Sentencing of young scam offenders: Does government legislation interfere with the judiciary?

The government has introduced a bill to reaffirm that imprisonment or corrective training should be the primary and usual sentencing options for scams and offences involving assistance to scammers. This has raised a question: does the government’s response to court rulings through legislation interfere with judicial independence and violate the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary?

The Ministry of Home Affairs said Parliament’s original legislative intent was for courts hearing cases involving scams and scam-related offences to give priority to imprisonment or corrective training, and to treat these as the usual sentencing options.

However, a three-judge Supreme Court panel had earlier ruled that imprisonment or corrective training should not be the default punishment for young offenders involved in scam-related offences. To give effect to Parliament’s original legislative intent, the Sentencing (Scams) Bill explicitly provides that, barring exceptional circumstances, such offenders who were under 21 at the time of their offences should receive corrective training or imprisonment, rather than probation or other rehabilitation-based sentences.

The panel, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice of the Court of Appeal Steven Chong and High Court Justice Hoo Sheau Peng, heard seven appeals together on 26 May this year. These comprised one prosecution appeal and six appeals by defendants.

In its judgment issued on 10 September, the panel said rehabilitation should always be the primary consideration when sentencing young offenders, and courts should not treat imprisonment or corrective training as the default punishment.

On 6 October, Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam said in response to oral questions in Parliament that scam offences should not be treated leniently even when the offenders are young. The government would amend the law to strengthen the deterrent effect of sentences.

The Sentencing (Scams) Bill was introduced in Parliament for its first reading on 3 November.

According to the judgment, four of the seven defendants had initially been sentenced to corrective training. Their appeals succeeded, and they were placed on probation for between 12 and 18 months instead, subject to additional conditions including curfews and community service.

The four were Jai Ganesh s/o Chandra Mogan, Seyfqan Nazeer Caffoor, Syahmi Hamzah bin Mohamed Saddiq and Lee Jun Fa, who were aged between 16 and 20 at the time of their offences. They had handed over bank accounts or account details for others to handle scam proceeds. The sums flowing through the accounts ranged from hundreds of thousands to more than $10 million, underscoring the serious consequences of young people acting as money mules.

Between July and October 2021, Jai Ganesh s/o Chandra Mogan agreed to hand control of UOB and OCBC accounts he had opened to a loan shark to repay a $10,000 gambling debt. In return, the loan shark would reduce his debt each month. More than $12 million flowed through the two accounts in his name when he was just 16.

Among the other three defendants was a girl identified as JDT, who was just 16 when she committed her offences. She had opened and handed over three bank accounts on separate occasions, and was initially sentenced to seven days’ detention, 60 hours of community service and a three-month day reporting order.

The prosecution appealed on the grounds that the sentence was too lenient, seeking corrective training instead. The panel dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence.