Rukiah bte Ismail v Public Prosecutor: Cheating Banks for Renovation Loans
In Rukiah bte Ismail v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against Rukiah bte Ismail's conviction on two charges of cheating. Rukiah was convicted of deceiving Standard Chartered Bank and Overseas Union Bank into granting her renovation loans by falsely claiming she intended to renovate her home. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in finding Rukiah guilty of offenses under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Rukiah bte Ismail was convicted of cheating banks by fraudulently obtaining renovation loans. The High Court dismissed her appeal, upholding the conviction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Won | Christopher Ong of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Rukiah bte Ismail | Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Ong | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Allen and Gledhill |
4. Facts
- The appellant applied for renovation loans from Standard Chartered Bank and Overseas Union Bank.
- The appellant claimed she intended to renovate her flat, but the prosecution argued she never intended to do so.
- The loans were approved based on the belief that renovation work would be carried out.
- Chew Ai Wah, a renovation contractor, testified that the appellant sought the loans for personal use, not renovation.
- The appellant received portions of the loan amounts but claimed she was cheated by Chew Ai Wah.
- The bank officers confirmed they would not have approved the loans if they knew no renovation was intended.
- The appellant's police statement contained inconsistencies with her testimony in court.
5. Formal Citations
- Rukiah bte Ismail v Public Prosecutor, MA 217/2003, [2004] SGHC 98
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rohaini met Joe in Clementi. | |
| Rohaini informed Joe that the appellant needed money and wished to apply for a renovation loan. | |
| Joe met the appellant in her apartment. | |
| Joe submitted the loan application forms. | |
| SCB loan application had been approved. | |
| Appellant met Joe at one of the OUB bank branches to collect the cashier’s order. | |
| Joe paid $9,480 of the OUB loan amount to the appellant in cash on two or three occasions between July 2001 and August 2001. | |
| DAC 23488/2003 You Rukiah Binte Ismail, NRIC No S1503474B, are charged that you, sometime between June and July 2001, in Singapore, together with Chew Ai Wah and Rohaini Binte Mohd Isa, in furtherance of the common intention of you all, did cheat one John Lim, a Credit Approval Manager of Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB”), to wit, by deceiving him into believing that renovation works amounting to $22,000 were to be carried out at your residence located at Block 34 Jalan Bukit Ho Swee #09-868, Singapore, by Tiong Yi Li Construction Ptd Ltd, when in fact no such renovation was intended, and by such manner of deception you dishonestly induced the said John Lim to approve a renovation loan of $13,000, which sum was subsequently delivered to you by way of two SCB cashier’s orders number 539849 and 539850 made payable to the said Tiong Yi Li Construction Pte Ltd, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. | |
| DAC 23490/2003 You Rukiah Binte Ismail, NRIC No S1503474B, are charged that you, sometime between June and July 2001, in Singapore, together with Chew Ai Wah and Rohaini Binte Mohd Isa, in furtherance of the common intention of you all, did cheat one Loong Hui Ping, an Assistant Vice President of Overseas Union Bank Limited (“OUB”), to wit, by deceiving her into believing that renovation works amounting to $22,000 were to be carried out at your residence located at Block 34 Jalan Bukit Ho Swee #09-868, Singapore, by Tiong Yi Li Construction Ptd Ltd, when in fact no such renovation was intended, and by such manner of deception you dishonestly induced the said Loong Hui Ping to approve a renovation loan of $12,000, which sum was subsequently delivered to you by way of an OUB cashier’s order number 10559 made payable to the said Tiong Yi Li Construction Pte Ltd, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Cheating
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had cheated the banks by deceiving them into believing that renovation work would be carried out.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deception
- Dishonest inducement
- Wrongful gain
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 3 SLR 969
- [1999] 2 SLR 542
- Accomplice Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the trial judge did not err in accepting the accomplice's version of events.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Weight of evidence
- Uncorroborated evidence
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR 592
- [1998] 2 SLR 713
- Impeaching Witness Credibility
- Outcome: The court found no reason to fault the trial judge for impeaching the appellant’s credit by virtue of her previous inconsistent statements.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistent statements
- Prior inconsistent statement
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
9. Cause of Actions
- Cheating
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gunasegeran s/o Pavadaisamy v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 969 | Singapore | Cited for the essential ingredients of the offence under s 420 of the Penal Code. |
| Chua Kian Kok v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 542 | Singapore | Cited for the essential ingredients of the offence under s 420 of the Penal Code. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in disturbing a lower court's findings of fact. |
| PP v Hla Win | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 424 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in disturbing a lower court's findings of fact. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in disturbing a lower court's findings of fact which hinged on the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility and veracity of witnesses |
| PP v Poh Oh Sim | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 1047 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in disturbing a lower court's findings of fact. |
| PP v Azman bin Abdullah | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 704 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appellate court's role in disturbing a lower court's findings of fact. |
| Kwang Boon Keong Peter v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need for a court to warn itself of the danger of relying on accomplice evidence. |
| Chua Poh Kiat Anthony v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited regarding accomplice evidence should be given the same weight as any other evidence. |
| Teo Ai Choo v Leong Sze Hian | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1986] SLR 75 | Singapore | Cited regarding the role of an appellate court where there were two directly contradictory versions the acceptance or rejection of which significantly depended on the oral testimony of the protagonists |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 420 Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 34 Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 116 Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 135 Evidence Act | Singapore |
| s 157 Evidence Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Renovation loan
- Cheating
- Deception
- Accomplice evidence
- Inconsistent statement
- Dishonest inducement
- Wrongful gain
15.2 Keywords
- Cheating
- Renovation Loan
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Cheating | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Theft | 75 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Accomplice Evidence | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence
- Banking Law