Than Stenly Granida Purwanto v PP: Sentencing for Forged Credit Card Conspiracy
Than Stenly Granida Purwanto, an Indonesian national, appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his sentence for one count of conspiracy to possess forged valuable security and five counts of conspiracy to cheat using counterfeit credit cards. The District Judge sentenced him to a total of 6½ years' imprisonment. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence, finding no error in the District Judge's assessment of the gravity of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal against sentence dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against sentence for conspiracy to possess forged valuable security and cheat using counterfeit credit cards. Appeal dismissed, sentence upheld.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | James E Lee of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Than Stenly Granida Purwanto | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against sentence dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| James E Lee | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Sarbrinder Singh | Kertar & Co |
4. Facts
- The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess forged valuable security.
- The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cheat using counterfeit credit cards.
- The appellant was offered a job to purchase electronic goods in Singapore for resale in Jakarta.
- The appellant received 10% of the profits from the resale of illegally procured items.
- The appellant and accomplices made fraudulent purchases at Mustafa Centre and Sim Lim Square.
- The appellant was arrested at Aspial Corporation with 12 counterfeit credit cards.
- The total value of fraudulent purchases was $14,630.46.
5. Formal Citations
- Than Stenly Granida Purwanto v Public Prosecutor, MA 79/2003, [2003] SGHC 200
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant befriended Sri Pashan in Singapore. | |
| Sri Pashan offered the appellant a job. | |
| Sri Pashan contacted the appellant in Jakarta. | |
| Appellant and accomplices arrived in Singapore. | |
| Sri Pashan handed counterfeit credit cards to the appellant. | |
| First fraudulent purchase at Mustafa Centre. | |
| Shopping spree at Sim Lim Square. | |
| Appellant arrested at Aspial Corporation. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing Principles
- Outcome: The court upheld the original sentence, finding no error in the District Judge's assessment of the gravity of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deterrence
- Mitigation
- Parsimony
- Related Cases:
- [1986] SLR 126
- [2002] 4 SLR 299
- [1998] 2 SLR 522
- [1999] 2 SLR 523
- [1990] SLR 1011
- [1993] 3 SLR 305
- [2000] 1 SLR 370
- [1998] 2 SLR 853
- [1999] 1 SLR 138
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1986] SLR 126
- [2002] 4 SLR 299
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to possess forged valuable security
- Conspiracy to cheat
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- Retail
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Koon Swan v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1986] SLR 126 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will generally not interfere with the sentence passed by a trial court unless there was some error of fact or principle, or that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or unjust. |
| Gan Hock Keong Winston v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 299 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will generally not interfere with the sentence passed by a trial court unless there was some error of fact or principle, or that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or unjust. |
| Meeran bin Mydin v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 522 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a deterrent sentence is granted entirely within the court’s discretion and there is no requirement in law for the prosecution to request for deterrence before a court may consider it. |
| PP v Tan Fook Sum | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 523 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that while a guilty plea has some mitigating value, it has to be balanced against other considerations, such as the dominant public interest consideration of general deterrence. |
| Wong Kai Chuen Philip v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1990] SLR 1011 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the discount for a plea of guilt would have to be less when the offender is caught red-handed. |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fact that the appellant had not benefited from the commission of his crimes was a mitigating factor that carried little weight. |
| Ng Chiew Kiat v PP | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 370 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any hardship caused to the offender’s family arising from his imprisonment has little mitigating value except in very exceptional or extreme circumstances. |
| Ong Tiong Poh v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 853 | Singapore | Cited as guidance for sentencing, highlighting the tough stance taken by the courts against such offenders. |
| PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 138 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the number of charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing would justify the imposition of longer custodial sentences than would otherwise be imposed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224) s 474 read with ss 467 and 109 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 420 read with s 109 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Counterfeit credit cards
- Forged valuable security
- Deterrent sentence
- Mitigating factors
- Aggravating factors
- International criminal syndicate
- Plea of guilt
- Manifestly excessive
- Sentencing principles
15.2 Keywords
- forged credit cards
- sentencing
- criminal law
- fraud
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sentencing | 95 |
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Credit Card Fraud | 85 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 80 |
| Forgery | 75 |
| Commercial Fraud | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Fraud