In Singapore, a 28-year-old man, Tan Ming Chuan, was sentenced to four months and eight weeks in jail and fined S$300 on August 6, after he was convicted of criminal intimidation and an offence under the Computer Misuse Act. The case involved a disturbing incident where Tan forced a 25-year-old man to drink urine over a misunderstanding related to a bank account scam.
The incident began in late 2021, when Tan accepted an offer from an individual known only as Derrick, to recruit people willing to sell or relinquish their bank accounts for use in questionable transactions. Tan would receive S$800 to S$1,000 for each account, keeping around S$300 as commission and giving the rest to the account owner.
In March 2022, Tan was introduced by his friend, Cheong Wee Kiat (26), to A1, a 25-year-old friend of Cheong. Wanting to earn fast cash, A1 agreed to register a company and open a corporate bank account under his name. Under Tan's instructions, A1 handed over his internet banking credentials and ATM card, which were subsequently passed on to Derrick.
The scam fell apart in April 2022 when A1’s father discovered suspicious bank statements arriving at their residence. Upon confronting his son, they went to the bank to close the account and filed a police report on the bank’s advice. By then, the account had already processed S$147,100.57, though no specific police reports were linked to the funds. The account was frozen with S$25,719.43 remaining.
Unaware of the police report and believing that A1 had kept the money, Tan and Cheong became suspicious and angry. On September 12, 2022, Tan, Cheong, and three others went to the void deck of A1’s residence to confront him. After locating him around 11:30pm, they demanded he repay the money. A1 denied receiving the funds and offered to slowly pay them back.
Cheong allegedly punched A1, causing a cut near his eyebrow. A1, fearing for his safety, stayed passive. One of his friends later transferred S$800 to appease the group. Around 1am, the group, including Tan and Cheong, urinated into an empty 1.5-litre bottle and handed it to A1, giving him two options: drink it or fight them. Out of fear, A1 drank about three-quarters of the urine and was ordered to pour the rest on his head.
The incident was recorded by Tan on his phone but later deleted. At around 2:30am, Cheong took A1’s bank card and identity card as collateral before the group left. A1 filed a police report the next day.
In court, prosecutors emphasized the seriousness of both the humiliation and the cybercrime. The urine incident, described as “unnatural and humiliating,” was aggravated by the public nature of the act, the group involvement, and the psychological trauma inflicted on A1.
Prosecutors sought five months and four to six weeks’ jail and a S$300 fine, while Tan's lawyer requested a lighter sentence. The court ultimately imposed four months and eight weeks’ imprisonment, noting that the incident was “utterly deplorable” and required a punishment that reflected public condemnation of such bullying and violence.
Co-accused Cheong's case is still pending, and A1 himself is listed as a co-accused in the bank account relinquishment charge.
Comments
Post a Comment