Jail or reformative training not default sentence for young money mules: High Court

The judges allowed the appeals of four offenders who had been given RT, and instead ordered them to be placed on probation ranging from a year to 18 months. These four committed their offences when they were between the ages of 16 and 19.

The appeals of the other two offenders, who were treated as adults, were dismissed.

One was between 20 and 22 years old when he surrendered his bank account and committed cheating. His sentence of 14 weeks’ jail was upheld.

The other was 27 years old when she committed three scam-related offences. Her sentence of seven months and two weeks’ jail and a $500 fine was upheld.

All seven appeals were considered against the backdrop of laws introduced in 2023 to combat the rise in scams.

Among these were amendments that specifically criminalised the relinquishment of bank accounts and the disclosure of Singpass credentials by money mules to scammers. The amendments came into force on Feb 8, 2024.

On Aug 21 that year, the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which was set up in 2022 to promote greater consistency and transparency in sentencing, published a set of guidelines for scam-related offences.

In particular, the guidelines recommended that in cases involving young offenders, the sentence to be imposed should usually be RT or imprisonment, even if the offender would otherwise be suitable for probation or community-based sentences such as SDOs.

One of the broad issues raised in the appeals was whether the courts should adopt this recommendation.

The prosecution contended that RT would generally be an appropriate sentencing option, and that SDOs and probation are generally unsuitable.

The Public Defender’s Office (PDO), which acted for four offenders, argued that a blanket prohibition against probation and community-based sentences would overturn established jurisprudence on sentencing young offenders.

Such an approach would also fail to account for the vast spectrum of culpability, circumstances and rehabilitative needs among young offenders in scam-related cases, the PDO argued.

Lawyers for the remaining offenders aligned themselves with the PDO’s arguments.

Given the novelty of the issues, lawyer Iris Ng was appointed as a young independent counsel to assist the court in providing another perspective. She submitted that SDOs should be recognised as an appropriate sentencing option alongside RT and imprisonment.

The court ruled that the recommendation of imprisonment or RT as the norm was inconsistent with the established framework that presumes rehabilitation as the primary sentencing consideration for young offenders.

Scam-related offences could be committed in many varying ways, resulting in clear differences in culpability, and different sentencing options might be appropriate for different young offenders, said the court.

For example, a young offender who commits an offence for the first time because he misjudged the situation is clearly different from another who is recalcitrant and has a few similar antecedents.

The court also found it unprincipled that young offenders in scam-related cases should presumptively face imprisonment or RT when those who commit other serious offences may be considered for probation or community-based sentences.