:39:54 AM]	Accused person: My friends and uncles pass me their cash and I put them together with my company's funds and we trade on that.
[27/1/16, 5:40:11 AM]	Accused person: Hmm be careful.
[27/1/16, 5:42:08 AM]	Accused person: Rashids mum invested 20k. She got 64.4k returns in 9months. Hahaha more than 300 percent. Usually our firm charges 20 percent fee but I give her and everyone else free.
[27/1/16, 5:42:23 AM]	Farahyn: Wah so good
[27/1/16, 5:42:30 AM]	Accused person: Believe me. Go and take a loan from bank better than family or.friends.
[27/1/16, 5:42:37 AM]	Farahyn: The most I can give you to invest right now is 1k haha
[27/1/16, 5:43:10 AM]	Accused person: Cute. My friend just invested 2k. And after 2.months only 2.6k returns. It is still running though.
[27/1/16, 5:43:22 AM]	Farahyn: At least something what
[27/1/16, 5:44:03 AM]	Accused person: To.be honest..if you wanna invest in my firm need 1 mil minimum. But I don't tell.my md that part of my own investment is someone else's cash.

32 Subsequently, the accused person invited Farahyn to invest in energy stocks and told her that she had to make payment by 6:30 pm the next day if she was interested:^{[note: 44]}

[27/1/16, 5:45:55 AM]	Accused person: I am starting a new investment with my colleagues and.shareholders tomorrow also.
[27/1/16, 5:46:06 AM]	Accused person: It will be 2 months contract
[27/1/16, 5:46:37 AM]	Accused person: Let's say if you invest 1k. I guarantee you that you won't lose your initial investment
[27/1/16, 5:46:50 AM]	Accused person: And min you will get 24-30 percent returns
[27/1/16, 5:47:05 AM]	Accused person: We won't lose money cos we pool.money together to make a hugeeee account
[27/1/16, 5:47:20 AM]	Accused person: So the risk to reward ratio is greatly reduced
[27/1/16, 5:47:22 AM]	Accused person: Yups
[27/1/16, 5:47:42 AM]	Accused person: Ape 2months you get your money back
[27/1/16, 5:47:45 AM]	Accused person: With the profits
[27/1/16, 5:47:47 AM]	Farahyn: Ohh
[27/1/16, 5:47:58 AM]	Farahyn: Better than nothing man
[27/1/16, 5:48:00 AM]	Accused person: Plus max 9 working days
…
[27/1/16, 5:48:40 AM]	Accused person: Hmm..would it.be helpful if you get at least 50 percent returns?
[27/1/16, 5:48:42 AM]	Accused person: Yeah la
[27/1/16, 5:48:48 AM]	Accused person: We trade on.energy stocks sia
[27/1/16, 5:48:54 AM]	Farahyn: Okie
[27/1/16, 5:49:03 AM]	Farahyn: How do I get to 50 percent?
[27/1/16, 5:50:19 AM]	Accused person: I don't wanna promise anything but I can guarantee at least 20 percent returns but you know my estimates are always conservative. This particular investment that we will.be trading.on has the ability to reach up to 87.3 percent returns.
[27/1/16, 5:50:30 AM]	Accused person: So anywhere from 20-88 percent.
[27/1/16, 5:50:31 AM]	Farahyn: Wow that's amazing
[27/1/16, 5:50:33 AM]	Accused person: Yeah..
[27/1/16, 5:50:44 AM]	Farahyn: I'll try my best to get more
[27/1/16, 5:50:43 AM]	Accused person: I myself putting.in 300k.
[27/1/16, 5:50:55 AM]	Farahyn: As in more to invest
[27/1/16, 5:51:03 AM]	Farahyn: Haliim and I can pool our money
[27/1/16, 5:51:16 AM]	Accused person: Up to you. I don't like to take money from friends or family but they insist and I like to help so yeah.
[27/1/16, 5:51:23 AM]	Farahyn: Oh
[27/1/16, 5:51:33 AM]	Farahyn: Only if you're okay with it tau!!
[27/1/16, 5:51:40 AM]	Farahyn: Kalau tk it's okay
[27/1/16, 5:52:47 AM]	Accused person: The best is if you can do.it.by 630pm tomorrow. Cos we are starting on this huge investment tomorrow. Our account size is 4.3 million dollars and.counting. Cos every month the investment returns vary and this is a 2.month contract. Normal investment is 1 year contract.
[27/1/16, 5:53:01 AM]	Accused person: I don't mind. It is for your wedding..
[27/1/16, 5:53:38 AM]	Accused person: If you're okay with it, I will update you on your returns every fortnight. You can ask me at.any moment but it is best for.me to tell you every 2/weeks

33 Farahyn understood that her investment would be made together with the company’s account.^{[note: 45]}

34 The accused person told Farahyn that there would be no paperwork as her investment would be amalgamated with his so that there would be no need to pay commission to the company, and that the investment would close on 27 March 2016 and the returns would be forthcoming about 9 days thereafter:^{[note: 46]}

[27/1/16, 5:54:59 AM]	Accused person: So let's say if.You.put.in 2k...My investment will be 298 + 2
[27/1/16, 5:55:07 AM]	Accused person: Yours is the 2k
[27/1/16, 5:55:19 AM]	Accused person: I.won't tell anyone except for one of.My traders
[27/1/16, 5:55:38 AM]	Accused person: Cos if I draw up the paperwork, you'd have to pay us 20 percent comm
[27/1/16, 5:55:51 AM]	Accused person: What I will do.is..
[27/1/16, 5:56:12 AM]	Accused person: At the end of.2 months, whatever the percentage returns,.I.Will transfer you
…
[27/1/16, 5:58:01 AM]	Farahyn: I'll let you know about the money
…
[27/1/16, 5:58:11 AM]	Accused person: Yes please do.before that time.
[27/1/16, 6:02:53 AM]	Accused person: But if much earlier the better ah. Cos that is the cut off time for our rare 2 month contract. Okay okay bye! We have to set the investment column all before 6 pm. We will start trading at 631pm..
…
[28/1/16, 1:05:32 PM]	Farahyn: Haliim wants to know when the contract ends haha
[28/1/16, 1:05:37 PM]	Farahyn: As in the exact date
[28/1/16, 1:05:45 PM]	Farahyn: That's when we get the money back?
[28/1/16, 1:08:03 PM]	Accused person: The contract ends at 27 March...that's when we close our trades. We have to wait UP TO 9 working days (usually 3) after that date for the funds to be in our company's liquid cash.

(Emphasis added.)

35 Farahyn discussed the matter with Haliim and decided to go ahead with the investment. On 28 January 2016, Farahyn transferred $10,000 to the Bank Account and sent a screenshot of the money transfer to the accused person.^{[note: 47]}

36 Farahyn also told her best friend, Syafiqah, about the investment opportunity that the accused person had offered to her.^{[note: 48]} Syafiqah expressed interest in investing $1,000 with the accused person as well. As such, Farayhn called the accused person to ask whether Syafiqah could participate in the investment. The accused person’s response was positive:^{[note: 49]}

Q	What did you discuss---what did you talk to Fayyadz about in that phone call?
A	I told her, I asked him whether it’s okay if others wanted to invest as well, namely Syafiqah. And he said, “It’s okay.” Therefore, I went to ask her whether she would like to invest as well.
Q	And what was Fayyadz’s reply when you said that she wants to put in 1K?
A	He said that, “Tell her she would get back minimum 1.2K.”

37 Consequently, Farahyn provided Syafiqah with the Bank Account details and asked Syafiqah to transfer $1,000 directly to the Bank Account and provide a screenshot of the transaction record. Syafiqah transferred the money accordingly and sent the screenshot of the transaction record to Farahyn. The correspondence between Farahyn and Syafiqah was documented in the following extract of Farahyn’s Whatsapp communication with Syafiqah:^{[note: 50]}

38 Farahyn forwarded Syafiqah’s screenshot of the online transaction record to the accused person on 29 January 2016 at 9:23:53 pm.^{[note: 51]}

39 Shortly after Farahyn and Syafiqah had made their payments to the accused person, Farahyn asked the accused person for an update on the investment. The accused person replied that the investment had yielded a profit:^{[note: 52]}

[25/2/16, 11:20:00 PM]	Farahyn: Any update?
[25/2/16, 11:58:44 PM]	Accused person: Ha! Was about to text you that! Yes, 27.43% exactly! We are on track to get more than 50 percent returns. Alhamdulillah!

40 Thereafter, the accused person continued to periodically update Farahyn on the performance of the investment. The updates were generally positive and the accused person subsequently told Farahyn that he was not going to close the investment at the end of 2 months as there was still room for growth. The following is a summary of the periodic updates from the accused person and Farahyn’s oral testimony in court, adapted from the Prosecutions closing submissions:^{[note: 53]}

Date	Whatsapp Communication	Farahyn’s Testimony
8 Feb 2016 Page 33	[8/2/16, 11:12:42 AM] Farahyn: Eh our Investment how? [8/2/16, 11:12:46 AM] Farahyn: Haliim risau lol [8/2/16, 11:13:44 AM] Accused person: Hahaha it is doing better than our initial estimates. Alhamdulillah. But it is still early days. We are well on track to get more than 50 percent returns. [8/2/16, 11:14:41 AM] Accused person: Tell him don't have to worry. There's nothing to worry about. I think it is normal. I was afraid when I invested for the first time. Heh!	Farahyn asked about the investment 1 week after the purported investment date as Haliim was worried. She felt reassured after the accused provided her with a positive update.[note: 54]
25 Feb 2016 Page 42	[25/2/16, 11:20:00 PM] Farahyn : Any update? [25/2/16, 11:58:44 PM] Accused person: Ha! Was about to text you that! Yes, 27.43% exactly! We are on track to get more than 50 percent returns. Alhamdulillah!	The accused provided an update that Farahyn’s investment had grown, and Farahyn felt happy to hear that.[note: 55]
15 Mar 2016 Page 54	[15/3/16, 8:23:18 PM] Farahyn: When do we get it back ah? [15/3/16, 8:23:23 PM] Farahyn: Inshallah [15/3/16, 8:24:15 PM] Accused person: We are closing on the 28th. We have to wait 9 working days max like always so that the transaction will be approved by the new York stock exchange and then mof. Once the money is in the company funds, I will transfer to you. [15/3/16, 8:24:48 PM] Farahyn: Soooo April ah ni? [15/3/16, 8:25:05 PM] Accused person: Before April 7 in shaa allah	The accused said that Farahyn would be able to get back her $10,000 investment before April 7 2016.[note: 56]
4 Apr 2016 Page 81	[4/4/16, 7:47:56 AM] Accused person: Good morning Banu! We still haven't closed the account according to my market analyst it is still going strong and we haven't entered the "red zone" which is our cue to get out. Because I have an obligation to my shareholders, clients and colleagues to earn as much money as possible for them, I can't close the account till my market analyst tells me too. It will be very soon though. I will tell you the returns tomorrow night or if by then we've closed the account, whichever is earlier.	The accused person told Farahyn that the investment would not be closed yet as there was an opportunity to grow the investment further.[note: 57]
8 Jun 2016 Page 145	[8/6/16, 4:40:01 AM] Accused person: Hey! Our account is being reviewed by MOF and it is a normal protocol and we are unlucky that it was our account because the accounts are always chosen at random. You get the idea. There will be a slight delay. I've already filed an expedited review yesterday and yes. ALHAMDULILLAH, our returns are in Singapore's accounts. New York Stocks Exchange has already cleared it and we just have to wait for MOF to clear it and we will get our funds. I'm not sure how long it is going to take. Normal review will take a minimum of 2 weeks to 4 months but ours is an expedited review and our accounts will take precedence over other accounts so, we are expecting only a short delay. I apologise this happened but truly, it isn't something I plan or have any control over.	The accused person explained to Farahyn that the investment account with Varius Evans which contained Farahyn’s money, was being reviewed by the Ministry of Finance and the returning of her monies would be delayed.[note: 58]
24 Jun 2016 Page 155	[24/6/16, 6:45:43 PM] Accused person: …Money is in. I've to sign off since the account was in my name. I will head to my temp office when all this is over….	The accused person explained that the investment account with Varius Evans had received the investment monies.[note: 59]

41 Over time, Farahyn became concerned about the accused person’s delay in closing the investment and paying her the returns. However, the accused person was always ready with reasons for the delay, for instance:^{[note: 60]}

Salam, apologies for the late reply. I am still not back yet though but never mind. I spoke at great lengths with my MD about everything and I mean, literally, everything. I will tell you the specifics when everything is over and when we meet but the main pointers were my utmost disappointment about my accountant's failure to keep her promise no matter how valid her reasons were and also, that it's been 1.5 weeks since the money is in our firm's hands and not everyone has received the returns which was unprecedented because during all my time working there when we received the returns, we will payout within 3 working days even if the clients were too busy to meet us, we would personally meet them at their homes or at their offices to issue them cheques. but before I go on and share with you about the steps taken, I'd like to remind you that the first delay was 2 months after the initial estimated return solely because it's a financial decision taken by my MD as our group of traders and analysts (me included) decided that there's still much more money to be made, hence, we extended the date to close our trading account as we were obligated to earn as much as possible as long as we've factored in the risks involved and it paid off handsomely. A little reminder that ALL of your money, my money, shareholders' money, clients' money, colleagues' money and the firm's money were poured into ONE single account which totalled to approximately 4.2 million dollars. With that money, we made 70.2 percent profits. When we finally decided to close the account though we could squeeze out a little more money, it took 12 working days for the firm to receive the money. My accountant assumed almost all of the responsibility in handing out cash returns for that account and also, 6 more accounts. On top of that, she had many other responsibilities as my MD wasn't around but like I said, though she had valid excuses, I am still angry because promises are something which I hold on to dearly. I am especially disappointed that after she made that promise and I told you about it. To be honest brother, I am not supposed to tell you about any potential return dates to avoid disappointments or potential suits against us because we didn't follow through on our words and being in the finance line, delays are always there. It starts right at the top from MOF to banks to small firms like ours. What I am saying is that before working in this line, I never thought about delays because I didn't see any delays before but only after having my accounts frozen for nothing, and despite later on receiving a letter from MOF to the banks to release my accounts to me immediately, I still have to wait more than 2 months before my accounts were accessible. It's bloody annoying but understandable. So, what I was so angry about was that this delay is caused by my accountant prioritising the clients before us (shareholders, colleagues). I would have done the same thing too except that I will make sure that I will settle it immediately even if it means not sleeping or working ten times harder. I hate giving excuses. But of course, she isn't me. So, I told my MD everything about what I feel and I told him that you guys needed the money for your wedding next month (haha) and he said that he would personally make sure that my accountant will prioritise bank transfers as soon as possible. From this second onwards, I am liasing with my MD and not that accountant. I know it's frustrating but that's all I could do for now. I am frustrated, angry and disappointed especially when I had to bite my tongue and borrow money from someone I used to work for because I promised HDB to settle the remaining 40k yesterday. It was humbling. But when I think about everything, perhaps that this experience is just a little tiny test or payment for us to great rewards. I will update you the second the transfer has been made. Like I told you, Banu and my account numbers have already been updated into our firm's server. I personally checked them when I dropped by to the office with my MD just now and I've also checked the status of it which showed that the returns haven't been paid to us. After all of this is over, if the both of you need to pay a little more because of the late bookings, I promise to absorb the cost of it and don't be shy or humble about it, like I said, it's the least I could do. Just tell me. I do not know anything more than what I have told you. In shaa Allah, the money will be in our hands very very very soon, that's all I pray and hope now really.

42 However, Farahyn always felt reassured whenever the accused person told her about how well the investment was doing.^{[note: 61]}

43 Things changed in January 2017 when Rashid approached Farahyn and Haliim and told them that he had invested with the accused person and had not received a single cent back after a number of years. Farahyn was “shocked and very angry” to hear this.^{[note: 62]}

44 Another meeting was held by Farahyn Haliim, Rashid, Rashid’s wife as well as the accused person’s ex-girlfriend and friend from polytechnic. They did some background check on “Varius Evans” and realised that its address was a mailbox and not an office, as claimed by the accused person. Subsequently, they decided to report the accused person to the police.^{[note: 63]}

45 On 28 June 2017 at 00:07 hours, Farahyn’s husband filed a police report at the Bedok Police Divisional Headquarters, an extract of which is as follows:^{[note: 64]}

46 Farahyn testified that she would not have given her money to the accused person to invest if she had known that the accused person did not have the intention or the ability to help her invest with the trading company that the accused person was purportedly working for, ie. “Varius Evans”, which was not true.^{[note: 65]}

Evidence of Syafiqah - C7

47 Syafiqah was acquainted with the accused person through Farahyn in October 2015 when they had dinner together.^{[note: 66]} During the dinner, the accused person told Syafiqah that he was working for a trading company and gave the impression that he was a successful and well-off investor.^{[note: 67]}

48 Syafiqah testified that Farahyn called her on 29 January 2016 to inform her that the accused person was “doing the investment with a company” which offered a return of 20-30%. Syafiqah did not know the name of the company that the accused person was working for^{[note: 68]} but she was drawn to returns of 20-30% that the accused person talked about and asked Farahyn if she could participate in the investment with $1,000.^{[note: 69]} As such, Farahyn called the accused person to ask if Syafiqah could participate in the investment.^{[note: 70]}

49 Subsequently, Farahyn told Syafiqah that the accused person had agreed to let her participate in the investment and conveyed to her that the accused person had said that Syafiqah would receive $1,200 with an investment of $1,000.^{[note: 71]} Farahyn then sent the Bank Account details to Syafiqah^{[note: 72]} for her to transfer $1,000.

50 Syafiqah transferred $1,000 to the Bank Account on 29 January 2016 at about 9:16 pm and sent a screenshot of the online transaction record to Farahyn.^{[note: 73]}

51 Even though Syafiqah had invested directly with the accused person, she did not communicate directly with the accused person in relation to the investment or for subsequent updates. She had obtained all the information on the investment from the accused person through Farahyn, including the 3-month period for the investment.^{[note: 74]}

52 Sometime in 2016, Syafiqah found out that Farahyn was having difficulty getting her money back from the accused person. Syafiqah suffered the same fate. However, she did not try to reach out to the accused person directly for repayment of her investment as she had communicated with him through Farahyn all the time. Syafiqah also did not make a police report as she knew that there was a group of victims who had already lodged police reports against the accused person. In particular, she was aware that Farahyn had filed a police report that mentioned her as a victim.^{[note: 75]}

53 Syafiqah testified that she would not have given her money to the accused person to invest if she had known that the accused person did not have the intention or the ability to help her invest with the trading company which the accused person was purportedly working for, which was not true.^{[note: 76]}

Evidence of Nasrul - C5

54 Nasrul was the accused person’s cousin. Sometime in 2016, Nasrul saw various “money quotes and everything” that the accused person had posted on his account on the Instagram social networking application (“Instagram”). Nasrul had the impression that the accused person was working as a trader with an trading company and asked to meet up with him to learn more about investments and trading.^{[note: 77]}

55 On 24 April 2016, Nasrul met the accused person at the accused person’s void deck where the accused person impressed him with his knowledge about investments. Nasrul asked the accused person for an investment opportunity. As such, the accused person told Nasrul that he was working closely with his manager on a “particular account where small investors put up a small amount of money to share an account for about a period of 1 year which will triple … returns”. The accused person suggested that, for a small amount of $10,000, Nasrul should “put in the money for 1 year. After 1 year, [the accused person] would probably double or triple the amount”.^{[note: 78]}

56 Nasrul understood from the accused person that he, ie. Nasrul, would be investing together with the trading company for which the accused person was working through the accused person’s colleague, and that the investment term was 1 year with projected returns of 2 to 3 times the capital However, the accused person did not tell Nasrul the name of his company.^{[note: 79]}

57 Nasrul agreed to participate in the investment and transferred $10,000 to the Bank Account the next day, ie. 25 April 2016. The money transfer was documented in a DBS deposit transaction slip dated 25 April 2016 that stated the Bank Account as the destination account with the accused person’s name.^{[note: 80]}

58 After Nasrul entered into the investment, he received periodic updates from the accused person via Whatsapp on the performance of the investment.^{[note: 81]} However, after more than a year, the accused person did not pay Nasrul the returns from his investment and kept giving reasons why the money was not forthcoming.^{[note: 82]}

59 The following are extracts of the Whatsapp communication between Nasrul and the accused person^{[note: 83]} and Nasrul’s corresponding testimony, as set out in the Prosecution’s closing submissions:^{[note: 84]}

Date	Whatsapp Communication	Nasrul’s Testimony
5 June 2016 Page 1	[5/6/16, 6:15 am] Accused person: The exact returns as of 2:16 a.m. is 11,829 dollars. We are on track to reach at least 60 percent returns which is much more than our estimates. 60 percent means you will get back 16,000 in shaa Allah. Ramadhan Kareem bro!	The accused updated Nasrul that his $10,000 investment had earned the profit of $1,829.[note: 85]
9 July 2016 Page 1	[9/7/16, 7:57 am] Accused person: Good morning bro! Your returns stand at 13,455 dollars. Almost 35 percent.	The accused person updated Nasrul that his $10,000 investment had earned a profit of $3,455.[note: 86]
25 July 2017 Page 9	[25/7/17, 6:10 pm] Accused person: … First of all, we will get our returns on 23rd August which is on a Wednesday at 230-4pm. … I spoke at great length with my MD about this and since this isn't the first delay, I told him I wanted to pay a visit to MOF to find out more. I went to MOF on July 7th and they told me they were conducting stringent investigations on all non-government investment/wealth management firms and they have cleared my firm. They also informed me that the investment portfolio opened in May 2016 (the one we invested) will be paid out on the 23rd August.	The accused told Nasrul that the investment returns that he was supposed to receive would only be returned on 23 August 2017 because it was controlled by the Ministry of Finance.[note: 87]

60 Nasrul did not have any records of his Whatsapp communication with the accused person prior to 5 June 2016 as he changed his mobile phone in May 2016.^{[note: 88]}

61 Nasrul testified that he subsequently received a call from Rashid’s wife who put him in touch with a few other persons who had invested monies with the accused person and did not get their monies returns back. That was when Nasrul realised that he had been cheated by the accused person.^{[note: 89]}

62 Nasrul filed a police report at Bedok Police Divisional HQ on 9 July 2017 at 13:27 hours.^{[note: 90]} The following is an extract from Nasrul’s police report:

63 Nasrul testified that he would not have given his money to the accused person if he had known that the accused person was not employed by any trading company.^{[note: 91]}

Evidence of Imran - C6

64 Imran was acquainted with the accused person through a mutual friend whom they had met up a few times to talk about football. Imran was not very close to the accused person but the mutual friend had told him that the accused person was working for a trading company.^{[note: 92]} As Imran wanted to grow his money, he decided to invest with the accused person in the accused person’s company:^{[note: 93]}

A	… I told Irfaan that, um, [the accused person] was, um, working at a trading company, and he---I was interested in growing my money. That’s why I spoke to him more, spoke to [the accused person] more.

65 Consequently, Imran decided to approach the accused person “about putting [Imran’s] money with [the accused person], so that he can grow [Imran’s] money”.^{[note: 94]}

66 In May 2015, Imran obtained the accused person’s phone number from the mutual friend and sent a text message to the accused person to ask for a meeting in Bugis.^{[note: 95]} During the meeting over tea, the accused person told Imran that he worked as a trader for “Varius Evans” and that he could double Imran’s investment in 6 months.^{[note: 96]} According to the accused person, he would amalgamate Imran’s money with the monies of a pool of other investors with the company, and trade stocks in their respective proportions.^{[note: 97]}

67 Following the meeting, Imran decided to invest $5,000, with “Varius Evans”, believing that the accused person was working as a trader with “Varius Evans”, with a view to seeing returns at the end of 6 months, ie. towards the end of 2015.^{[note: 98]} On the same day, Imran went with the accused person to an automatic teller machine at Raffles Hospital where Imran made a transfer of $5,000 into the Bank Account with the accused person himself keying in the Bank Account details.^{[note: 99]} Thereafter, the accused person would update Imran periodically on the performance of his investment.^{[note: 100]}

68 In December 2015, the accused person told Imran that the funds of “Varius Evans” were frozen due to an audit by the Ministry of Finance and the Monetary Authority of Singapore and that he could not pay Imran the returns from his investment,.^{[note: 101]}

69 By April 2016, the accused person still had not paid to Imran any of the returns from the investment. However, the accused person informed Imran via Whatsapp on 16 April 2016 that the investment account had been closed and Imran’s investment of $5,000 had ballooned to $28,000:^{[note: 102]}

[… Yes, I’ve closed the account. I rounded off your returns at exactly 28,000 dollars. … I will update you on Wednesday if the money is transferred to our company account or not.”

70 Thereafter, the accused person continued to stall on paying Imran his returns and gave various reasons, as set out in the following extract of a summary of the Whatsapp communication between Imran and the accused person, with Imran’s corresponding court testimony, adapted from the Prosecution’s closing submissions:^{[note: 103]}

Date	Whatsapp Communication	Imran’s Testimony
22 Apr 2016 Page 4	[22/04/2016, 6:38 AM] Fayyadz: “… With regards to our investments, the money isn’t transferred yet. It is undergoing discrepancies check by the NYSE. It should be cleared soon and next up will be MOF and SGX.”	The accused informed Imran that the investment account was undergoing discrepancy check by the New York Stock Exchange, and that it would be cleared by MOF and SGX.[note: 104]
5 May 2016 Page 7	[05/05/2016, 12:51 AM] Fayyadz: “I’m still waiting on MO to confirm with us whether the delay in the withdrawal as to do with the audit… My firm is only slightly affected. I don’t know if that’s the reason that 7 other accounts are delayed too, including our account, it is a total of 8 account which are affected with the delay in withdrawal.”	The accused told Imran that the investment account was being delayed because MOF and MAS were auditing his company, and that there were eight accounts in the company being delayed.[note: 105]
16 June 2016 Page 22	[16/06/2016, 10:08 PM] Imran: “… funny how I had to just pay $5 to get a profile of your company. Seems like you “guys” have trouble with taxes too.” [16/06/2016, 10:16 PM] Fayyadz: “Taxes?! Are you sure you spell it right? It’s Varius Evans not Various Evans.	Imran explained that he did a check of the accused person’s company, Varius Evans, on ACRA, but the company had no records. The accused then replied and asked Imran if he misspelt the name of the company.

71 On 19 May 2016 at 16:09 hours, Imran sent a series of Whatsapp messages to the accused person to ask for his investment of $5,000 to be returned to him without the profits but he did not receive any reply from the accused person:^{[note: 106]}

[19/05/2016, 4:06 PM] Imran: Dude you got to understand

[19/05/2016, 4:07 PM] Imran: Ive been waiting for almost a year

…

[19/05/2016, 4:07 PM] Imran: Ive been patient man

[19/05/2016, 4:07 PM] Imran: You cant deny that

[19/05/2016, 4:07 PM] Imran: In really dire situations

[19/05/2016, 4:08 PM] Imran: A man needs to do what he needs to survive

[19/05/2016, 4:08 PM] Imran: Im sure you understand were im coming from

[19/05/2016, 4:08 PM] Imran: Look, its up to you if you want to pass me the cash

[19/05/2016, 4:09 PM] Imran: Im good if you don’t pass me the profits

[19/05/2016, 4:09 PM] Imran: All I badly need now is the 5k

72 The accused person replied much later when the Imran sent him another Whatsapp message the next day:^{[note: 107]}

[20/05/2016, 9:42 PM] Imran: Hey man so youve no intention to return me the 5k yeah?

[20/05/2016, 9:44 PM] Accused person: Return? No. That 5k is your investment to our account. The 5k you’re asking is from MY own money. There’s a difference. So, wait for me to receive the funds and I will transfer you the 28k immediately.

73 Thereafter, Imran asked the accused person when he would return his money to him but the accused person gave a series of evasive responses. Eventually, Imran threatened to file a police report against the accused person:^{[note: 108]}

[17/06/2016, 1:00 AM] Imran: I just got off the phone with my lawyer. …for the sake of Naqib and Irfaan, I’m gonna give you an option to save you from all that might happened. Altho my lawyer advised me against meeting you to head to the police station (which he makes a lot of sense of], I’m going to give you the chance to trf me the money. By tonight and latest my 12 pm Friday afternoon. If i don’t see it reflected in my account, I’ll just head to the police station during my lunch time.

74 The accused person replied that he will head to the bank after prayers but he “[d]on’t know how’s the queue gonna be.”^{[note: 109]} However, Imran insisted that the accused person made payment by 12:30 pm before his prayers, failing which he would “go to the nearest police station.”^{[note: 110]} Imran also pointed out that the accused person could make payment using the automatic teller machine or internet banking.^{[note: 111]}

75 This was followed by a string of Whatsapp messages from the accused person seeking to further defer the payment which Imran did not reply to:^{[note: 112]}

[17/06/2016, 7:43 AM] Accused person: My credit limit for my card is 3k so I’d have to go to the bank. I’m going to the mosque at 10 am and I’m not going to give in to your demands over my desire to go to the mosque early. Prayers end around 140 p.m. and I’d cab to Tampunes bank. If the queu is reasonable, by 3 plus, you’d get my money. If of course, if it sounds ridiculous to you, you’re welcome to go to the police station right now. Just tell me which station and I’d head there as soon as I’m done with prayers. I said 430 because that’s the latest possible time as you wouldn’t be able to understand that delays are part of everything and they aren’t in our control. Let me know of your decision so that I don’t have to transfer my money and head to the police station straight.

[17/06/2016, 8:19 AM] Accused person: Alright. No problem.

[17/06/2016, 8:21 AM] Accused person: Just tell me which police station and the docket number for the complain.

[17/06/2016, 11:07 AM] Accused person: So, confirm right you don’t want the money today and you’d wait till next week? Today means before 430.

76 At 11:49 hours on 17 June 2016, the accused eventually sent a Whatsapp message to Imran saying “Done”.^{[note: 113]}

77 Imran then proceeded to check his bank account and confirmed that the accused person had transferred $5,000 into the same. He then replied “Okay I got it” to the accused person via Whatsapp.^{[note: 114]}

78 Consequently, Imran did not file a police report against the accused person.

79 Imran testified that he would not have passed his money to the accused person to invest if he had known that the accused person was unable to invest the money with any company that the accused person was purportedly working for or that Imran would not have been able to get his money back at the end of 6 months.^{[note: 115]}

Evidence of Naziehah - C8

80 Naziehah was acquainted with the accused person through Haliim in January 2017. Subsequently, she had supper with the accused person, Halim Khan and Rashid. She testified that she was quite close to the accused person until they stopped communicating with each other in June 2017. According to Naziehah, they stopped communicating with each other as the accused person “stopped responding to [her] messages” in June 2017.^{[note: 116]}

81 On 8 March 2017, Naziehah picked up the accused person from his home and drove to the Pasir Ris-Punggol flyover where they had a long talk about life in general – “current updates, and thoughts and viewpoints about things.”^{[note: 117]} The meeting lasted about 3-4 hours, during which the accused told him that he had resigned from “Varius Evans” “because of some unfairness” and was then “working on his own”.^{[note: 118]} After the meeting, Naziehah went home.

82 Just before midnight on 8 March 2017, she received the following message from the accused person on Facebook Messenger inviting her to invest with him through his ex-colleagues in “Varius Evans”:^{[note: 119]}

83 According to Naziehah, she had earlier confided in the accused person that she had a student loan of $30,000 to repay. However, she did not tell the accused person that she wanted to invest. Naziehah understood the accused person’s message to mean that he will help her invest her money until June and reap a profit of 40% or even 50% or more to help her pay off the student loan.^{[note: 120]}

84 The accused person also asked Naziehah to “transfer [him] before 2pm because [he needs] to screenshot proof of transfer to [his] ex colleague.”^{[note: 121]}

85 Naziehah “wanted to release the burden of [her] student loan” but decided to “sleep on it”.^{[note: 122]} However, she indicated to the accused person that she was contemplating investing $2,000 or $3,000 and the accused person replied, “good! If 3k will be roughly 4.5k back”.^{[note: 123]}

86 Eventually, Naziehah decided to invest $3,000 with the accused person for the following reasons:^{[note: 124]}

Q	So you have just explained the reason why you decided to put in the sum of 3K, but I would like to know the reason why you decided to take up this investment opportunity?
A	The reason was because he mentioned that investing with him would help ease my burden, and that I will get back my money. So regardless of whether or not I am going to get back more than my principal sum, he would still return me my principal sum anyway.

87 On 9 March 2017, Naziehah withdrew $3,000 from her POSB Bank savings account and deposited it into the Bank Account.^{[note: 125]} The transactions were documented in a POSB Bank withdrawal transaction slip and a POSB Bank credit advice slip dated 9 March 2020.^{[note: 126]}

88 Naziehah testified that she would not have invested $3,000 with the accused person if she had known that:^{[note: 127]}

(a) the approximate returns for the investment would not be 40%; and

(b) the accused person was not investing the money with “Varius Evans” through his ex-colleagues.

89 Shortly after Naziehah made the purported investment, the accused person updated her on the performance of the investment on 23 March 2017 via Facebook Messenger. The accused person told Naziehah that her investment of $3,000 had grown to $3,948:^{[note: 128]}

[03/23/2017, 2:49 PM] Accused person: “… I’m supposed to update you tomorrow and I’ll update you now instead and I think you’ll be extremely happy. They surpassed the fortnight estimates by more than 3 folds! In simple terms, your 3k is now 3,948 dollars. Almost 4k! That’s just for the first 2 weeks too! I am extremely happy too. … I was given word that it would surpass their initial estimates of 40 plus percent to over 70 which is a pretty rare in a 2 month timeframe.”

90 In the same message, the accused person also suggested that Naziehah doubled her investment, “…I’ve doubled my principal sum and I believe you should too because we won’t get any more opportunity like this.”^{[note: 129]}

91 Over the next few months, the accused person updated Naziehah periodically on the performance of the investment. However, on 22 June 2017, he informed Naziehah via Facebook Messenger that the investment would be closed the next morning, which was a Saturday. The accused person also informed Naziehah that her investment had grown to $4,188, which he rounded off to $4,500. However, he told her that it would take 3-9 working days for the funds to be credited into the account of “Varius Evans”:^{[note: 130]}

… Anyway, they’re closing the account tomorrow at 2:30 am. Saturday morning. Your returns is 4188 but i just round it off to 4500. Easier. Allow 3-9 working days minimum for the funds to be credited into the firm’s account. I need your account number too.

92 Naziehah was delighted and replied, “I could use the money to gift my grandparents than the other way round.so cute this two. … thanks for keeping to your word fayyaz. means a lot really.”^{[note: 131]}

93 Naziehah also asked the accused person, “Any idea when itd be credited?” However, the accused person did not reply.^{[note: 132]}

94 Naziehah further asked the accused person, “3-9 working days from saturday is next week yes?” Again, the accused person did not reply.^{[note: 133]}

95 On 8 July 2017 at 18:57 hours, Naziehah tried to get a response from the accused person:

Naz

Hi fayyaz

can you get back to me asap when you see this please

96 The accused person finally replied:^{[note: 134]}

97 Thereafter, Naziehah and the accused person spoke to each other through Whatsapp. Naziehah could not recall what exactly they spoke about although she was sure that she was asking for her money back and the accused person was trying to delay the payment.^{[note: 135]}

98 Subsequently, Naziehah again tried to get in touch with the accused person on Whatsapp Messenger to no avail:

99 On 28 June 2018 at 11:18 hours, Naziehah filed a police report at the Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Police Centre.^{[note: 136]} The following is an extract from the police report:

Evidence of Mohamed Ayub Bin P N Shadul Hameed

100 Mohamed Ayub Bin P N Shadul Hameed (“Ayub”) incorporated Varius Evans Private Limited (“Varius Evans PL”) on 5 December 2013 with an issued share capital of $2 for the following business activities:^{[note: 137]}

(a) WHOLESALE ON A FEE OR CONTRACT BASIS (EG COMMISSION AGENT)

(b) PASSENGER LAND TRANSPORT N.E.C. (EG PRIVATE CARS FOR HIRE WITH OPERATOR AND TRISHAWS)

101 The other corporate information on Varius Evans PL based on the BizFile records by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority were as follows:^{[note: 138]}

(a) Registered office address: 14 Robinson Road, #13-00 Far East Finance Building, Singapore 048545

(b) Directors and shareholders: Ayub (managing director) and Jamilah Binte Sahul Hameed

(c) Secretaries: Kong Ing Ing and Pay Thiam Yong Roger

102 According to Ayub, he had incorporated Varius Evans PL as a shelf company and Varius Evans PL did not have any employees or actual trading activity.^{[note: 139]} The registered office address was just a paid virtual office address while Jamilah Binte Sahul Hameed was his mother. Kong Ing Ing and Pay Thiam Yong Roger were company secretaries whom he engaged through a secretarial services company called “A-Star” to meet statutory requirements.^{[note: 140]}

103 Ayub had set up a Facebook Business Page for Varius Evans PL (the “FB Page”)^{[note: 141]} and used the FB Page to “post random articles or informations about stock exchanges, trading tips.”^{[note: 142]} Ayub had also used the FB Page to promote a free ½-hour preview of a share trading course that he had conducted at the Temasek Club (the “Preview”) with a view to recruiting people for a more comprehensive chargeable share trading workshop (the “Workshop”) which did not materialise:^{[note: 143]}

104 Ayub recalled that the accused person had contacted him via Facebook Messenger to register for the Preview but he could not recall if the accused person eventually turned up. However, after the Preview, the accused person had contacted him on Facebook Messenger again to discuss about trading:^{[note: 144]}

Q	So to clarify, how many times in total did the 2 of you communicate on Facebook?
A	I would say on 2 occasions.
Q	From what you said in your evidence, one was before the preview and one is after the preview, am I right?
A	Yah, that’s right.
Q	Why did he message you after the preview?
A	Why did he message me? To ask me about---I mean, if---to just, um, brainstorm about trading.
Q	What do you mean by “brainstorm”?
A	Like I mentioned earlier, on how I trade, what platform I used, and what are the methods I used for trading. And he also shared his views.
Q	How long did the conversation last?
A	It’s a very short conservation. I don’t know how long exactly.

105 Aside from the two episodes of communication with the accused via Facebook Messenger, Ayub did not have any further contact with the accused person and never met him in real life.^{[note: 145]}

106 Finally, Ayub confirmed that neither he nor Varius Evans PL ever employed the accused person.^{[note: 146]}

Evidence of Inspector Gan Ren Jian

107 Inspector Gan Ren Jian (“Insp Gan”) was the original investigation officer from Bedok Police Division for the case before he was posted out in March 2018.^{[note: 147]}

108 Insp Gan had recorded a number of investigation statements from the accused person pursuant to section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, Rev Ed 2012) (the “CPC”) all of which were admitted as evidence with the consent of the accused person:

Marking	Description of statement
P38	Statement recorded on 13 September 2017 at 21:30 hours (the “1stStatement”)
P39	Statement recorded on 14 September 2017 at 14:15 hours (the “2ndStatement”)
P40	Statement recorded on 2 October 2017 at 10:10 hours (the “3rdStatement”)
P41	Statement recorded on 13 October 2017 at 14:15 hours (the “4thStatement)
P42	Statement recorded on 21 November 2017 at 11:45 hours (the “5thStatement)

109 The following is summary of the 1^st Statement:

(a) The accused person joined “Varius Evans” in 2014 and that he had paid $2,800 to learn about the trading of stocks, commodities and derivatives over a period of 3-4 months. However, the accused person was trading on his own and was not offered any employment by “Varius Evans”.

(b) The accused person’s trainer was one “Mohd Ayob” and he learnt how to trade using IG-Market and FXCM using the software “Metatrader4”. Subsequently, the accused person used his savings of about $7,000 to trade using the trading platforms IG-Market and FXCM. The accused person also claimed that the following persons had transferred monies to him and asked him to help them trade:

i. accused person’s uncle, Mahmud Bin Abdul Karim - $10,000;

ii. Rashid - $35,000;

iii. Nasrul - $10,000;

iv. Halim Khan - $10,000; and

v. Halim Khan’s friend - $10,000.

(c) The accused person claimed that he had returned $12,000 to his uncle and over $6,000 to Imran, which was more than what they invested because the accused person had “traded well and profited”. However, he had lost the all the monies transferred to him by the others.

110 In the 2^nd Statement, the accused person provided more details of his trading activities using IG-Market and FXCM:

111 In the 3^rd Statement, the accused person stated that he had difficulty retrieving his trading records with FXCM and IG-market:

112 In the 4^th Statement, the accused person stated, amongst other things, the only way that he paid FXCM for the purpose of trading was using his credit card.

113 The 5^th Statement contained a number of bare assertions by accused person in relation to the multiple allegations of cheating against him:

114 On 5 October 2017 at 9:36 am, Insp Gan sent an email to FXCM to seek the following information in relation to the 3 accounts which the accused person claimed to have opened in 2014 and closed in 2017 bearing the user names “Xanthousa”, “fayyaz10” and “fayyadza” (as provided by the accused person in the 3^rd Statement):

(a) account details (user name, email, national identification, nationality etc);

(b) trading records (specific stocks purchased, date, etc);

(c) monies transacted;

(d) date of liquidation;

(e) date of the start of account and date of account closure; and

(f) mode of payment to FXCM.

115 Through a series of email correspondence between Insp Gan and one Sammantha Clegg, Associate Counsel, Litigation and Complaints, of FXCM (“Ms Clegg”), it was ascertained that FXCM did not have records of any trading accounts with the user names “Xanthousa”, “fayyaz10” and “fayyadza”. Additionally, Ms Clegg informed Insp Gan that “Residents of Singapore are not eligible to apply for an FXCM live trading account with any FXCM Entity.” and that FXCM stopped taking on clients from Singapore in 2011.^{[note: 148]}

Evidence of Station Inspector Djong Nam Him, Nicholas

116 Station Inspector Djong Nam Him, Nicholas (“SI Djong”) was the investigation officer from Bedok Police Division who took over the investigations from Inspector Gan.

117 He had recorded the following statements from the accused person:

Marking	Description of statement
P44	Statement recorded on 8 August 2018 at 15:40 hours (the “6thStatement”)
P45	Statement recorded on 8 August 2018 at 15:55 hours (the “7thStatement”)

118 In the 6^th Statement, the accused person stated that Naziehah had contacted him on Facebook and asked him to help her invest her money. The accused person agreed to do so and told her that she would get a return of about 20-30% of the principal sum. The accused person promised to update her every fortnight. The accused person mentioned that he “invested the said money in Stocks, on the plaform (sic) MetaTrader Four. This platform is linked to FXCM.” and that he had “used [his] debit card and transferred S$3000 to the trading account” and lost all the money.

119 In the 7^th Statement, the accused person admitted that he had told a number of lies to Naziehah:

120 By way of email correspondence between SI Djong and the compliance department of FXCM (the “FXCM Compliance”) between 7 January 2019 and 20 May 2019, FXCM Compliance confirmed that it “could not identify the individual Mohammed Fayyadz Bin Halim Angullia” in their internal records. However, FXCM Compliance declined to respond to any other requests by SI Djong as it pointed out that only the enforcement authorities in the United Kingdom have enforcement authority over FXCM.^{[note: 149]}

Evidence of Pamela Tan Pei Hsiang

121 Pamela Tan Pei Hsiang (“Pamela”) was the head of sales at IG Asia Private Limited (“IG Asia”). She had been working for slightly over 6 years as at the day that she gave her evidence in court, ie. 27 February 2019.^{[note: 150]}

122 As head of sales, Pamela led the sales team for client onboarding, ie. “… things like collecting, supporting documents for client applications, um, speaking with the right department to get the account set up. And thereafter, speaking to clients themselves to get them familiar with the trading platform, and to eventually start funding their trading accounts.”^{[note: 151]}

123 Pamela testified that IG Asia was a trading platform for clients to execute their share trades by way of their mobile phone or an application. IG Asia did not provide any form of advisory service.^{[note: 152]}

124 According to Pamela, IG Asia maintained a database of all applications submitted by individuals since the year 2006, regardless of whether the applications were successful.^{[note: 153]}

125 Pamela confirmed that Insp Gan had written to IG Asia to enquire if the accused person had opened a trading account with them. By way of a letter dated 3 October 2017 by IG Asia to Insp Gan (the “IG Asia Letter”),^{[note: 154]} IG Asia confirmed that it had no records of the accused person, ie. Mohammed Fayyadz Bin Halim Angullia, in its customer database system.

126 However, IG Asia had received an online application for an account on 1 April 2014 from an individual with the name “Fayyadz Angullia” (the “Applicant”) and a birth date of 29 August 1990. The application was subsequently declined as the Applicant could not be contacted for follow-up.^{[note: 155]} The information on this application was set out in an email from Pamela to SI Djong dated 20 February 2019 at 5:48 pm (the “Email”) which set out, amongst other information, an online submission form for a live account in 2014 by one “Fayyadz Anguillia”.^{[note: 156]}

127 The Email also set out the result of a search by IG Asia for the email address “XXX”, which was the email address used by the Applicant to apply for a live account. The search disclosed that the email address was used to register two demonstration accounts. A demonstration account was a practice trading account whereby the user would trade without the use of real currency.

End of the Prosecution’s case

128 At the end of the Prosecution’s case, the accused person did not submit that there was no case to answer.

129 Nonetheless, I considered the evidence of the Prosecution and found that there was evidence, not inherently incredible, that satisfied each and every element of the respective charges against the accused person. Accordingly, I delivered the allocution under section 230(1)(m) of the CPC and called on the accused person to enter his defence.

130 The accused person elected not to make his defence:

Fayyadz:	Your Honour, yesterday, you give me 2 options, right? So I’m going to take the 2nd option because I do not have any proof to furnish, so I don’t think that it’ll be wise for me to take the stand. And I think that my defence has, uh, already sent it on my Cross with the witnesses. So---yah. Thank you, Your Honour.
…
Court:	You do not wish to give evidence on the witness stand?
Fayyadz:	I don’t have any evidence or proof right now, Your Honour.
Court:	So you have no evidence and you have no other witnesses to call in your defence and you have no---and you do not wish to give evidence, right?
Fayyadz:	Yes, Your Honour.

Assessment of the evidence

The prosecution’s case

131 Each of the victims of the eight charges against the accused person testified that the accused person had boasted of his knowledge in investments and success in yielding high returns, albeit in slightly different ways. In the case of Rashid, the accused person had invited him to invite him to invest in “Varius Evans” on three separate occasions.

132 Similarly, the accused person had invited Naziehah to invest with “Varius Evans” through his ex-colleagues after she shared with him that she had an outstanding study loan of about $30,000.

133 Farahyn, Nasrul and Imran had separately approached the accused person to ask him for help with investments. Thereafter, the accused person had shared with them highly attractive investment opportunities with the trading company that the accused person was purportedly working for. The accused person had told Farahyn and Imran, but not Nasrul, that he worked for “Varius Evans”.

134 Syafiqah did not communicate with the accused person directly when she made the investment with him. However, since her first meeting with him in October 2015, he had already impressed upon her that he was a successful and well-off investor with a stock trading company. When Farahyn shared the investment opportunity with Syafiqah on 29 January 2016, Syafiqah expressed an interest to participate in the investment with a sum of $1,000. Accordingly, Farahyn asked the accused person if Syafiqah could do so and the accused person agreed, adding that the investment would yield a profit of $200, ie. 20% returns. Consequently, Syafiqah proceeded to transfer $1,000 to the Bank Account.

135 All the victims, except Imran, had bank transaction records evidencing the respective payments that they made to the Bank Account. Imran had transferred $5,000 to the accused person using an automatic teller machine at Raffles Hospital. During the accused person’s cross-examination of the victims, he did not challenge any of the victims’ evidence that they had transferred or deposited monies into the Bank Account that belonged to him. Additionally, a letter from DBS Bank dated 10 October 2017 stated that the accused person was the holder of the Bank Account.^{[note: 157]}

136 All the victims did not receive any documentation or acknowledgement of their investment with the accused person, on the pretext that he would amalgamate their investments with his own investments. The accused person had even had told Rashid and Farahyn that “Varius Evans” would charge them a 20% commission if they invested directly with the company instead of through him.^{[note: 158]} Based on the evidence, the accused person was not working for “Varius Evans” or any trading company.

137 All the victims testified that the accused person had periodically given them positive updates on the performance of their respective investments after they made their investments. For example, 11 months after Imran invested with the accused person, the latter had informed Imran that his investment of $5,000 had ballooned to a whooping $28,000. The periodic updates by the accused person were evidenced by the various messages that the accused person had sent to Rashid, Farahyn Nasrul, Imran and Naziehah via Facebook Messenger or Whatsapp, as the case may be. Syafiqah received her updates through Farahyn. However, there was no evidence of any investments made by the accused person, much less any profits that he could have earned for the victims.

138 The accused person persistently stalled on paying the victims’ their returns, when they asked for them or when their respective investment periods were over, by claiming that the investment monies were held up due to audits or checks by various government bodies or third-party institutions such as the Ministry of Finance, the Singapore Exchange Ltd or the “Singapore Securities and Exchange Commission”. Only Imran managed to recover his capital of $5,000, about 1 year after he first made the investment and after he threatened to file a police report against the accused person. The accused person never paid Imran any of the profits that Imran had purportedly made from his investment.

139 Even though the accused person had claimed in the 1^st Statement, 2^nd Statement and 3^rd Statement that he had paid $2,800 to learn about trading in various instruments through “Varius Evans”, that his trainer was “Mohd Ayob” and that he had used the trading platforms of IG-Market and FXCM for his trades, there was no evidence that any of these assertions were true.

140 On the contrary, Ayub had testified that Varius Evans PL was merely a shelf company with no business activities and that he never held any share trading workshop aside from a free ½-hour preview in early-2014. Ayub also told the court that he had communicated with the accused person only twice on Facebook Messenger and he had never met the accused person face-to-face.

141 The Prosecution had also adduced evidence through Pamela (head of sales at IG Asia), and by way of letters from IG Asia and FXCM that the accused person did not have any trading accounts with them. In fact, Ms Clegg (associate counsel of FXCM) had confirmed via email to Insp Gan that FXCM had stopped taking on clients from Singapore since 2011.

142 All the victims came across as candid and truthful witnesses whose testimonies were internally and externally consistent, cogent and detailed. Even though a number of the victims were acquainted with one another, and had mutually shared their experiences with one another before deciding to file their respective police reports (except for Imran and Syafiqah who did not file police reports), they had denied and there was no evidence of any form of collusion. On the contrary, the testimonies of the victims were materially corroborated by bank transaction records and extracts of their Facebook Messenger and Whatspp communications with the accused person.

143 I also saw no reason to doubt the evidence of Insp Gan, SI Djong and Pamela whose evidence were objective and based on the accused person’s investigation statements, email correspondences and company records that were not challenged by the accused person.

The defence’s case

144 The accused person had elected not to give evidence or call any other witnesses in his defence. Aside from bare assertions in the accused person’s closing submissions, which were not supported by any evidence, there was no countervailing evidence or explanation in response to the Prosecution’s evidence that the accused person had made many untruthful representations to the victims and had not entered into any bona fide investments after receiving the victims’ monies.

145 Nonetheless, I carefully considered whether any meaningful defence could be discerned from the accused person’s cross-examination of the Prosecution witnesses.

146 The following is a summary of the material aspects of the accused’s person’s cross-examination of the Prosecution’s witnesses:

Witness	Cross-examination
Rashid	The accused person’s cross-examination primarily sought Rashid’s confirmation on many aspects of Rashid’s evidence during examination-in-chief. The accused person’s key assertions were that Rashid had no documentary proof that the accused person had solicited the 1st Investment and the 2nd Investment from Rashid, and that Rashid had sent the following message to the accused person via Whatsapp before the accused person asked Rashid to invest with him in “Varius Evans”: “Hey bro. My mum is giving me some money and I was thinking if---of passing it to you”.[note: 159] However, Rashid denied that he sent such a message to the accused person. Rashid testified that he had deleted his Whatsapp communication with the accused person as the accused person had changed his mobile phone number 3 times and Rashid would delete the earlier Whatsapp messages whenever the accused person changed his mobile phone number. Furthermore, the earlier Whatsapp messages did not seem important to him at that point in time. Subsequently, Rashid tried to recover the deleted Whatsapp messages to no avail.[note: 160] The accused claimed that his mobile phone, which had been seized by the police, would contain a record of his Whatsapp communication with Rashid.[note: 161] However, the Prosecution told the court that the police could not extract the Whatsapp communication despite 3 attempts due to technical difficulties.[note: 162] Pursuant to the accused person’s request for his mobile phone to be returned to him so that he could retrieve the relevant Whatsapp messages,[note: 163] the Prosecution arranged for both of the accused person’s seized mobile phones to be shown to him on the 2nd day of the trial. The accused person agreed that one of the mobile phones was not in a working condition when it was seized from him. However, the accused person managed to turn on the other mobile phone to view its contents. After perusing the Whatsapp messages, the accused person told the court that he had deleted his Whatsapp communication with Rashid.[note: 164]
Farahyn	The accused person’s cross-examination sought Farahyn’s confirmation of certain aspects of her evidence during examination-in-chief. The accused person also clarified that he did not ask Farahyn to give him $10,000:[note: 165] Accused person: Okay. So did I asked you to give me 20- --sorry, did I ask you to give me $10,000? Nasrul: No, you did not.
Syafiqah	The accused person’s cross-examination centred on certain communication between Syafiqah and Farahyn, as well as Syafiqah’s understanding of the relevance of the accounts department of a company. I did not find the cross-examination to be materially related to C7.
Nasrul	The gravamen of the accused person’s cross-examination of Nasrul was that Nasrul had no documentary proof that the accused person had asked him for $10,000:[note: 166]Accused person: So---so, it was my words. So, I ask you to transfer me $10,000 it was oral, is it? It wasn’t written, it’s wasn’t on Whatsapp or on any other social media platform, is it? Nasrul: Yes. The accused person also confirmed with Nasrul that he had entered into a re-payment plan with the accused person’s father for Nasrul’s investment of $10,000 to be re-paid by way of instalments. However, according to Nasrul, the re-payment plan fell apart after the accused person was arrested.
Imran	Curiously, the accused person had questioned Imran extensively on why the accused person eventually decided to return Imran’s capital of $5,000 to him. It was not apparent what the accused person was trying to establish from this line of questioning. On the contrary, the accused person appeared to have had accepted Imran’s evidence during examination-in-chief that the accused person had stalled on paying back Imran $5,000 by giving excuses:[note: 167] Accused person: So---I mean, in the WhatsApp conversation, it looked like you were pressing for me to give you back your money, and I refused to and I gave you many excuses. Then why did I eventually give you back the $5,000 of your money? Imran: I think after I placed my money with you, I realised that it was a mistake. Accused person: Okay. Imran: I felt that, um, probably it is what---it was not what you mentioned to be like you could give me a return, double my return. So from then on, I actually wanted my money back. So that’s why (clears throat) I asked for it from you. Accused person: So, you asked me quite a few times and each time, I always give you excuses, right? Imran: Yes. Accused person: And then, what transpired that made me stop giving you excuses, and then finally giving you back your money? …Because finally, I stopped giving you excuses and give you back your money. Finally, the accused person asked Iran why he did not file a police report if he truly felt that the accused person had cheated him. Imran replied that he “didn’t see the need to do so” since he had got his money back.[note: 168]
Naziehah	The brief cross-examination by the accused person focused on whether Naziehah had discussed her evidence with Farahyn or anyone else who was in a group chat that they were in. Naziehah testified that she had not.
Insp Gan	The accused person questioned Insp Gan on the procedure for the recording of certain of the accused person’s investigation statements but did not allege any specific impropriety. The accused person also asked Insp Gan how he obtained the login name “fayyaz10” with the password “XXX” for the accused person’s purported trading account with FXCM. Insp Gan’s testified that he had obtained them from the accused person’s investigation statement. In this regard, the accused person had stated at paragraph A1) of the 3rd Statement: … I would like to state that I have 3 live accounts with FXCM. The accounts names with their password are (account name: Xanthousa, password: XXX), (account name: fayyaz10, password: XXX) and (account name: fayyadz, password: XXX). …
SI Djong	SI Djong confirmed that Naziehah had included SI Djong in a Whatsapp chat-group that she had created for all the victims. However, SI Djong testified that he was added to the chat-group only for the purpose of dispensing information with regards to the trial, eg venue and time, and to ensure that they did not discuss their evidence amongst themselves.
Pamela	There was no meaningful cross-examination by the accused person except that he conceded that he only had demonstration accounts with IG Asia:[note: 169] Accused person: Okay. So in your email to Nam Hin Djong from the Singapore Police Force, you said that I had 2 demo accounts, right? Pamela: Yes. Accused person: Your Honour, I wrote in my report to the Investigation Officer that I only had demo accounts on IG mo---markets as confirmed by the witness, and not live accounts. Uh, I further mentioned to the IO Gan that I opened live accounts on the FXCM platform and not on IG market. …
Ayub	The accused person had cross-examined Ayub on the presentation that he gave at the Temasek Club but the questions did not relate to the charges.

147 Except for a few disparate strands of bare assertions against the Prosecution witnesses, the accused person did not put forward any substantive defence in the cross-examination of the witnesses. On the contrary, he did not challenge the victims’ evidence that they had transferred monies to the Bank Account.

The relevant legislation

148 Section 420 of the PC provides:

Cheating and dishonestly inducing a delivery of property

420. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person … shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

149 The definition of cheating is set out at section 415 of the PC:

Cheating

415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement, … dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person … is said to “cheat”.

Explanation 1. – A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

…

Explanation 3. – Whoever makes a representation through any agent is to be treated as having made the representation himself.

150 “Dishonestly” is defined in section 24 of the PC:

“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.

151 In turn, “wrongful gain” and “wrongful loss” are defined in section 23 of the PC:

“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 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.

Court’s findings

152 Contrary to the overwhelming evidence that the accused person had represented to all the victims that he worked or was working as a trader in a trading company, there was no evidence that the accused person was actually employed by any company as a trader. In fact, the accused person admitted in the 1^st Statement that he “was not offered any employment by Varius Evans”.

153 There was also no evidence that the accused person had made any investment with the victims’ monies on their behalf.

154 At the end of the trial, I was satisfied that the Prosecution had proved the following beyond reasonable doubt:

(a) In relation to C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6, that:

i. the accused person had deceived each of the victims into believing that he would be able to help each of them invest with a trading company by which he was employed, which he knew was false; and

ii. by such deception, the accused had dishonestly induced each of the victims to deliver cash of varying amounts, as set out in C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6, to him in the Bank Account.

(b) In relation to C7, that:

i. the accused person had deceived Syafiqah, by making representations through Farahyn, into believing that he would be able to help her invest with a trading company by which he was employed, which he knew was false; and

ii. by such deception, the accused had dishonestly induced Syafiqah to deliver cash of $1,000 to him in the Bank Account.

(c) In relation to C8, that:

i. the accused person had deceived Naziehah into believing that he would be able to help her invest with a trading company by which he used to be employed, which he knew was false; and

ii. by such deception, the accused had dishonestly induced Naziehah to deliver cash of $3,000 to him in the Bank Account.

155 Accordingly, I found the accused person guilty and convicted him of all 8 charges.

Sentencing

156 The Prosecution sought a global sentence of at least 27 months’ imprisonment based on the following individual sentences:

Charge	Sentence	Remark
C1	10 months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
C2	15 months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
C3	5 months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
C4	10 months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
C5	10 months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
C6	5 months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
C7	2 months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
C8	3 months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
Global Sentence		27 months’ imprisonment

157 The following were the key sentencing factors raised by the Prosecution:^{[note: 170]}

(a) There was significant harm caused to the victims and the total amount involved was $64,000 of which only $5,000 was returned to Imran;

(b) The accused person was a serial cheat who faced multiple charges;

(c) The accused person engaged in a premeditated and deliberate course of offending and abused the level of trust reposed in him by the victims; and

(d) The accused person’s conduct demonstrated his complete lack of remorse.

158 The Prosecution also submitted the following sentencing precedents:

159 I was mindful that, except for the accused person in Public Prosecutor v Tey Choon Yong (“Tey’s Case”), the accused persons in Public Prosecutor v Peter Aw Boon Cheong, Public Prosecutor v Chng Min Sheng and Public Prosecutor v Yeo Lai Heng had pleaded guilty to the respective charges against them.

160 The primary sentencing consideration for a cheating offence is the value of the property involved, although factors such as the number and vulnerability of the victims, the level of premeditation and deception will also have a bearing on the eventual sentence.^{[note: 171]} Generally, the higher the quantum involved, “the heftier the sentence”.^{[note: 172]}

161 In the present case, I agreed with the sentencing factors submitted by the Prosecution and found that the sentencing precedents provided a useful reference point for sentencing in the present case. The global sentence sought by the Prosecution was within an appropriate spectrum of sentences given the amount involved in the present case, the number of charges and the circumstances of the offences that took place over an extended period of time.

162 However, even though the accused person had claimed trial to all 8 charges, he had exercised some restraint in his cross-examination of the Prosecution witnesses and did not unduly prolong the trial. However, it also transpired that the accused person did not actually have a meaningful defence to put forward to any of the victims. I was also mindful that the accused person had repaid $5,000 to Imran even though he had done so only after Imran threatened to report him to the police.

163 All considered, I decided that the following sentences were appropriate:

Charge	Amount	Sentence	Remark
C1	$10,000	5 months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
C2	$20,000	10 months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
C3	$5,000	3 months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
C4	$10,000	5 months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
C5	$10,000	5 months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
C6	$5,000	3 months’ imprisonment	Consecutive
C7	$1,000	2 months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
C8	$3,000	2 months’ imprisonment	Concurrent
Global Sentence		21 months’ imprisonment

164 I ordered the sentences in C2, C3, C5 and C6 to run consecutively as the dates of the offences were representative of the period of the accused’s offending over more than 2½ years. I considered that the resulting global sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment befitted the circumstances of the offences based on, amongst other factors, the total amount of money involved.

165 No compensation order was made as it was apparent from the evidence that the accused person was not in a financial position to repay the balance of the monies that the victims had delivered him and the global sentence would sufficiently meet the justice of this case.[Context] [Hide Context]

^{[note: 1]}NE Day 1 Pages 7-8.

^{[note: 2]}NE Day 1 Page 8-9.

^{[note: 3]}NE Day 1 Page 13.

^{[note: 4]}NE Day 1 Page 10.

^{[note: 5]}NE Day 1 Page 12.

^{[note: 6]}Ibid.

^{[note: 7]}NE Day 1 Pages 12-13.

^{[note: 8]}Exhibit P1.

^{[note: 9]}NE Day 1 Page 15.

^{[note: 10]}NE Day 1 Page 19.

^{[note: 11]}NE Day 1 Pages 17-19.

^{[note: 12]}NE Day 1 Pages 19-20.

^{[note: 13]}NE Day 1 Pages 20-21.

^{[note: 14]}Exhibit P3.

^{[note: 15]}Exhibit P4.

^{[note: 16]}NE Day 1 Page 22.

^{[note: 17]}Exhibit P2.

^{[note: 18]}Prosecution’s closing submissions Pages 6-7.

^{[note: 19]}NE Day 1 Page 23.

^{[note: 20]}NE Day 1 Page 24.

^{[note: 21]}NE Day 1 Page 24.

^{[note: 22]}NE Day 1 Page 26.

^{[note: 23]}NE Day 1 Page 27.

^{[note: 24]}NE Day 1 Pages 28-29.

^{[note: 25]}Messenger Log Page 24.

^{[note: 26]}NE Day 1 Page 31; Messenger Log Page 25.

^{[note: 27]}Ibid.

^{[note: 28]}Messenger Log Page 30.

^{[note: 29]}NE Day 29-33.

^{[note: 30]}Exhibit P5.

^{[note: 31]}Messenger Log Pages 35-40.

^{[note: 32]}NE Day 1 Page 35.

^{[note: 33]}NE Day 1 Pages 35-36.

^{[note: 34]}NE Day 1 Page 36.

^{[note: 35]}Ibid.

^{[note: 36]}Exhibit P6.

^{[note: 37]}NE Day 1 Pages 15, 29 and 34.

^{[note: 38]}NE Day 1 Page 94.

^{[note: 39]}Exhibit P11.

^{[note: 40]}NE Day 1 Page 95.

^{[note: 41]}NE Day 1 Page 97.

^{[note: 42]}Exhibit P11 Page 21.

^{[note: 43]}Exhibit P11 Page 22.

^{[note: 44]}Exhibit P11 Page 23-24.

^{[note: 45]}NE Day 1 Page 100.

^{[note: 46]}Exhibit P11 Pages 25-27.

^{[note: 47]}NE Day 1 Pages 101-102.

^{[note: 48]}NE Day 1 Page 104.

^{[note: 49]}NE Day 1 Page 105.

^{[note: 50]}Exhibit P12.

^{[note: 51]}NE Day 1 Page 105.

^{[note: 52]}Exhibit P11 Page 42.

^{[note: 53]}Prosecution’s closing submissions Pages 14-16.

^{[note: 54]}NE Day 1 Page 108.

^{[note: 55]}Ibid.

^{[note: 56]}NE Day 1 Page 109.

^{[note: 57]}NE Day 1 Page 110.

^{[note: 58]}NE Day 1 Page 111

^{[note: 59]}NE Day 1 Page 112.

^{[note: 60]}P11 Pages 185-186.

^{[note: 61]}NE Day 1 Page 110.

^{[note: 62]}NE Day 1 Page 114.

^{[note: 63]}NE Day 1 Page 115.

^{[note: 64]}Exhibit P14.

^{[note: 65]}NE Day 1 Page 103.

^{[note: 66]}NE Day 3 Page 23.

^{[note: 67]}NE Day 3 Page 24.

^{[note: 68]}NE Day 3 Page 26.

^{[note: 69]}NE Day 3 Pages 25-27.

^{[note: 70]}NE Day 3 Page 25; NE Day 3 Page 27.

^{[note: 71]}NE Day 3 Page 27.

^{[note: 72]}NE Day 3 Page 25.

^{[note: 73]}Exhibit P12.

^{[note: 74]}NE Day 3 Page 28.

^{[note: 75]}NE Day 3 Page 29.

^{[note: 76]}NE Day 3 Page 28.

^{[note: 77]}NE Day 1 Pages 78-79.

^{[note: 78]}NE Day 1 Pages 79-80.

^{[note: 79]}NE Day 1 Page 81.

^{[note: 80]}Exhibit P8.

^{[note: 81]}NE Day 1 Page 83-85.

^{[note: 82]}NE Day 1 Page 85.

^{[note: 83]}Exhibit P9.

^{[note: 84]}Prosecution’s closing submissions Pages 21-22.

^{[note: 85]}NE Day 1 Page 84.

^{[note: 86]}Ibid.

^{[note: 87]}NE Day 1 Page 86.

^{[note: 88]}NE Day 1 Page 83.

^{[note: 89]}NE Day 1 Pages 88-89.

^{[note: 90]}Exhibit P7.

^{[note: 91]}NE Day 3 Page 28.

^{[note: 92]}NE Day 3 Page 3.

^{[note: 93]}Ibid.

^{[note: 94]}NE Day 3 Page 4.

^{[note: 95]}NE Day 3 Page 6.

^{[note: 96]}NE Day 3 Page 4.

^{[note: 97]}NE Day 3 Page 5.

^{[note: 98]}NE Day 3 Pages 7-8.

^{[note: 99]}NE day 3 Page 19.

^{[note: 100]}NE Day 3 Page 7.

^{[note: 101]}NE Day 3 Page 9.

^{[note: 102]}Exhibit P37 Page 1.

^{[note: 103]}Prosecution’s closing submissions Pages 23-25.

^{[note: 104]}NE Day 3 Page 10.

^{[note: 105]}NE Day 3 Page 11.

^{[note: 106]}Exhibit P37 Page 12.

^{[note: 107]}Ibid.

^{[note: 108]}Exhibit P37 Pages 23-24.

^{[note: 109]}Exhibit P37 Page 23.

^{[note: 110]}Exhibit P37 Page 24.

^{[note: 111]}Ibid.

^{[note: 112]}Ibid.

^{[note: 113]}Exhibit P37 Page 24.

^{[note: 114]}Ibid.

^{[note: 115]}NE Day 3 Page 7.

^{[note: 116]}NE Day 2 Pages 54-55.

^{[note: 117]}NE Day 2 Page 57.

^{[note: 118]}NE Day 2 Page 58.

^{[note: 119]}Exhibit P20 Page 3.

^{[note: 120]}NE Day 2 Pages 59-60.

^{[note: 121]}Exhibit P20 Page 4.

^{[note: 122]}NE Day 2 Page 60.

^{[note: 123]}Exhibit P20 Page 5.

^{[note: 124]}NE Day 2 Page 62.

^{[note: 125]}NE Day 62.

^{[note: 126]}Exhibit P21.

^{[note: 127]}Ibid.

^{[note: 128]}Exhibit P20 Page 7.

^{[note: 129]}NE Day 2 Page 64.

^{[note: 130]}Exhibit P20 Page 13.

^{[note: 131]}Ibid.

^{[note: 132]}Ibid.

^{[note: 133]}Ibid.

^{[note: 134]}Ibid.

^{[note: 135]}NE Day 2 Pages 66-67.

^{[note: 136]}Exhibit P22.

^{[note: 137]}Exhibit P18.

^{[note: 138]}Ibid.

^{[note: 139]}NE Day 2 Page 33.

^{[note: 140]}NE Day 2 Page 36.

^{[note: 141]}Exhibit P19.

^{[note: 142]}NE Day 2 Page 40.

^{[note: 143]}Exhibit P19 Page 2.

^{[note: 144]}NE Day 2 Page 44.

^{[note: 145]}Ibid.

^{[note: 146]}NE Day 2 Page 46.

^{[note: 147]}NE Day 3 Page 34.

^{[note: 148]}Exhibit P43.

^{[note: 149]}Exhibit P47.

^{[note: 150]}NE Day 2 Page 2.

^{[note: 151]}NE Day 2 Page 4.

^{[note: 152]}NE Day 2 Pages 2-3.

^{[note: 153]}NE Day 2 Page 11.

^{[note: 154]}Exhibit P16.

^{[note: 155]}NE Day 2 Page 14.

^{[note: 156]}Exhibit P17.

^{[note: 157]}Exhibit P35.

^{[note: 158]}NE Day 1 Page 25; Exhibit P11 Page 22.

^{[note: 159]}NE Day 1 Page 47.

^{[note: 160]}NE Day 1 Pages 68-69.

^{[note: 161]}NE Day 1 Page 48.

^{[note: 162]}NE Day 1 Pages 48-49; NE Day 1 Page 64.

^{[note: 163]}NE Day 1 Page 54.

^{[note: 164]}NE Day 2 Page 52.

^{[note: 165]}NE Day 1 Page 119.

^{[note: 166]}NE Day 1 Page 90.

^{[note: 167]}NE Day 3 Page 15.

^{[note: 168]}NE Day 3 Page 17.

^{[note: 169]}NE Day 2 Page 26.

^{[note: 170]}Prosecution’s sentencing submissions Pages 2-4.

^{[note: 171]}Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal [2013] SGHC 238; [2014] 1 SLR 756 at [48].

^{[note: 172]}Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 at [47].