Suit No: DAC 15783/2008, MA 274/2008
Decision Date: 16 Mar 2009
Court: District Court
Coram: Jasbendar Kaur
Counsel: Puvaneswari Sandirasekaran (Assistant Public Prosecutor) for the prosecution, Luke Lee & Sng Kheng Huat (Sng & Co) for the accused
Judgment
16 March 2009
District Judge Jasbendar Kaur:
The Accused, Chee Choon Ming, was tried for dishonestly receiving stolen property when he had reason to believe that the said property was indeed stolen property, which is an offence under section 411 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) [Charge marked as C1A - DAC 15783/2008]. The charge alleged that this offence took place on 1 May 2006 at about 1.00 pm at Golden Mile Tower, #B1-57, Singapore. The stolen property in question concerned 10 cartons containing 1000 pieces of Motorola handphones model C118 which had a total value of $47, 534 and which belonged to Expeditors Singapore Private Limited.
2 The Prosecution’s case was that this property had been stolen by one Lee Lye Huat on 30 April 2006 from the SATS warehouse and that the said Lee Lye Huat had delivered the stolen property to the Accused’s shop at Golden Mile Tower, #B1-57, Singapore upon the Accused’s request. Thereafter, the Accused had agreed to purchase the said handphones for $10,000. The Accused did not dispute the fact that the property had been stolen by Lee Lye Huat. He also did not dispute the fact that the handphones were subsequently purchased from Lee Lye Huat. He did, however, dispute the fact that the handphones were purchased by him and that he had reason to believe that the handphones were stolen. He claimed that he had no reason to suspect that the handphones were stolen and that he was merely acting as a middle man on behalf of a client when the sale transaction was arranged by him with Lee. He also disputed when and the manner in which the transaction was conducted.
3. On 31 October 2008, the Accused was convicted on the charge and he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. On the same day, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal in relation to both his conviction and sentence. I will first put down the evidence that was adduced before the Court before explaining my reasons for convicting him.
Suit No: DAC 15783/2008, MA 274/2008Decision Date: 16 Mar 2009Court: District CourtCoram: Jasbendar KaurCounsel: Puvaneswari Sandirasekaran (Assistant Public Prosecutor) for the prosecution, Luke Lee & Sng Kheng Huat (Sng & Co) for the accusedJudgment16 March 2009District Judge Jasbendar Kaur:The Accused, Chee Choon Ming, was tried for dishonestly receiving stolen property when he had reason to believe that the said property was indeed stolen property, which is an offence under section 411 of the Penal Code (Chapter 224) [Charge marked as C1A - DAC 15783/2008]. The charge alleged that this offence took place on 1 May 2006 at about 1.00 pm at Golden Mile Tower, #B1-57, Singapore. The stolen property in question concerned 10 cartons containing 1000 pieces of Motorola handphones model C118 which had a total value of $47, 534 and which belonged to Expeditors Singapore Private Limited.2 The Prosecution’s case was that this property had been stolen by one Lee Lye Huat on 30 April 2006 from the SATS warehouse and that the said Lee Lye Huat had delivered the stolen property to the Accused’s shop at Golden Mile Tower, #B1-57, Singapore upon the Accused’s request. Thereafter, the Accused had agreed to purchase the said handphones for $10,000. The Accused did not dispute the fact that the property had been stolen by Lee Lye Huat. He also did not dispute the fact that the handphones were subsequently purchased from Lee Lye Huat. He did, however, dispute the fact that the handphones were purchased by him and that he had reason to believe that the handphones were stolen. He claimed that he had no reason to suspect that the handphones were stolen and that he was merely acting as a middle man on behalf of a client when the sale transaction was arranged by him with Lee. He also disputed when and the manner in which the transaction was conducted.3. On 31 October 2008, the Accused was convicted on the charge and he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. On the same day, the Accused lodged a Notice of Appeal in relation to both his conviction and sentence. I will first put down the evidence that was adduced before the Court before explaining my reasons for convicting him.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
![](//thimg.ilovetranslation.com/pic/loading_3.gif?v=b9814dd30c1d7c59_8619)