SINGAPORE: A man accused of uploading a video of himself having sex with his ex-girlfriend onto a pornography website contested the charge, suggesting that a third party must have taken over his account.
The court was not convinced by the case argued by Chan Kok Kit, who represented himself, and convicted him of a charge of distributing an intimate recording. The man was sentenced to 20 months' jail.
Chan, a 35-year-old Malaysian and Singapore permanent resident, has filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence.
According to a judgment made available on Wednesday (Jul 23), the victim testified during the trial that she was Chan's girlfriend from July to September 2022.
During this time, they had consensual sex at his home in Pasir Ris, but she later discovered Chan was married and they broke up.
About a month after they broke up, the victim was informed by a colleague that a sex video of her had been leaked online.
She searched for the video using her nickname and the area she lived in and found the clip on three websites.
Later that same day, Oct 30, 2022, the victim lodged a report at a police station saying there was a leaked video of herself having sex with her ex-boyfriend online.
The video was about 10 minutes long and depicted the victim completely naked, engaging in sexual intercourse with Chan at his home.
The victim later discovered the clip on five other websites and made another police report, asking the police to stop further circulation.
The victim, whose age was not revealed and whose identity is protected by a gag order, said she had not been aware of any video being recorded.
She said she had never consented to any sexual act being recorded.
The court was shown a WhatsApp conversation she had with Chan in August 2022 when they were still together.
Chan asked her if she had ever "filmed making love", and the woman replied "no" with a shocked emoji. Chan then asked if she had allowed her boyfriend to film "last time" and she again replied no.
Three days after the victim lodged the police report, she found the same video on a particular website and took screenshots of it. The timestamp showed that the video had been uploaded five hours earlier, and the title included the number of her block, which Chan knew.
The video was uploaded with a username which was one she knew Chan used and that included his name.
She testified that she was "shocked and terrified" at this discovery and feared that the video would circulate further. She suffered from "lots of sleepless nights" and developed trust issues with men, feeling "mentally destroyed" by Chan's actions.
At trial, a senior forensic examiner at the Home Team Science and Technology Agency testified that he could not confirm whether the files from Chan's laptop had been uploaded to websites.
However, he could see that the user of the laptop had visited the account in question, gone to the upload function of the pornographic website and gone to the videos folder from within the account.
He could also see a video with the URL ending with "Singaporean+girl+(nickname of the victim)+from+(area where the victim lived)+)(her block number)".
In statements to the police, Chan admitted that he had tried to upload the video to three or four websites, but said it was for "storage purposes" and to "remember the victim".
Chan, who worked in online purchases and sales, testified in his own defence.
He said he had a relationship on good terms with the victim in 2022 but that things turned sour in October 2022.
He claimed that when their relationship was good they had mutually consented to film the sexual acts and agreed to visit sexual websites together.
However, he could not produce evidence of this as it was only verbal.
He also said they had shared and stored videos mutually and that the victim had allowed him to use her NRIC. They also shared and used his birth date as the password for most of the websites involved.
Chan denied distributing or leaking the video. He said he had uploaded it for private storage on those websites, and that they were not meant for public viewing.
He claimed that both he and the victim wanted to store the video and not have it shown to the public, saying they would not agree to the distribution as couples "will not agree to such a thing".
Chan admitted that he knew it was an offence to leak or distribute sexual videos. He agreed that he had clicked on an article on TODAY Online titled: "Man jailed 11 months, fined for uploading videos of himself having sex with women onto porn site".
However, he claimed that he did not read the article, and that he "only read the entire title, but not the whole article".
There were Google searches on his laptop about where to upload porn, such as "Best porn website to upload homemade video". He said he wanted to upload the videos but only for his private use.
Chan also admitted using his laptop to view porn sites, using search terms to find the video of himself and the victim.
He claimed that the police officer who took incriminating statements from him had used a harsh tone with him and posed leading questions to him.
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan found that the case had been established beyond reasonable doubt. He found Chan to be "an evasive witness of little credit as he was incoherent, inconsistent and gave incredible answers in court".
Judge Tan said there was no logical reason for Chan to upload the same video onto multiple websites if his only purpose was storage.
Chan's claim that his account must have been controlled by someone else was contradicted by forensic evidence of his laptop, which showed that he had created and used the account, said the judge.
There was no evidence to support his theory of third-party control of the account.
The prosecution sought 20 months' jail. In mitigation, Chan said he was a first-time offender and had a newborn child.
He repeated his claim that the victim had consented to the recording, which was done openly with the camera mounted on a stand.
He claimed that the victim was "proactive and bold" and complained that the police had overlooked his statements, according to the judgment.
He also claimed that he had reflected on his wrongdoing and admitted to "committing some wrong" but maintained that the distribution of the video was not from his account.
He also suggested that the victim had "pre-planned" the case.
Chan is on bail pending appeal. He has other charges outstanding for possessing obscene films and taking photos of a woman's NRIC.
Continue reading...
The court was not convinced by the case argued by Chan Kok Kit, who represented himself, and convicted him of a charge of distributing an intimate recording. The man was sentenced to 20 months' jail.
Chan, a 35-year-old Malaysian and Singapore permanent resident, has filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence.
WHAT HAPPENED
According to a judgment made available on Wednesday (Jul 23), the victim testified during the trial that she was Chan's girlfriend from July to September 2022.
During this time, they had consensual sex at his home in Pasir Ris, but she later discovered Chan was married and they broke up.
About a month after they broke up, the victim was informed by a colleague that a sex video of her had been leaked online.
She searched for the video using her nickname and the area she lived in and found the clip on three websites.
Later that same day, Oct 30, 2022, the victim lodged a report at a police station saying there was a leaked video of herself having sex with her ex-boyfriend online.
The video was about 10 minutes long and depicted the victim completely naked, engaging in sexual intercourse with Chan at his home.
The victim later discovered the clip on five other websites and made another police report, asking the police to stop further circulation.
The victim, whose age was not revealed and whose identity is protected by a gag order, said she had not been aware of any video being recorded.
She said she had never consented to any sexual act being recorded.
The court was shown a WhatsApp conversation she had with Chan in August 2022 when they were still together.
Chan asked her if she had ever "filmed making love", and the woman replied "no" with a shocked emoji. Chan then asked if she had allowed her boyfriend to film "last time" and she again replied no.
Three days after the victim lodged the police report, she found the same video on a particular website and took screenshots of it. The timestamp showed that the video had been uploaded five hours earlier, and the title included the number of her block, which Chan knew.
The video was uploaded with a username which was one she knew Chan used and that included his name.
She testified that she was "shocked and terrified" at this discovery and feared that the video would circulate further. She suffered from "lots of sleepless nights" and developed trust issues with men, feeling "mentally destroyed" by Chan's actions.
At trial, a senior forensic examiner at the Home Team Science and Technology Agency testified that he could not confirm whether the files from Chan's laptop had been uploaded to websites.
However, he could see that the user of the laptop had visited the account in question, gone to the upload function of the pornographic website and gone to the videos folder from within the account.
He could also see a video with the URL ending with "Singaporean+girl+(nickname of the victim)+from+(area where the victim lived)+)(her block number)".
In statements to the police, Chan admitted that he had tried to upload the video to three or four websites, but said it was for "storage purposes" and to "remember the victim".
CHAN'S TESTIMONY
Chan, who worked in online purchases and sales, testified in his own defence.
He said he had a relationship on good terms with the victim in 2022 but that things turned sour in October 2022.
He claimed that when their relationship was good they had mutually consented to film the sexual acts and agreed to visit sexual websites together.
However, he could not produce evidence of this as it was only verbal.
He also said they had shared and stored videos mutually and that the victim had allowed him to use her NRIC. They also shared and used his birth date as the password for most of the websites involved.
Chan denied distributing or leaking the video. He said he had uploaded it for private storage on those websites, and that they were not meant for public viewing.
He claimed that both he and the victim wanted to store the video and not have it shown to the public, saying they would not agree to the distribution as couples "will not agree to such a thing".
Chan admitted that he knew it was an offence to leak or distribute sexual videos. He agreed that he had clicked on an article on TODAY Online titled: "Man jailed 11 months, fined for uploading videos of himself having sex with women onto porn site".
However, he claimed that he did not read the article, and that he "only read the entire title, but not the whole article".
There were Google searches on his laptop about where to upload porn, such as "Best porn website to upload homemade video". He said he wanted to upload the videos but only for his private use.
Chan also admitted using his laptop to view porn sites, using search terms to find the video of himself and the victim.
He claimed that the police officer who took incriminating statements from him had used a harsh tone with him and posed leading questions to him.
ACCUSED GAVE INCREDIBLE ANSWERS: JUDGE
Deputy Principal District Judge Luke Tan found that the case had been established beyond reasonable doubt. He found Chan to be "an evasive witness of little credit as he was incoherent, inconsistent and gave incredible answers in court".
Judge Tan said there was no logical reason for Chan to upload the same video onto multiple websites if his only purpose was storage.
Chan's claim that his account must have been controlled by someone else was contradicted by forensic evidence of his laptop, which showed that he had created and used the account, said the judge.
There was no evidence to support his theory of third-party control of the account.
The prosecution sought 20 months' jail. In mitigation, Chan said he was a first-time offender and had a newborn child.
He repeated his claim that the victim had consented to the recording, which was done openly with the camera mounted on a stand.
He claimed that the victim was "proactive and bold" and complained that the police had overlooked his statements, according to the judgment.
He also claimed that he had reflected on his wrongdoing and admitted to "committing some wrong" but maintained that the distribution of the video was not from his account.
He also suggested that the victim had "pre-planned" the case.
Chan is on bail pending appeal. He has other charges outstanding for possessing obscene films and taking photos of a woman's NRIC.
Continue reading...