Background
Nur Diyanah pleaded guilty to one charge of providing unlicensed payment services under s 5(1) of the Payment Services Act 2019. After accepting a purported administrative job offered through Facebook, she received funds from unknown sources in her bank accounts, used them to buy Bitcoin through a crypto.com account, and transferred the Bitcoin to wallet addresses supplied by the person who recruited her.
Over about two months, she conducted 48 transactions involving $159,731.90. At least $43,196 was traceable to scam proceeds, her accounts were linked to eight police reports, and she received $1,000. Although she suspected from the outset that the funds might be illicit, she continued operating through a second bank account after the first was frozen and the bank told her it was suspected of involvement in scams and money laundering.
The District Judge imposed seven months and three weeks’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Nur Diyanah appealed only against the imprisonment term.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court allowed the appeal and reduced the imprisonment term to 15 weeks. It held that the District Judge had erred in principle by relying significantly on a sentencing precedent involving a different and graver money-laundering offence under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. That reliance effectively treated Nur Diyanah as though an alternative, graver charge might have been brought.
The original term was also manifestly excessive. Although the substantial scam proceeds, multiple victims, repeated transactions, personal gain, and continued offending after the first account was frozen warranted a substantial uplift from the three-week starting point under Vijay Kumar v Public Prosecutor, they did not justify the District Judge’s 11-month starting point.
The High Court selected an indicative sentence of 21 weeks following trial, comprising the three-week starting point plus an 18-week uplift for the aggravating factors. It then applied a 30% reduction for the guilty plea, producing a 15-week term. The unappealed $1,000 fine remained undisturbed.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing court generally may not use the benchmark for a different, graver offence in a way that effectively sentences the accused as though convicted of that offence.
- Precedents concerning other offences may still be considered for ordinal proportionality, provided they do not improperly drive the sentence for the charged offence.
- Under the Payment Services Act framework, scam proceeds, multiple victims, transaction volume, duration, personal gain, and persistence after warnings can justify a substantial increase from the archetypal starting point.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the limits on cross-offence sentencing comparisons in Singapore. Even where two offences target related money-laundering risks and share the same statutory maximum, a court must sentence by reference to the framework and criminality of the offence actually charged.
It also illustrates how the High Court calibrates sentences for unlicensed payment services that facilitate scams: serious aggravating circumstances can produce a substantial custodial term, but the uplift must remain proportionate and anchored to relevant Payment Services Act precedents.