SINGAPORE: When a man received S$125,000 (US$97,800) in his bank account that had been wrongly transferred to him, he did not contact the bank or attempt to transfer it back to the sender.
Instead, he pocketed the entire amount, making multiple transfers to his various bank accounts and spending it on himself.
Loo Liew Ting, a 63-year-old Singaporean, pleaded guilty on Wednesday (Mar 25) to one count each of dishonest misappropriation and concealing the benefits of criminal conduct by making multiple fund transfers.
A third charge for taking 20,000 ringgit (S$6,470) in cash from Singapore to Malaysia will be considered in sentencing.
The court heard that the victim, a 55-year-old Singaporean man, intended to make a bank transfer of S$125,000 to another account but accidentally selected the wrong payee.
As a result, Loo received S$125,000 in his POSB bank account on Jul 11, 2024.
The victim lodged a police report about the erroneous transfer and reported the incident to the relevant banks.
The banks tried to reach out to Loo, but he did not respond.
At all times, he knew that the money did not belong to him and that the victim had not intended to make the transfer, the court heard.
Loo transferred portions of the sum to other bank accounts that he had, withdrawing some of it in cash and spending the rest for his own use.
Between Jul 12, 2024 and Sep 21, 2024, he took steps to conceal the sum that he had received.
These include a withdrawal of S$40,000 from his POSB bank account, a transfer of S$103,000 to his Citibank account, a withdrawal of S$25,000 from the Citibank account and an S$8,400 deposit into his OCBC account.
During investigations around May 2025, Loo admitted that he would be able to make restitution as he had certain investments. However, he ultimately failed to make any restitution to the victim.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Jordy Kay said Loo had no prior convictions. He sought 15 to 17 months' jail and originally asked for a compensation order for him to pay the victim S$125,000.
Defence lawyer Teo Choo Kee asked for 12 months' jail instead, saying 15 to 17 months would be "rather crushing" given his client's records and prospects.
He said the offences were "closely linked".
"Having come into receipt of such a large amount, he then set about the so-called 'self-laundering'," said Mr Teo. "So it cannot be said that he tried to dissipate the amount."
However, he did not deny that his client concealed the funds.
He disagreed with the prosecution on the compensation order, saying his client was not in a position to pay the amount.
He said his client originally intended to make restitution, but the plans "fell apart" and he has not been able to raise the sum since.
District Judge Kelly Ho questioned the defence about this and asked why Loo was not able to make restitution when he had the funds.
Mr Teo said Loo was hoping to make gains from his investment, "but being a volatile investment, I think he lost quite a bit of money in the cryptocurrency trade".
Judge Ho said this was "not something in his favour".
"If he had the money, the first and utmost priority was to make restitution," she said.
"Yes, it was one poor judgment after another, and for that he is now in the dock," answered Mr Teo.
The prosecutor, Mr Kay, disagreed with the defence that the sentence he sought was "crushing", given the amount misappropriated.
He said it was unclear if the contention that Loo had lost his money was supported by evidence, and added that his mitigation plea states that he is working.
Loo is a part-time traditional Chinese medicine practitioner.
The judge then granted the prosecutor some time to get instructions on whether he would be pursuing the compensation order, given that the defence claimed Loo did not have the means to pay.
The point of a compensation order is not to penalise an offender even more, said the judge, and if he cannot pay, then such an order should not be imposed.
After a short break, Mr Kay said the prosecution was prepared to amend its position and not seek a compensation order, since the defence said Loo had no means to pay it.
Judge Ho then asked Mr Teo if he was acting pro bono for Loo, to which he said he was not.
"So he can afford a lawyer," said the judge.
She said that although the prosecution was not seeking a compensation order, the court on its own accord would be making an order to find out Loo's financial circumstances.
She pointed to the large amount involved and evidence to show that Loo was not without any means to pay.
She ordered Loo to file several documents including a Central Provident Fund statement showing information from his Ordinary and Retirement accounts, statements of all his bank accounts including his joint accounts for the last three months, and his payslips for the last three months.
As she has to deal with this issue before passing sentence, she adjourned the case to April.
The penalties for dishonest misappropriation are a jail term of up to two years, a fine, or both.
For concealing the benefits of criminal conduct, an offender can be jailed for up to 10 years, fined up to S$500,000, or both. As Loo's charge involves multiple instances, he faces up to double these penalties.
Continue reading...
Instead, he pocketed the entire amount, making multiple transfers to his various bank accounts and spending it on himself.
Loo Liew Ting, a 63-year-old Singaporean, pleaded guilty on Wednesday (Mar 25) to one count each of dishonest misappropriation and concealing the benefits of criminal conduct by making multiple fund transfers.
A third charge for taking 20,000 ringgit (S$6,470) in cash from Singapore to Malaysia will be considered in sentencing.
THE CASE
The court heard that the victim, a 55-year-old Singaporean man, intended to make a bank transfer of S$125,000 to another account but accidentally selected the wrong payee.
As a result, Loo received S$125,000 in his POSB bank account on Jul 11, 2024.
The victim lodged a police report about the erroneous transfer and reported the incident to the relevant banks.
The banks tried to reach out to Loo, but he did not respond.
At all times, he knew that the money did not belong to him and that the victim had not intended to make the transfer, the court heard.
Loo transferred portions of the sum to other bank accounts that he had, withdrawing some of it in cash and spending the rest for his own use.
Between Jul 12, 2024 and Sep 21, 2024, he took steps to conceal the sum that he had received.
These include a withdrawal of S$40,000 from his POSB bank account, a transfer of S$103,000 to his Citibank account, a withdrawal of S$25,000 from the Citibank account and an S$8,400 deposit into his OCBC account.
During investigations around May 2025, Loo admitted that he would be able to make restitution as he had certain investments. However, he ultimately failed to make any restitution to the victim.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Jordy Kay said Loo had no prior convictions. He sought 15 to 17 months' jail and originally asked for a compensation order for him to pay the victim S$125,000.
Defence lawyer Teo Choo Kee asked for 12 months' jail instead, saying 15 to 17 months would be "rather crushing" given his client's records and prospects.
He said the offences were "closely linked".
"Having come into receipt of such a large amount, he then set about the so-called 'self-laundering'," said Mr Teo. "So it cannot be said that he tried to dissipate the amount."
However, he did not deny that his client concealed the funds.
THE ISSUE WITH COMPENSATION
He disagreed with the prosecution on the compensation order, saying his client was not in a position to pay the amount.
He said his client originally intended to make restitution, but the plans "fell apart" and he has not been able to raise the sum since.
District Judge Kelly Ho questioned the defence about this and asked why Loo was not able to make restitution when he had the funds.
Mr Teo said Loo was hoping to make gains from his investment, "but being a volatile investment, I think he lost quite a bit of money in the cryptocurrency trade".
Judge Ho said this was "not something in his favour".
"If he had the money, the first and utmost priority was to make restitution," she said.
"Yes, it was one poor judgment after another, and for that he is now in the dock," answered Mr Teo.
The prosecutor, Mr Kay, disagreed with the defence that the sentence he sought was "crushing", given the amount misappropriated.
He said it was unclear if the contention that Loo had lost his money was supported by evidence, and added that his mitigation plea states that he is working.
Loo is a part-time traditional Chinese medicine practitioner.
The judge then granted the prosecutor some time to get instructions on whether he would be pursuing the compensation order, given that the defence claimed Loo did not have the means to pay.
The point of a compensation order is not to penalise an offender even more, said the judge, and if he cannot pay, then such an order should not be imposed.
After a short break, Mr Kay said the prosecution was prepared to amend its position and not seek a compensation order, since the defence said Loo had no means to pay it.
Judge Ho then asked Mr Teo if he was acting pro bono for Loo, to which he said he was not.
"So he can afford a lawyer," said the judge.
She said that although the prosecution was not seeking a compensation order, the court on its own accord would be making an order to find out Loo's financial circumstances.
She pointed to the large amount involved and evidence to show that Loo was not without any means to pay.
She ordered Loo to file several documents including a Central Provident Fund statement showing information from his Ordinary and Retirement accounts, statements of all his bank accounts including his joint accounts for the last three months, and his payslips for the last three months.
As she has to deal with this issue before passing sentence, she adjourned the case to April.
The penalties for dishonest misappropriation are a jail term of up to two years, a fine, or both.
For concealing the benefits of criminal conduct, an offender can be jailed for up to 10 years, fined up to S$500,000, or both. As Loo's charge involves multiple instances, he faces up to double these penalties.
Continue reading...