Man took advantage of elderly businessman’s delirium to steal S$1.27 million from company, gets jail

In late September 2016, Loy acquired a controlling stake in Yip Holdings when 52.5 per cent of its shares were transferred from Mr Yip to him.

On Oct 6, 2016, Loy secured a S$4 million loan using Mr Yip’s bungalow as collateral. Out of this, S$2.45 million was used to pay off the existing mortgage on the bungalow and S$281,500 was retained by the lender.

The remaining balance of S$1,268,500 was disbursed to Yip Holdings on Nov 17, 2016. The next day, Loy transferred the money through Yip & Loy to his personal account.

This sum of money is the subject of Loy’s charges. The prosecution’s case is that Loy dishonestly misappropriated the sum and used it to enrich himself.

After receiving the money, Loy transferred S$850,000 to his mother’s bank accounts. This is the subject of Gian’s single charge of allowing Loy to use her accounts between November 2016 and June 2017.

Loy put S$116,500 towards buying a unit in Lucky Plaza and used about S$125,000 to buy shares in his sole name. He also used the money to pay for a housing loan, a Rolex Yacht-Master and Mercedes-Benz sports car.

Additionally, he paid a company to work on two online portals named Car Street and Property Street for buying and selling cars and houses respectively. Neither project came to fruition.

According to the prosecution, around end-2016 to early 2017, Mr Yip “panicked” and sought help to make a police report and recover the missing balance from Yip Holdings’ account.

Loy was arrested by police in August 2017, while Gian was arrested in November 2017.

JUDGE’S FINDINGS

Judge Bay found that Loy had criminal intent and exploited the earliest opportunity to gain direct control of the balance in Yip Holdings’ account.

The judge said it was “particularly egregious and troubling” that he transferred the sum out of the company’s account just one day after it was deposited.

“Mr Loy’s criminality had extended to making blatant misrepresentations to bank employees that (Yip & Loy’s) business activities involved the distribution of Korean cosmetics and palm oil equipment,” he added.

Judge Bay also found that Gian had reasonable grounds to believe that her son was engaged in criminal conduct.

This was because she was aware the police were investigating him for cheating, and the sum of money transferred was unusually large even though she knew he was earning little more than an NSF’s allowance.

Gian also knew that Loy had lied to a web developer that she was an investor in the car and property portals, the judge found.

But Judge Bay emphasised that mother and son fundamentally differed in their criminality. Loy conceived and orchestrated the entire scheme, while Giam merely facilitated control of part of the money.

“She derived no personal benefit, acted on her son’s instructions, and acted with a lower level of sophistication,” he said.

He also considered the fact that Giam was working as a part-time tutor and caring for Loy’s father, a bedridden stroke survivor.

As for Loy, the judge deemed his offences to be aggravated by the victim’s vulnerability.

“Mr Loy exploited Mr Yip’s vulnerability systematically. The incorporation of (Yip & Loy) occurred during Mr Ronald Yip’s hospitalisation, and the loan was secured shortly after his diagnosis of post-ICU delirium,” he said.

Mr Yip subsequently developed dementia in 2017.

The judge also considered Loy’s lack of remorse throughout the proceedings and the way he conducted himself during the trial to be aggravating factors.

“Mr Loy made scattershot and scurrilous allegations against various parties, including Mr Ronald Yip, his daughter, the developer, his former lawyers, and most unfortunately and undeservedly police and commercial crime investigation officers, and even the prosecutors,” he said.

While the prosecution sought at least 11 years and six months’ jail for Loy, the judge gave him a lower sentence based on his young age at the time of the offences and the fact that the victim suffered limited permanent monetary loss.

This was because authorities managed to recover over S$1 million, albeit with no assistance from Loy, who did not voluntarily return any of the money.

“While the term may seem substantial, I am confident that Mr Loy will still have substantial opportunity for rehabilitation upon release,” said Judge Bay.