Man convicted of cheating because he has taken payment but refused to commit a crime?

Like dat also can?

A reader reposted an article from Online Citizen Asia about a man, who was charged and convicted for cheating because he had taken payment but had refused to commit a crime he was paid for.

It is indeed a baffling and debatable case and we are reproducing it here for our learnered readers to discuss.

Netizens baffled that a man was convicted of “cheating” a loan shark who himself was not caught

By kathleen -07/01/202114

34-year-old Muhammad Khairul Ismail on Wednesday (7 January) plead guilty to one count of cheating and an unrelated charge of online betting.

He was sentenced to 11 days in jail for the cheating. He will also serve another four days in jail for not paying the S$1,000 fine he received on the gambling offence.

The cheating charges relates to his plan to deceive an unlicensed moneylender who hired Khairul to harass debtors by chaining up their gates.

Khairul, instead, found a way to get payment from the moneylender without actually completing the job. What he did was chain the debtors’ gates, record a video to demonstrate having done so for the purpose of showing the loan shark, and then remove the chains.

Khairul is out on S$15,000 bail and is appealing his sentence.

Khairul had reached out to the moneylender, known only as “Lucas”, upon seeing a job offer in November 2019, the Court heard.

The job was to lock up the gates of people who owed Lucas money, paste a note on their doors, record the acts, and send the videos to Lucas as proof of the job done.

Khairul was promised S$100 to S$120 for each completed job, based on messages exchanged between the two on WhatsApp.

However, in December 2019 upon instructions from the loan shark, Khairul proceeded to a debtor’s house and locked the gate with two bicycle locks.

He then pasted a note on one of the locks instead of the gate to avoid potentially damaging the gate. He then recorded the whole incident before removing the locks and leaving the gate unscratched.

After sending the video to the loan shark, he was paid S$120 for the job.

The court heard of two other similar incidents, both of which were taken into consideration during sentencing.

According to reports, police were alerted to the case after Lucas forwarded the videos to debtors. However, it is noted that Lucas’ identity remains a mystery.

This unusual case has caught the ire of many netizens who were baffled by the fact that Khairul was even charged with cheating as they pointed out that what he did was not really a crime as he honoured the agreement.

On TODAY’s Facebook page, netizens highlighted that Khairul had taken care to not to harm any of the debtors or their property.

Others wondered how it is even possible for someone to be charged with cheating an illegal moneylender since the moneylender is the one breaking the law.

Many also questioned whether the loan shark himself would be brought to justice for his crimes, and how the police managed to nab Khairul but not the big boss himself.

Other asked how anyone had even accused Khairul of cheating when the victim — the loan shark himself — could not be found.

Our stroken techie, Andrew was the first to respond to the reproduced article with the following comment:

This is indeed a very interesting case worth wasting time to discuss and study.

What the unlicensed moneylender wanted the accused to do was clearly illegal, promising to pay him after he has committed the illegal act.

The accused wants no part of it and did not carry out the clearly illegal locking of doors and harassment as instructed by the unlicensed moneylender. So he staged it for the unlicensed moneylender to think that he has done it and collected payment.

Point to note:

1. Had the accused carried out the locking as instructed by the unlicensed moneylender, he would have committed an offence and the unlicensed moneylender would be guilty of abetting, if the house owner makes a police report.

2. What the unlicensed moneylender instructed the accused to do was clearly an illegal act, which is against the law. Technically it was a verbal contract, BUT since what the accused was asked to do was illegal, how then can the contract even be binding and valid and how could the accused have been charged for cheating (because he refused to commit an illegal act), even if the accused has received payment, be it before or after the event?

By extention, the accused had to commit one crime or another, be charged for the locking of doors or cheating?

Picture this:

I was asked by Andy to murder someone and was paid upfront for the assignment. Since it was an illegal act, I staged the death of the person I was supposed to murder and told Andy that he was dead.

So according to the police’s logic, I had cheated Andy since I took the money and did not murder that someone?

Meanwhile, nothing happens to Andy, who had paid me to murder someone?

Walan eh, whoever the IO and DPP in this case sibei tokong man, salute ar!

Had this happen in China, Andy would have been arrested by teh police and I would get a pat on the back for not committing the muder liao lor. Its called “中止犯罪”, a provision under their law for the police to not take any further action against an accused.

So what do our learned readers think?




21 Responses to “Man convicted of cheating because he has taken payment but refused to commit a crime?”

  • NotMyProblem:

    Have the police checked his Trace Together device’s records?

    GD Star Rating
  • Trace Together:

    Look out for more of such cases coming. Track Together

    GD Star Rating
  • Errr….just curious hor…

    Is the IO and the DPP the same A-Star super-duper trio that investigated the poor (but now rich) maid?

    Anyway, even if the police insisted that the contract was binding, the accused DID carry out the instructions wat. He DID locked the gate, pasted “owe money pay money” on the locks. The moneylender got say must paste how long, how many days bo?

    The moneylender got say cannot remove the lock bo? Got proof or not? Got hard copy of the contract bo?

    You all say dio bo?

    Picture this:

    Me and Andy go rob a bank together and we made off with $1000 which is now currently in my possession. Before the robbery, I made a promise to Andy that should the heist be successful, I would remit $500 to his sicken mother, but I fail to do so.

    So if some one fine day I got caught but Andy went MIA and based on my confession to the above, I would be charged for Robbery and CBT (of Andy’s share of the proceeds of the robbery which I agreed to send to his mother but did not)?

    I honestly fail to see how the hell in the world can a contract to commit an offense even be binding on anybody and by extension any acts that arise from the SAME clearly illegal contract?

    I am so bloody confused, can anyone enlighten please?

    GD Star Rating
  • Why so kaypoh?:

    It’s a civil contract between two individuals.
    It’s looks like the work done was not up to expectations

    If the moneylender does not complain, who is so kaypoh to take up the case for him?

    Even if the moneylender complain about shoddy work, it’s a civil case. Money taken. Work done, but not 100% according to contract.

    Right? Tio bo? Isn’t the police overworked already? Why change a civil case into a criminal case?

    Next time, my renovator never perform according to the contract, I ask police to charge him for cheating.

    The landlord with the terror tenant, you also ask police to charge that tenant for cheating. They took your property without paying.

    Police will need 100% increase in manpower liow.

    GD Star Rating
  • @Why so kaypoh?

    I agree. Taken at face value, it’s was clearly a civil verbal contract between 2 parties, to go criminal on this case is a long stretch but then this AGC has been known to do funny things.

    Also, based on what I have read so far, since the moneylender was NEVER caught, and in the absence of a victim, who is the IO to say that the moneylender was aggrieved? Maybe the money was given to the accused for lunch or dinner or maybe even transport money or maybe even for the accused to go Geylang shiok shiok, dio bo?

    Without a complainant to complain, how does the IO know HOW the moneylender ‘victim’ was aggrieved? Without a complainant’s version of the events that transpired, the accused was charged based solely on his own confession that he had cheated a certain Mr. Lucas?

    Sherlock’s “Investigation 101 for idiots” says: A good investigator should NEVER assume anything and should ONLY consider available facts and evidence that are relevant to the case.

    I imagine that the charge sheet would probably read:

    You, Muhammad Khairul Ismail (NRIC:xxxxxx) is charged with one count of cheating under Section 419 Cap 224 of the Penal Code in that you took $100 from a certain Lucas (NRIC: *unknown*), of *address unknown*, age *unknown* and promising the certain Lucas to lock a debtor’s house and harass the debtor for a long long time but fail to do so and had removed the lock prematurely, therefore not satisfying the long long time locking promise you gave to the certain Lucas, therefore you have committed an offence of cheating the certain Lucas by your own admission… bla bla bla.

    The accused also damned funny one, why he PG (plead guilty) for fiack? He should have claimed trial and let the prosecution produce the UNKNOWN moneylender victim in court to testify. He not represented by lawyer meh? Who was his lawyer?

    In hindsight, he should also have surrendered the $100 to the prosecution to return to the certain Lucas which would be counted as “having made full restitution”. That could have saved him the 11 days BUT then he would also be fined anyway and in lieu, a few days in prison since he is not willing to pay his other $1000 fine, so LPPL.

    Anyway, to be fair to the accused, I can understand why he PG becuase he also lan lan bo bian one. Get a lawyer anyhow got discount also $10k to go to trial. He PG is free one, serve only 11 days nia for simple cheating (I think).

    If me, DPP say I PG only get 11 days nia I also PG quick quick, better save the $10k, now times so bad.

    Be that as it may, since he already PG liao, he now very hard to appeal the conviction liao, only the 11 days unless he can convince the high court judge that he was ill-informed and wasn’t in the right state of mind when he PG or the high court judge feels that such a conviction would be wrong and unsafe by law.

    Caveat: Me no lawyer, me only likes to watch Boston Law and the likes. Me also have read the entire series of Wisely when my brain was functioning at full capacity.


    GD Star Rating
  • oxygen:

    TELECOM CHARGES CUSTOMERS $2 per month for paper billing notification/advice (settlement via giro) but has the customer’s email address which it send notifications/advice etc etc.

    Telecom promised all customers that the extra $2 will be waived if digital access is available or granted for such billing advice,

    Is this “crime” of “theft” too of big business against their customers?

    GD Star Rating
  • You got the point!:

    “An illegal agreement under the common law of contract, is one that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end.”

    The law in Sg should be similar.

    TRE Techie: I honestly fail to see how the hell in the world can a contract to commit an offense even be binding on anybody and by extension any acts that arise from the SAME clearly illegal contract?

    GD Star Rating
  • xoxo:

    Petty *crimes* or not actually?!
    I am more concerned with BIG NATIONAL ISSUES.
    WHEN CAN WE GET BACK OUR CPF small life-time savings which means alot to us,poor n needy n elderly sgs?
    Of the $100 Billion,WHY NEVER CONSIDER TO USE IT TO GRANT MORE AID TO poor n needy n the elderly?



    GD Star Rating
  • @You got the point!

    Precisely my point!

    Since the payment was intended for an illegal action which would result in an offence (prohibited by law), the court cannot be seen to be forcing the accused to complete the contract or else the accused will be charged either way. So there was no contract or agreement to begin with and thus the payment was for an action prohibited by law, i.e. NOTHING, so what cheating are we talking about?

    So in my opinion, no matter how much was paid should not be a consideration at all against the accused. In other words, if the unlicensed moneylender wishes to pay the money to the accused for an illegal act, it’s his prerogative and he should kiss the money goodbye since it was intended for an illegal purpose which is clearly prohibited by law.

    Even if the accused did stage the locking (actually he did lock the doors albeit for a short time) of the door (which by then was already an offence in itself), it could be argued that he had realised that it was an offence and voluntarily choose to cease the illegal act. This case should be viewed in its entirely, not just the staged act itself.

    Both the IO and the DPPs should have seen the action in this light and accord the benefit of doubt to the accused and not proceed with the charge. Like I have said many times, the current AGC appears to be more interested in charging anyone as long as a case comes along to achieve their intended quota for conviction than to really apply the law fairly.

    Coming back to the conviction, I am tempted to think that the DJ probably did not look entirely at the details and circumstances of the case and convicted the accused and sentenced him based on his own PG. There was no trial and since the accused had PGied, he/she naturally proceed to sentence. It was probably an honest mistake as the lower courts are normally very busy and since the accused PGied, there was no further need to delve into the details. If I were the DJ, I would have thrown the case out of court and ask the AGC to wake up their idea, but I am not. lol

    Anyway, I would reckon that if he is represented in his appeal, the lawyer should seek leave to appeal the conviction as well as it is, IMHO, unsafe and wrong in law.

    This case is clearly a joke, at most the accused is guilty of lying (in order to avoid committing an offence) or stretch it further, a civil case under contract law.

    Pop quiz: Had the accused not staged the locking and had simply refused to carry out the illegal instruction, would the police also charge him for cheating or CBT?

    Caveat: The opinion and observation expressed above are purely of an individual stroken man applying his commonsense and do not represent the stand and view of the team at TRE.


    GD Star Rating
  • Homeless Cat:

    Incompetence within both the judiciary and the SPF? How amusing.

    GD Star Rating
  • Harder Truths:

    Nothing to do with law. Just like maid-kenna-whack case.

    Team Gestapo too free sitting around in air-con office and nothing to do but watch Starhub or Mio. Just waiting to catch someone. Anyone. After maid case black face must show power again.

    Bring to leegal hearing – whack! whack! whack! KNNBCBB!!

    Nothing personal Khairul – just wrong place wrong time. Just be glad you still alive and can go home one day in one piece (hopefully). Next time stick to Monopoly.

    GD Star Rating
  • efficiency into inefficiency:

    //Telecom promised all customers that the extra $2 will be waived if digital access is available or granted for such billing advice,//

    aiyoh. a lot of people say digitalization good leh ?? not only telco doing it, in fact many organizations have already started to do it ?? hence turning their efficiency into inefficiency on your part (as you have to print out bills for approval to pay and hold many sets of different users / passwords for different vendors ???) ????

    the worst thing is some institutions make you pay for platform fees (making you pay to make them efficient ???) ???

    GD Star Rating
  • what’s the difference?:

    ST reported an employer underpaid its employees multiple of times. The Court fined it $119500. The report didn’t mention abt making up to the underpaid employees. The fines look like the employer has underpaid not the emploees but the State. Justice? Hightime to remove the blindfolds on the Balance woman n replace by ownself xxxx ownself banner!

    GD Star Rating
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Why the police never charge that moneylender who hired khairul to do things which are offences of the law ? Why that money lender name and photo not published out ? Does it make sense that such illegal money lender name and photo is blocked from published out by police ? And it is obvious that this moneylender don’t just loan Ah loan interest rate to just one person only ,right ? And what is the possibility of this illegal money lender supposed to be in jail still doing money lending business outside jail manned by his runners ? And that may be why this illegal money lender no need to be charge because he is in jail but his jail sentence may also have the possibility of served by another “scapegoat” person, so this money lender name and photo totally cannot be published ? Else,people may discover illegal money lender never served jail at all ? And this illegal money lender may also has the possibility to be a woman with connections to the police too ! Police are not Saints ,are they ? Pui!

    GD Star Rating
  • Resident Evil:

    This is the most unbelievable, appalling and unjustified prosecution ever known or had anyone heard nor read in their entire life.
    Warrants a ‘The Bullshit Of The Year Award’
    Loan shark runner charged snd loan shark let off.

    GD Star Rating
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Reported on mothership :Quote -”….

    11,285 cartons of contraband cigarettes hidden in God of Fortune statues discovered at Woodlands Checkpoint
    Huat the heck.

    Fasiha Nazren | January 16, 2021,

    It seems like the God of Fortune doesn’t bless everyone with luck and wealth, especially contraband cigarette smugglers.

    In a Facebook post posted on Jan. 16, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) shared that they discovered 11,285 cartons and 7,684 packets of duty-unpaid cigarettes on Jan. 13.

    ICA managed to foil the smuggling attempt, which included the involvement of a Malaysia-registered lorry that was trying to enter Singapore via the Woodlands Checkpoint.
    Photo from Immigration & Checkpoints Authority’s Facebook page.

    Hidden in CNY-related figurines
    According to the post, the officers noticed anomalies in the x-ray images of consignments which consisted of Chinese New Year-related figurines.

    When the officers were doing the course of checks, they found uncovered contraband cigarettes concealed inside the figurines..

    The case has since been referred to Singapore Customs for further investigation.

    ICA said: “This method of concealment is a cause for concern as similar methods may be used by people with ill intent to smuggle security items into Singapore. The ICA will continue to conduct security checks on passengers, goods and vehicles so as to safeguard Singapore’s security.”…”Unquote .

    Response : Have all of you wonder why when such huge amount of 11,285 cartons and 7,684 packets of duty-unpaid cigarettes confiscated on Jan. 13 only reported out the amount of cigarettes confiscated but not the caught driver name and photo that is needed to published out but not reported out ? Why ? Is Singapore custom catching the same smuggler and letting him/her off every time without charge or sending to jail ? And such cases has hapoened so many times with no name and photo of the caught smugglers driver being published out or charged ? And why such smuggled cigarettes has never been video out to be burned in front of public eyes as witness ? Who knows whether the ICA beasts behind has secretly sell the 11,285 cartons amd 7,684 packets of duty unpsid cigarettes in the black market later and distributed the momey amount themselves ,donating some to charity and the charity go through a round about way ending the funds in some of the ministers beasts pocket or not ? Pui ! The possibility of such thing will never happen,is it ? So when a b**$* woman sing a song or dance for charity, all the funds pour into her pocket,possible ????

    GD Star Rating
  • Elite:

    Oh, that a criminal case.

    I rented a place with a tenancy signed for one year. I took it for granted as the Company I rented for was a sub tenant
    who have an agreement with the tenant as a sub tenant.
    The sub tenant assured me that he had a take over agreement which he didn’t have. After six months, I was evicted as an illegal tenant.

    A police report was made as the sub tenant do not have an agreement but able to offer a one year lease.

    We are in a mist of start up . With constraint investment and worst Covid pandemic strikes. Trying to secure another but not able to until today.

    As getting back the deposit ? Was told by the Police that I have to pursue my case as this is classified as commercial case. My arguement was how can a person commit themselves by selling products that they could not fulfilled. Was told to get a lawyer .

    Sigh…. practise make perfect for the loop holes.

    GD Star Rating
  • Executioner says luv his job:

    Is this the side effects of a extremely pro business policies ?

    GD Star Rating
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Reported on Stomp website :Quote -”‘Loud bang’ heard after police vehicle crashes into covered walkway at Simei
    See 24 More Photos….

    Farah Daleymail
    Posted on 22 January 2021 | 17,755 views | 14 comments….

    A police vehicle was involved in an accident along Simei Street 3 on Friday morning (Jan 22).

    Stomper Cheryl alerted Stomp to the incident and shared photos she took of the scene.

    “There was a loud bang near Block 146 Simei Street 2,” she said.

    “I think the police vehicle lost control.”

    In the photos, the police vehicle is seen under a covered walkway. Two other police cars and a fire engine are at the scene as well.

    In response to a Stomp query, a police spokesman said they were alerted to the accident at about 11.22am.

    No injuries were reported and police investigations are ongoing.”Unquote .

    Response : Let wait for a few days and see whether the police themselves will hauled out their own police driver who is involved in an accident in Simei Street 2 to be charged in court ? Nowadays a lot of police car are driven by police women . Don’t forget to use trace together token to trace who that driver is .If that driver is a woman,trace together token can trace and cannot escape to use another scapegoat ! Is police drivers above the law in accident ? No need to send to jail meh ?

    Many months I past by Sungei road .While waiting for green pedestrain man to turn on at junction,I saw a police car driven by a solo woman driver driving past me .It was around noon time,and that e*** b**$* high rank no uniform police woman was driving that police car probably going for lunch using public free police car petrol misabuse public property ! How can our Singapore police car be driven by a woman police officer who is not in uniform (obvious very high rank),maybe e*** woman Josephine Teo Li Min in charge of home affairs can help to answer ? If not,e*** b**$* K Shanmugam can also help to answer ?

    If all our police car keep on getting banged in unnecessary accident,will the police car maintenance car be unnecessary jet up for taxpayers to pay more due to the failure of both Josephine Teo KM amd K Shanmugam to control ? Pui!

    GD Star Rating
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Reported on the TISG :Quote -”Ex NUS prof, research fellow charged with cheating and forgery in unrelated cases
    In two separate cases, the men have been charged with reportedly submitting false claims from NUS for over S$140,000…

    Anna Maria Romero….

    January 28, 2021…

    Singapore—A former professor from the National University of Singapore (NUS), as well as another man, a former research fellow from the same university, have been charged with cheating and forgery.

    This was announced on Thursday (Jan 28) in a statement from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), as quoted in the on Thursday (Jan 28).

    In two separate cases, the men have been charged with reportedly submitting false claims from NUS for over S$140,000.

    The former professor, 53-year-old Tan Kok Kiong, has been charged with 32 counts of forgery and five counts of cheating…

    Tan was once a faculty member at the NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering (NGS).

    As for the other man, 41-year-old Thomas Teh Kok Hiong, he is facing 22 counts of cheating and dishonestly inducing a delivery of money as well as five counts of forgery.

    Teh is a former research fellow at the university’s Department of Biomedical Engineering.

    For every cheating and forgery charge, an offender could be fined and sent to jail for 10 years.

    The CPIB statement says that between 2012 and 2019, Tan reportedly submitted fraudulent claims that amounted to over S$100,000.

    “He is alleged to have generated fictitious invoices for the purported purchase of products and services and submitted claims that were either inflated or for expenses that were unrelated to his research grant.

    By doing so, he is alleged to have cheated NUS’ approving officers into disbursing those sums of money to him.”

    And from 2010 to 2018, Teh submitted over S$41,000 in fraudulent claims to the university.

    According to the CPIB, these claims include travel expenses and items that he said were for work-related use.

    “In some instances, he allegedly altered receipts or invoices to support his fraudulent claims. By doing so, he is alleged to have cheated NUS’ approving officers,” the statement read.

    The two cases will be heard in court again on Feb 25 for Teh and March 4 for Tan.

    A spokesman for the university is quoted in ST as saying, “The two individuals are no longer employed by the university. We are unable to comment further as the case is now before the courts.”

    CIPB said in its statement, “Singapore adopts a strict zero-tolerance approach towards corruption and other criminal activities such as cheating and forgery.”


    Response : Did anybody still remember Dr Chee Soon Juan decades back being accused to cheat some small cents thing in either think NUS or NTU or whatever ? Cannot remember Dr Chee Soon Juan was send to jail or not for such small sum ?

    GD Star Rating
  • RunSilentRunDeep:

    Charging that Khairul for cheating the moneylender is tantamount to legitimizing the original illegal moneylending act by Lucas, the moneylender.

    Instead, that Khairul was engaged in illegal moneylending is without doubt, so the authorities should have booked him for that, not for cheating the moneylender.

    As for Lucas, the moneylender, why was he not charged for illegal moneylending? That would be the worst injustice of all if he gets away, scot-free.

    GD Star Rating
Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic