1 The accused, Wang Jue, female, 43 years old, was convicted after trial on the following charge:-

are charged that you, on or about 12 September 2019, in Singapore, in connection with an application for a work pass (Employment Pass), did abet by engaging in a conspiracy with Zhang Qingqiao (FIN: G3887383R)(“Zhang”) and Ang Sek Chai (NRIC: S1181406I) to make a statement to the Controller of Work Passes which you knew was false in a material particular, and in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, an act took place; to wit, you arranged for Zhang to be falsely declared to be employed by MW Dynamics Pte Ltd (UEN: 199606858K) (“MW”) in a “Declaration Form for an Employment Pass” (the “Declaration Form”) that was submitted to the Controller of Work Passes on 12 September 2019 when neither Zhang nor MW had any intention for Zhang to be so employed, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 22(1)(d) read with section 23(1) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Chapter 91A, 2009 Revised Edition) (“EFMA”), which offence is punishable under section 22(1)(ii) of the EFMA.

2 The accused was sentenced to ten weeks’ imprisonment.

3 She has filed a Notice of Appeal against conviction and sentence. Sentence has been stayed and she has been released on bail pending appeal.

4 The trial initially proceeded jointly on the present charge, and two other similar charges (MAC-905522-2023 and MAC-905523-2023) which involved one Deng Yuhao (“Deng”). These two charges related to purported false declarations submitted to the Controller of Work Passes for Deng’s purported employment with OEL Holdings Limited and Hai Sin International Pte Ltd. The prosecution did not secure Deng’s attendance as a witness and failed in their application to admit his statement under s 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1893. They then applied for a discharge not amounting to an acquittal for the two charges relating to Deng. This was granted by the court.

5 The accused was also charged with eleven other similar offences which were not the subject matter of this trial. Her joint trial on five charges with one Lin Shao-Lin (also known as “Avier”), whose name was mentioned in the present trial, proceeded concurrently in another court.

6 The accused was a business consultant. She testified that her business included merger and acquisition of companies, business transactions, expansion of companies, and some family office and immigration consultancy work. Her business was international in nature. Her company was called Hai Sin International Pte. Ltd. which was also referred to as HS International Pte. Ltd. (“HS International”). ¹

7 Zhang Qingqiao (PW1) (“Zhang”), was a businessman from China who wanted to obtain Singapore Permanent Residency for himself and his family. He was one of the co-conspirators named in the charge.

8 Ang Sek Chai (PW2) (“Ang”) was a director and majority shareholder of MW Dynamics Pte Ltd (“MW Dynamics”), a Singapore registered company, which did plumbing and sanitary work. ² He was the other co-conspirator named in the charge.

9 On or around 22 August 2019, MW Dynamics applied to the Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”) for an employment pass for Zhang. When making the application, Ang (as director of MW Dynamics) and Zhang signed a Declaration Form dated 12 September 2019 (“Exhibit P4”) (the “Declaration” or the “false declaration” as the context may require). The Declaration was submitted for the purpose of issuing an employment pass for Zhang.

10 The name of the employee stated in the Declaration was Zhang Qingqiao, and the employer/sponsor was MW Dynamics Pte Ltd. The Declaration indicated that Zhang would be employed as a Business Development Director at a fixed monthly salary of $10,000.

11 In signing the Declaration, both Zhang and Ang made the following declaration:-

I declare that the information in this Application for an Employment Pass, Declaration Form and any appeals are, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct; and that all documents submitted in support for this Application, Declaration Form and any appeals, are true copies of the originals.

12 Relying on the Declaration, MOM issued an employment pass to Zhang. ³ The Declaration was false as there was no genuine intention for Zhang to be employed by MW Dynamics.

13 On 12 September 2019 (the same day the false declaration was made), Zhang messaged the accused at 6.56 p.m. (Exhibit D1/D1T). He stated, “Nice to meet you. I am Zhang Qingqiao!”. It was not in dispute that this was the first direct contact between Zhang and the accused. While the defence did not tender a record of the accused’s reply, Zhang met the accused for the first time around 16 or 17 September 2019 at a restaurant called Liang Mu Yuan, which was near Zhang’s apartment in Cairnhill.

14 By a Letter of Employment dated 16 September 2019 addressed to Zhang (Exhibit P5), MW Dynamics stated that they were offering him employment as Business Development Director commencing on 1 October 2019 at the gross salary of $10,000 per month. Zhang accepted the offer and signed the document but did not date it.

15 Ang, in his capacity of Director of MW Dynamics, also unilaterally signed an Investment Agreement dated 18 September 2019 (Exhibit P2). The main terms stated therein were:-

(a) Zhang would invest $360,000 in MW Dynamics for a period of three years;

(b) A fixed dividend of $10,000 per month would be disbursed to Zhang;

(c) Zhang would acquire 360,000 shares in MW Dynamics at $1.00 per share. At the end of the 36 months, MW Dynamics would buy back the shares at a lump sum of $1.00; and

(d) MW Dynamics “would grant an EP [Employment Pass] for Zhang QingQiao”.

16 The accused’s company HS International issued an invoice dated 24 September 2019 to Zhang (Exhibit P3) for the sum of $12,500. The invoice was for “Investment Consultancy and Professional Service (3rd payment, 25% of SGD 50,000)”.

17 HS International also rendered another invoice to Zhang dated 24 September 2019 (Exhibit P7) for the sum of $288,000. The description stated in the invoice was “Dividends Investment Fund (3rd payment of SGD 360,000)”.

18 Both Zhang and Ang were charged for making false declarations in the Declaration (Exhibit P4) which was in relation to Zhang’s purported employment with MW Dynamics.

19 Zhang was convicted for making a statement which he ought reasonably to know was false, in that he declared that he would be employed by MW Dynamics, when he never intended to be so employed. This was an offence under s 22(1)(d) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed) ("EFMA"), punishable under s 22(1)(ii) thereof. Zhang was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment. ⁴

20 Ang was convicted for an offence, where in his capacity of director, he consented to MW Dynamics making a false statement, by declaring that Zhang would be working for MW Dynamics as a Business Development Director, when he knew that this was false. This was an offence under s 22(1)(d) read with s 20(1)(a) of the EFMA, punishable under s 22(1)(ii) thereof. Ang was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment. ⁵

21 In order to prove its case, the prosecution had to establish that:-

(a) The accused conspired with Zhang and Ang to make a statement to the MOM on or about 12 September 2019, which she knew was false in a material particular; and

(b) Pursuant to the conspiracy, a declaration was made where Zhang was falsely declared to be employed by MW Dynamics.

22 As Zhang and Ang were convicted of their respective offences, there could be little or no doubt that the Declaration falsely indicated that Zhang was to be employed by MW Dynamics. It could also not be disputed that MW Dynamics did not intend to employ Zhang or that Zhang did not intend to work there. The Declaration was material as it resulted in the issue of an employment pass to Zhang.

23 The sole issue which arose was whether the accused was involved in a conspiracy with Zhang and Ang to make the false declaration.

24 The prosecution’s case was that based on the totality of the evidence i.e. the evidence of Zhang and Ang as well as the documentary and circumstantial evidence, it had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

25 The accused denied being part of the conspiracy and averred that she was not even in direct contact with Zhang before the Declaration was made. She claimed that Zhang had instructed a Chinese company named Shi Ji Kang Hui which was also known as Fuzhou Century Confor Exit & Entry Co., Ltd (“Fuzhou Century”) as his immigration agent. She was not his immigration agent and was only the middle person, who acted on the instructions of one Wang Wei who was the boss of Fuzhou Century. She also thought that there was a genuine intention to employ Zhang.

26 In this respect, I agreed with the defence that for the accused to be involved in the conspiracy, any understanding or agreement relating to the sham employment must have occurred before 12 September 2019 when the false declarations were made.

27 In Er Joo Nguang and another v Public Prosecutor [2000] SGHC 60, Yong Pung How, CJ stated at [34], “The essence of conspiracy is the combination and agreement by persons to do some illegal act, or to effect a legal purpose by illegal means…”.

28 Yong, CJ further stated (at [35]) that proof of conspiracy is generally a matter of inference:-

29 Thus, an inference of a conspiracy may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties before and even after the alleged commission of the crime.

30 The prosecution sought to rely on a PowerPoint presentation which contained information on an immigration scheme or proposal (Exhibit P1). Zhang testified that his immigration assistant in China, Zhan Jianjun (“Zhan”), had liaised with the accused on his immigration matters. He claimed that the accused sent the immigration proposal to him through Zhan. ⁶ The prosecution also sought to rely on other inculpatory information on the accused which Zhang claimed that Zhan had provided to him. However, Zhan was not called as a witness and I agreed with the defence that what Zhan told Zhang was hearsay and could not constitute evidence of the truth. Nor could any weight be attributed to any hearsay evidence adduced by the defence.

31 However, Zhang was under the impression that his emigration to Singapore would be based on the terms stated in Exhibit P1. He understood that by investing in a company, he could obtain an employment pass and that the employment pass could be converted to permanent residency after three years. ⁷ He also understood from Zhan that the accused would assist him in his application to emigrate to Singapore, ⁸ and he made various payments to her.

 Ang’s testimony was credible

32 Ang testified that he met the accused twice in 2019. He met her through Avier Lim Shao-Lin (“Avier”). The accused and Avier were present during the discussions on the “work permit” for Zhang. ⁹ The accused said that she could bring in investors from China to help grow the company. She eventually introduced Zhang and another investor to him. The investment amount was $360,000. However, he needed to apply for an employment pass for them. Eventually, MW Dynamics applied for an employment pass for Zhang using information provided to him by Avier. He did not know how Avier obtained the information. ¹⁰

33 The accused admitted that she met Ang twice. She testified that the first time they met was “roughly in 2018. I do not really remember.” She later stated that she met him in 2018 and 2019. During the first meeting in 2018, they only “discussed a guideline” and that “there was no Zhang Qingqiao yet”. ¹¹ She admitted that she subsequently told Ang about Zhang, and asked him if he wanted to employ Zhang. She also provided information on Zhang to MW Dynamics. ¹² This supported Ang’s account of events that an earlier meeting had taken place and that the accused subsequently brought up Zhang’s name.

34 Ang’s account of events was convincing in relation to the key points discussed with the accused and Avier. MW Dynamics was to apply for an employment pass for Zhang and would receive $360,000 (although only $300,000 was eventually paid). Based on his evidence, the requirement was for MW Dynamics to apply for an employment pass for Zhang i.e. there was no requirement to employ him. He did not meet Zhang or communicate with him, nor did he check Zhang’s educational qualifications or ascertain if Zhang had the experience to be a business development director. Although Zhang did not do any work for MW Dynamics, he was paid a salary of $10,000 per month as this was the agreement. Ang also testified that if Zhang did not invest the money, MW Dynamics would definitely not have applied for an employment pass for him. ¹³

35 Thus, when MW Dynamics applied for the employment pass for Zhang under false pretences, this must have been based on a common understanding reached following the discussions between the accused, Ang and Avier. Without such an understanding, there would be no conceivable reason for MW Dynamics to have applied for Zhang’s employment pass.

36 While no documents had been signed at the time the false declarations were made, as will be seen below, documents relating to the sham employment and investment reflecting the main terms of discussion were signed soon after the false declaration was made. The investment sum was also paid to the accused’s company by Zhang.

37 I rejected the accused’s claim that she thought that there was a genuine intention for Zhang to be employed by MW Dynamics. She was the one who had stipulated the terms of the purported investment and employment in her discussions with Ang. Ang and Zhang were not in contact with each other and could not have come up with the sham employment scheme themselves.

38 The accused claimed that Zhang was not her client. Instead, he was a client of an immigration company in China, Fuzhou Century, which looked for her in the first quarter of 2019. Her contact person was Wang Wei, who told her that he was the boss of Fuzhou Century. ¹⁴ She provided information on five to six companies to him in August 2019. This included information on MW Dynamics. ¹⁵

39 Wang Wei later told her that his client was interested in MW Dynamics, and she gave the contact information of MW Dynamics’s Human Resource (“HR”) to Wang Wei. She also provided MW Dynamics with information on Zhang after “they chose MW”. ¹⁶ After that, “they themselves interacted with MW”. Quite a long time later, after Zhang obtained his employment pass, Wang Wei got her to meet with Zhang. ¹⁷

40 The accused’s account of events was not credible. Key aspects of her case were not put to Ang. While she claimed that she left it to MW Dynamics and Wang Wei to interact, it was not put to Ang that Fuzhou Century and/or Wang Wei were in direct contact with MW Dynamics or that they were involved. There was also no evidence to show that there was any direct or indirect contact between MW Dynamics and Fuzhou Century or Wang Wei. Such contact was unlikely as by the accused’s own admission, she was the one who told Ang about Zhang and asked if he wanted to hire Zhang. ¹⁸

41 Zhang testified that the accused passed the Declaration to him to sign, saying that it had to be submitted to the government to apply for the employment pass. He was not sure how she passed the document to him. ¹⁹ As the accused and Zhang were not in direct contact at that time, it appeared that Zhang’s evidence was based on what his immigration assistant Zhan told him, which was hearsay and not evidence of the truth. Ang did not give evidence as to how Zhang came to sign the Declaration. Avier was not called as a witness, presumably because he was being prosecuted in another trial.

42 It was thus unclear as to how Zhang came to sign the Declaration or who arranged for him to do so. However, this was of limited relevance as there was no dispute that Zhang signed it. Further, Zhang proceeded to contact the accused immediately after the Declaration was signed.

 Zhang’s claim that they discussed the immigration plan was plausible

43 Zhang’s evidence was that when he first met the accused around 16 or 17 September 2019 at a restaurant near his apartment, they discussed “… the immigration plan, the process”. The accused introduced him to the investment and “the so-called risk guarantee” for his investment. ²⁰

44 His evidence as to what occurred during the first meeting was credible. Throughout the whole episode, what was foremost in his mind was obtaining permanent residency. To his understanding, his employment pass, investment and “conversion” to permanent residency were all closely linked. He contacted the accused right after the false declaration was made and must have been keen to proceed to the next step. While he had already made various payments to the accused’s company, the full investment sum had not yet been paid. It could not be a co-incidence that documents relating to the sham employment and sham investment were signed around the time he first met the accused.

45 The accused claimed that Wang Wei had asked her to meet Zhang as Zhang’s direct negotiations with MW Dynamics on the investment had run into difficulties. She was to find out if he had any requests and see if he needed any assistance. ²¹ This claim was not credible and was unlikely to be true.

46 Her version was not put to Zhang or Ang. There was no evidence to show that Zhang and MW Dynamics were in direct contact. If the accused was supposed to meet Zhang, she should have ensured that she had Zhang’s contact information, so that she could arrange for a meeting. However, she did not have this information ²² and could not have contacted Zhang. Instead, it was Zhang who initiated contact with her.

47 The accused’s own evidence showed that she was involved in negotiations to finalize Zhang’s purported investment and employment. She testified that Zhang wanted a pledge of shares in return for his investment of about $300,000. She then spoke to Avier (who had introduced her to MW Dynamics) about the pledge, but MW Dynamics were not willing to allow this. Eventually it was agreed that Zhang would buy the shares of MW Dynamics and would work for the company. The investment amount would be 360,000. ²³ This showed that the supposed investment and employment were linked and that his purported employment was discussed even though his employment pass had already been issued.

48 The defence contention that the accused could not have been involved in the conspiracy because the first direct contact between Zhang and her occurred after the false declaration to MOM was made was not tenable. She had met Ang and Avier sometime before the meeting to discuss an investment of $360,000 and the requirement for MW Dynamics to apply for an employment pass for the investor. The accused also provided Zhang’s name to MW Dynamics. When MW Dynamics eventually applied for Zhang’s employment pass, this must have arisen from a prior understanding between the parties.

49 The Letter of Employment (Exhibit P5) and the Investment Agreement (Exhibit P2) which were subsequently signed reflected the main terms of the discussion. While these documents post-dated the false declaration and the issue of Zhang’s employment pass, they were consistent with the terms discussed during the earlier meetings between the accused, Ang and Avier. Further, as there was no genuine employer-employee relationship between MW Dynamics and Zhang, the veracity of Exhibits P2 and P5 which purported to document such a relationship would be called into question.

50 Under the terms of the Letter of Employment, Zhang was to be paid $10,000 per month to work as a Business Development Director for MW Dynamics. These were the same terms reflected in the false declaration which was made earlier. As there was no genuine intention for Zhang to be employed, this was a sham document.

51 The accused sent the sham Letter of Employment to Zhang via WhatsApp on 19 September 2019 (Exhibit D9/D9T). She told him that this was “Your 3-year employment contract”. While this document was not successfully delivered via WhatsApp, the accused re-sent it to Zhang by e-mail, which he received. ²⁴ The accused admitted that she sent the Letter of Employment to Zhang. She also admitted that she sent him a voice message and told him that the employment contract was prepared by her lawyer and that it was the most legal employment contract. ²⁵ She was thus involved in the documents relating to his sham employment with MW Dynamics.

52 While the accused initially admitted that she sent the Letter of Employment to Zhang, she later claimed that she only sent a draft employment contract to him so that his lawyer could have a look. ²⁶ This claim was unlikely to be true. The objective evidence showed that the Letter of Employment was dated 16 September 2019, whereas her WhatsApp message was sent on 19 September 2019. It would make no sense for her to send a draft to him, when the Letter of Employment had already been finalized and signed. Instead, it was most likely that she sent the executed Letter of Employment to him, as Zhang had stated. Whichever the case, she played a role in the documentation relating to Zhang’s sham employment with MW Dynamics.

53 Zhang evidence that the accused told him that he did not have to work for MW Dynamics ²⁷ was plausible. He was not in contact with Ang and there was no evidence to suggest that he was in contact with Avier. I also rejected the accused’s claim that Wang Wei of Fuzhou Century was involved. None of them could have told Zhang anything about his purported employment. Instead, the accused was Zhang’s contact person. As Zhang did not show up for work after the Letter of Employment was signed, his evidence that the accused told him that he did not have to work was credible. She was the only one who could have done so. Further, if Zhang’s purported role was to procure investors or business for MW Dynamics, there was no evidence to suggest that, despite collecting a “salary” of $10,000 per month, he took any steps towards these.

54 By her own evidence, the accused assisted in negotiating the terms of the purported investment between Zhang and Ang. She testified that Zhang got her to liaise with Ang as he only wanted to invest between $300,000 to $360,000. The accused stated, “So the $360,000 I think I should have helped Zhang Qingqiao to communicate with Ang Sek Chai on this matter.” ²⁸

55 The Investment Agreement (Exhibit P2) reflected the terms the accused helped to negotiate. She would have been aware of its terms and effect. Even on the face of it, this could not be a genuine investment. Zhang’s purported investment of $360,000 would be repaid as a fixed “dividend” of $10,000 per month for 36 months. The purported investment scheme paid no real returns. Zhang received no financial benefit, since he would only be repaid his initial capital of $360,000 and no more. To his detriment, he would forgo the use of his funds and risk default by MW Dynamics.

56 The only tangible benefit Zhang received in return for his investment was that he obtained an employment pass which allowed him to remain in Singapore and which he thought was the first step in obtaining permanent residency. For MW Dynamics, the funds they received were tantamount to a loan of $300,000 with interest of $60,000, since it received $300,000 but had to repay $360,000. The accused was the main beneficiary, since she retained $60,000, presumably for brokering the purported investment. Although she claimed that this amount was shared with Fuzhou Century, she did not provide any evidence of how the money was to be split, and no documents were tendered to show that money was paid to them.

57 With respect to the condition that MW Dynamics would “grant” Zhang an employment pass, the Investment Agreement did not even specify that MW Dynamics was to employ Zhang and if so, in what capacity. This echoed Ang’s evidence that the accused told him that MW Dynamics had to apply for an employment pass for the potential investor. This “grant” of the employment pass was closely tied to the sham Letter of Employment (Exhibit P5), where Zhang was to be paid $10,000 per month as a purported employee.

58 Based on the documents, Zhang should have been paid $10,000 per month under the Letter of Employment and a further $10,000 under the Investment Agreement. However, he was only paid $10,000 per month as his purported salary, ²⁹ but not the $10,000 under the Investment Agreement.

59 Zhang never queried why he was not paid the full amount of $20,000 per month as it was never intended that he would receive this amount. He testified that the payment of $10,000 per month, which was classified as his salary, actually related to his “dividends” and the principal sum he invested. The accused had informed him to use the employment contract to protect the safety of the funds. ³⁰ Whatever the logic of this, it showed that the sham Letter of Employment was an integral part of the sham Investment Agreement and vice versa. They could not be bifurcated. The accused’s claim that she only assisted Zhang in his investment but not his employment matter was plainly ridiculous. ³¹

60 I accepted Zhang’s evidence that the accused sent the Investment Agreement to his home and that when she did so it was already signed. ³² The accused’s evidence was that while she did not prepare the Investment Agreement, she could not remember if she told Zhang about it or whether she gave it to him. ³³ As the accused sent Zhang the sham Letter of Employment, it was plausible that she also sent him the sham Investment Agreement, since the two documents were closely linked, and as she was Zhang’s only contact person for matters pertaining to MW Dynamics.

61 The accused’s company issued two invoices to Zhang on 24 September 2019 (Exhibits P3 and P7). These were for a payment of $12,500 for services rendered (Exhibit P3) and for a payment of $288,000 for Zhang’s “investment” in MW Dynamics (Exhibit P7).

62 The accused admitted that her company issued Exhibits P3 and P7 but denied that other invoices were issued to Zhang. She claimed that while Zhang was not her client, she requested that payment be made directly to her company as she feared that Wang Wei would “jump over” her and go to her competitor instead. She then asked Wang Wei to tell Zhang to transfer the money to her company and Wang Wei asked her to write the invoices in such a manner. ³⁴

63 The accused’s account was far from compelling. It was based on bare assertions, which were totally unsupported by any evidence. Her account contained no details, such as how she knew how much she was to collect and when. Her claims about Wang Wei’s involvement were not put to Zhang or Ang. Instead, it was put to Zhang that his immigration assistant Zhan, or Lin Ying of Fuzhou Century (i.e. not Wang Wei), had instructed him to make the payment referred to in Exhibit P7 to the accused’s company. ³⁵ In my view, the accused’s claims about Wang Wei were totally fabricated and could not be believed.

64 Exhibit P3 was an invoice for the sum of $12,500. It was for “Investment Consultancy and Professional Service (3rd payment, 25% of SGD 50,000)” payable to the accused’s company. As this was an invoice for the third payment, it would follow that two earlier invoices had been rendered to Zhang i.e. even before the accused met Zhang in person. The accused’s claim that she only became involved with Zhang from 16 or 17 September 2019, when they first met, could not be true.

65 The accused admitted that she provided services to Zhang in that she helped to co-ordinate with MW Dynamics and met up with Zhang. She kept all the fees for herself and she did not know how Wang Wei collected fees from Zhang. ³⁶ In my view, Exhibit P3 clearly and objectively established that Zhang was her client, since she billed him for consultancy and professional services and collected fees from him. Her attempt to attribute blame to Wang Wei for a document issued by her own company was delusory.

66 The accused was inconsistent as to whether her company collected these funds. She first testified that “we” should have received this money. ³⁷ She then stated that she sent the invoices to Wang Wei and that he obtained the money from Zhang. She later stated that she may have sent the invoice to Zhang. ³⁸ Her disparate accounts of what occurred showed that she was not a witness of truth, and that her evidence could not be relied on.

67 The defence contended that the accused’s role was limited to Zhang’s investment ³⁹ i.e. she was not involved in his sham employment. This was a spurious distinction. As I have stated above, the Investment Agreement (Exhibit P2) and Letter of Employment (Exhibit P5) could not be bifurcated but were inextricably linked. In particular, the Investment Agreement stipulated that MW Dynamics was to “grant” Zhang an employment pass. This directly linked his investment to his employment. By her own account, the accused assisted in negotiations for Zhang’s purported investment, where the amount of investment and his employment were discussed. It was undeniable that she was also involved in his sham employment.

68 Exhibit P7 was in respect of the “Dividends Investment Fund (3rd payment, 80% of SGD360,000)” and was for the sum of $288,000. Objectively, this was a request for a third payment of $288,000 to be made with respect to the “Dividends Investment Fund”, with the total payable being $360,000. The accused admitted that she received a total of $360,000 from Zhang and that she forwarded the money to MW Dynamics. ⁴⁰

69 As the accused’s company collected $360,000 from Zhang, it must have rendered two previous invoices to him for the “Dividends Investment Fund”, so that he could make payment. These invoices must have been issued and the money collected before she met Zhang. This confirmed that the accused was involved in the matter from an early stage, even before the first meeting with him.

70 Even after the employment pass was issued, the accused remained Zhang’s primary point of contact. Zhang testified that he received his purported salary vouchers (Exhibit P6) from the accused via WhatsApp. ⁴¹ When he did not receive his “dividends” from MW Dynamics, he looked for the accused, who told him that the company did not receive project payments during the pandemic. ⁴²

71 The accused claimed that she assisted Zhang to liaise with MW Dynamics and helped him to gather documents out of goodwill, as she hoped that she could secure his business for his application for permanent residency. There was even a WhatsApp group created for his permanent residency application. ⁴³ Even if she wanted to get his future business, this was not the only plausible reason for her to have acted as she did. She was still Zhang’s only point of contact with MW Dynamics and the sham employment scheme. Since she was involved in the scheme, it was also in her interest to ensure that it was executed smoothly, since to Zhang’s mind, the employment pass was the first step in obtaining permanent residency.

72 The defence claimed that Zhang was not the accused’s client as he was a client of Fuzhou Century. Zhang had signed an agreement with Fuzhou Century (Exhibit D5/D5T) which was called a “Letter of Authorization for Application for Singapore EP (Employment Pass) + Permanent Residence” on or around 27 April 2019. His immigration agent’s name was Lin Ying, and payments were to be made to her bank account.

73 The defence contention that the accused could not have been acting for Zhang as Fuzhou Century was already doing so was not persuasive. There was nothing in Exhibit D5/D5T to show that it was an exclusive agreement. In any event, the immigration agent stated in Exhibit D5/D5T was Lin Ying and not Wang Wei. Even if Fuzhou Century had been involved, it did not change the fact that the accused brought up Zhang’s name to Ang, proposed the fraudulent employment scheme to him, and invoiced Zhang for services. In other words, she could have been part of the conspiracy even if Zhang was not her client.

74 The accused attempted to deflect her blameworthiness to Wang Wei. I have already dealt with the lack of credibility of her claims in relation to Wang Wei for specific matters.

75 Overall, the accused’s evidence in relation to Wang Wei was not convincing. She was very specific in that he was the person from Fuzhou Century whom she knew and dealt with. She failed to mention his name in any of her statements to MOM. The defence failed to make any reference to him in cross-examination or put anything relating to him to the prosecution witnesses. The first mention of Wang Wei was in her examination-in-chief. Her belated attempt to superimpose his name as an intermediary was a mere afterthought.

76 The accused’s claims about Wang Wei’s involvement were bare assertions which were not supported by any other evidence. Although she stated that she communicated with Wang Wei through WeChat or mail, ⁴⁴ none of these were tendered in evidence to support her claims. Even if Fuzhou Century had somehow been involved, the documentary evidence (Exhibit D5/D5T) showed that Lin Ying (and not Wang Wei) was the person named as Zhang’s contact or agent in Fuzhou Century. I therefore rejected the accused’s evidence relating to Wang Wei.

77 The prosecution submitted that proof of conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deduced from the acts of the parties and the surrounding circumstances, including the conduct of the parties before and after the alleged commission of the crimes. ⁴⁵

78 Apart from circumstantial evidence from which inferences could be drawn, there was also direct evidence from the co-conspirators Zhang and Ang as to the accused’s role. Their conduct, together with the conduct of the accused before and after the commission of the offence showed that the accused was involved in the conspiracy. This was supported by the documentary and other evidence adduced at trial, such as invoices rendered by the accused’s company to Zhang. All of these pointed inexorably to the accused’s involvement in the conspiracy with Zhang and Ang, which was to have Zhang falsely declared as an employee of MW Dynamics. The issues canvassed by the defence failed to raise any reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.

79 On the totality of the evidence, the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was therefore found guilty and was convicted as charged.

80 The prescribed punishment for the offence is a fine not exceeding $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or both.

81 The parties agreed that the sentencing framework under Chiew Kok Chai v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGHC 169 (“Chiew Kok Chai”) was applicable. The prosecution sought a sentence of nine to 11 weeks’ imprisonment, while the defence submitted for a sentence of three weeks’ imprisonment.

82 In Chiew Kok Chai, the High Court held that deterrence would be the pre-dominant sentencing consideration, while retribution would also be applicable. The court concluded that the starting point should be a custodial sentence:- ⁴⁶

62. … a custodial sentence should be the starting point for offences under s 22(1)(d) of the EFMA, given the legislative objectives of the EFMA in maintaining the integrity of the Singaporean workforce, the resultant need for deterrence to prevent circumventions of the work pass framework, and the seriousness and prevalence of such offences.

83 The court set out a two-stage sentencing approach for offences under s 22(1)(d) of the EFWA.

84 At the first stage, the court is to consider the following non-exhaustive offence-specific factors:- ⁴⁷

(a) the materiality of the false representation on the mind of the decision-maker – the greater the impact of the falsehood in inducing the grant of the application, the more severe the sentence imposed;

(b) the nature, sophistication and extent of the deception – more severe punishment is merited if the applicant went to greater lengths to deceive or if he acted in conscious defiance of public authorities;

(c) the consequences of the deception;

(d) whether a transnational element was present and/or whether the offence was committed as part of a criminal syndicate’s operations;

(e) the specific role played by the offender, and, relatedly, the number of people involved in furnishing the false information;

(f) whether the offender obtained gains (financial or otherwise) from the commission of the offence; and

(g) the motive of the offender in circumventing the work pass framework.

85 Once the gravity of the offence has been ascertained based on these factors, the court would have to place the offence within the appropriate band, which are as follows:- ⁴⁸

86 At the second stage of the sentencing process, the court is to take into account the offender-specific factors. These included the offender’s character, personal attributes, expression of remorse, and cooperation with the authorities. ⁴⁹

87 The parties agreed that this case would fall under Band 1 of the Chiew Kok Chai framework, where the sentencing range would be a short custodial sentence of less than five months’ imprisonment.

88 The false representation was material as it led to the issue of an employment pass. There was a degree of sophistication in the scheme as a third-party company MW Dynamics was engaged to apply for Zhang’s employment pass. Zhang obtained an unfair immigration advantage as he was allowed to reside in Singapore under the guise of sham employment. The deception continued for a period of 18 months.

89 The accused played a key role in the fraudulent scheme. She informed Ang that in exchange for $360,000, his company had to apply for an employment pass for Zhang. She introduced Zhang to MW Dynamics. After the employment pass was issued, she was involved in documents such as his Letter of Employment and the Investment Agreement which attempted to give his sham employment a veneer of legitimacy.

90 The accused obtained a substantial financial gain. While Zhang’s investment sum was $360,000, her company retained $60,000 and paid $300,000 to MW Dynamics. She did not adduce any evidence to show that she had to make payment to other parties, such as Avier, from the sums she retained. Her company also charged $50,000 to Zhang for purported “Investment Consultancy and Professional Service” (Exhibit P3).

91 The accused’s involvement was much more egregious than Zhang, who received four weeks’ imprisonment. Zhang’s intention was to be able to remain in Singapore and he did not receive any financial gain.

92 In comparison with Ang who was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, the accused’s role was much more aggravated than his. His company received $300,000, but had to repay $360,000 over three years. This was tantamount to a loan to MW Dynamics.

93 In contrast, the accused’s company stood to gain as much as $110,000. She was the main beneficiary in the fraudulent scheme. In my assessment, a four-week uplift from Ang’s sentence was appropriate. Sentence at this stage would be 10 weeks’ imprisonment.

94 For stage 2 of the sentencing framework, the accused had exhibited a total lack of remorse and elected to claim trial. There were no significant offender-specific mitigating factors to be taken into account.

95 The accused was thus sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment. The sentence imposed was proportional to the level of her offending and is not manifestly excessive.

Tan Jen Tse

District Judge