PP v Fernando Payagala: Credit Card Fraud & Sentencing Principles

The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentence imposed on Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar by the District Court for criminal misappropriation of a credit card and cheating. The High Court, presided over by V K Rajah J, allowed the appeal and enhanced the sentences, emphasizing the importance of deterrence in credit card fraud cases to maintain public confidence in Singapore's financial services. The court considered the principles and sentencing tariffs for offences concerning the fraudulent use of credit cards.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed; sentences enhanced.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against sentence for credit card fraud. The High Court enhanced the sentence, emphasizing deterrence and public interest in maintaining confidence in Singapore's financial services.

1.7 Decision Date

14 February 2007

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Appellant	Government Agency	Appeal Allowed	Won	Paul Quan of Deputy Public Prosecutor
Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar	Respondent	Individual	Sentences Enhanced	Lost	Peter Keith Fernando of Leo Fernando

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
V K Rajah	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Paul Quan	Deputy Public Prosecutor
Peter Keith Fernando	Leo Fernando

4. Facts

The respondent, a Sri Lankan national, found a credit card on a flight to Singapore.
The respondent used the credit card to purchase items worth $1,522, $469.81, and $1,288 at Changi Airport.
The respondent attempted to purchase a bracelet valued at $2,728.01 but was declined.
The respondent was arrested at the departure gate, and the purchased items were seized.
The total value of fraudulent purchases, including charges taken into consideration, amounted to $6,007.82.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar, MA 256/2006, [2007] SGHC 23
PP v Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar Fernando, , [2006] SGDC 304

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-11-17	Respondent boarded an SIA flight from New Zealand to Singapore.
2006-11-17	Respondent found Ms. Sanderson's credit card on the flight.
2006-11-17	Respondent used the credit card to purchase items at Changi Airport.
2006-11-17	Respondent was arrested at the departure gate.
2007-01-08	Respondent was released from prison.
2007-01-12	Appeal was heard.
2007-02-15	Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Sentencing for Credit Card Offences
- Outcome: The High Court enhanced the sentences, emphasizing deterrence and public interest.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Deterrence
  - Proportionality
  - Rehabilitation
  - Public Interest
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] SGDC 304
  - [1999] 1 SLR 138
  - [1991] SLR 805
  - [2005] SGDC 35
  - [2006] SGHC 128
  - [1998] 2 SLR 853
  - [2006] SGDC 104
  - [2003] 3 SLR 576
  - [2006] SGHC 228
Use of Foreign Precedents on Sentencing
- Outcome: The relevance of English and Hong Kong authorities in Singapore on credit card frauds should be strictly confined to the broad and essential principles distilled from both – that credit card offences ought to be viewed seriously, and the deterrence must feature significantly in the sentencing equation.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Enhanced Sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Criminal Misappropriation
Cheating

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Financial Crime

11. Industries

Financial Services
Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
PP v Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar Fernando	District Court	Yes	[2006] SGDC 304	Singapore	The judgment being appealed from.
PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 138	Singapore	Cited for the principle that rehabilitation is the dominant consideration for offenders aged 21 and below.
Tan Choon Huat v PP	High Court	Yes	[1991] SLR 805	Singapore	Cited for the principle that probation is generally unsuitable for foreign nationals not resident in Singapore.
PP v Mihaly Magashazie	District Court	Yes	[2005] SGDC 35	Singapore	Cited for the principle that credit card fraud is viewed with severity due to the deception of financial institutions and the difficulty in detection.
Lim Pei Ni Charissa v PP	High Court	Yes	[2006] SGHC 128	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts must take a harsh stand against credit card fraud to deter offenders.
Ong Tiong Poh v PP	High Court	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR 853	Singapore	Cited for the principle that heavier sentences are appropriate for counterfeit card and syndicate cases due to the sophistication and planning involved.
PP v Poh Leong Boon David Danille	District Court	Yes	[2006] SGDC 104	Singapore	Cited to highlight that sentencing factors do not invariably apply to stolen/misappropriated credit card cases.
Than Stenly Granida Purwanto v PP	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 576	Singapore	Cited for the principle that deterrent sentences are appropriate for offences involving international criminal syndicates and substantial losses.
Navaseelan Balasingam v PP	High Court	Yes	[2006] SGHC 228	Singapore	Cited for the policy considerations in cases involving counterfeit ATM cards, similar to credit card fraud.
Fadilah bte Omar v PP	High Court	Yes	N/A	Singapore	Cited as a sentencing precedent for large scale credit card fraud involving a genuine credit card.
PP v Rohaazman bin Ali & 2 ors	High Court	Yes	N/A	Singapore	Cited as a sentencing precedent for large scale credit card fraud involving a genuine credit card.
PP v Edward Lekwachi Cox	High Court	Yes	N/A	Singapore	Cited as a sentencing precedent for counterfeit credit card fraud.
Vasudevan A/L Thandavan v PP	High Court	Yes	N/A	Singapore	Cited as a sentencing precedent for counterfeit credit card fraud.
Wong Kai Chuen Phillip v PP	High Court	Yes	[1990] SLR 1011	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the relevance and weight of a voluntary surrender and guilty plea depend on the circumstances of each case.
Khoo Ban Hock v PP	Unknown	Yes	[1988] 3 MLJ 22	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that leniency should be accorded if there is no evidence of loss to the public.
Hoo Chee Keong v PP (No.2)	Unknown	Yes	[2000] 5 MLJ 448	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the court considers whether the accused caused heavy financial loss when assessing the appropriate sentence.
R v Lennon (Jeffrey)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] CLY 2087	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the fact that a fraudulent scheme was frustrated and no loss occurred should be a mitigating consideration.
R v Harjit Singh Samra	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1992) 13 Cr App R (S) 168	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the lack of evidence that loss had been suffered as a result of the frauds committed by the accused, as having constituted at least limited mitigation.
PP v Ng Tai Tee Janet	High Court	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR 343	Singapore	Cited for the principle that when considerations of public interests were implicated, the fact that no actual harm or loss was suffered by any party was of less relevance.
Krishnan Chand v PP	High Court	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR 291	Singapore	Cited for the principle that making restitution may provide some evidence of remorse, genuine good character or reformation, thereby carrying some mitigating value.
Tan Sai Tiang v PP	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 439	Singapore	Cited for the principle that making restitution may provide some evidence of remorse, genuine good character or reformation, thereby carrying some mitigating value.
Ng Kwee Seng v PP	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR 205	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in instances where in spite of monetary restitution, the accused has shown no remorse, such restitution would be of little mitigating value.
Xia Qin Lai v PP	High Court	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 343	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a timeous plea of guilt is a mitigating factor.
Angliss Singapore Pte Ltd v PP	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR 653	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a timeous plea of guilt is a mitigating factor.
Ooi Joo Keong v PP	High Court	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR 68	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a deterrent sentence should be de rigueur where an offence is committed with premeditation and planning.
Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v PP	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that benchmarks and/or tariffs have significance, standing and value as judicial tools so as to help achieve a certain degree of consistency and rationality in our sentencing practices.
Wan Kim Hock v PP	High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR 410	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the process of sentencing is a matter of law that involves manifold factors so that no two cases could ever be totally identical for the purposes of sentencing.
Mohd Shahrin bin Shwi v PP	High Court	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR 553	Singapore	Cited for the principle that while consistency in sentencing is a desirable objective, it should never become an overriding or inflexible principle.
R v Harivadan Patel	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 67	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that if the thief before being sentenced has realised his assets and has attempted to repay, or has repaid, the loss or a substantial part of it that constitutes potential mitigation.
The Queen & ors v Debra Jane Mitchell & Anor	Supreme Court of Western Australia	Yes	[1998] WASCA 299	Australia	Cited for the principle that a loss to the victim, would be a factor rendering the offence more serious; the fact that the loss has been made good is, however, a mitigating factor.
R v Jackson and Jackson	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1992) 13 Cr App R (S) 22	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the general preponderence of such offences given that they required little effort or exertion was yet another critical factor prompting the court to conclude that such conduct should be severely dealt with for the purposes of general deterrence.
R v Shellie Wallace	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] EWCA Crim 1405	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that each case must be assessed on its own merits.
R v Peacock	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1967] Crim LR 548	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the fraudulent use of credit cards is a serious matter.
R v Wong Fu-keung	Court of Appeal	Yes	N/A	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that those who are engaged in this type of activity can expect to be dealt with severely by the courts.
R v Kwai Ying-ho	Court of Appeal	Yes	N/A	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that credit card frauds have in recent years been an insidious poison in the community.
Attorney-General v Chan Piu-sang and Another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 1 HKCLR 211	Hong Kong	Cited in relation to credit card frauds in general.
The Queen v Chan Sik Kwan	Unknown	Yes	N/A	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that offences concerning forged credit cards are more serious than those concerning stolen credit cards.
R v Chan Siu To and Another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] HKCA 385	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the scheme was ‘not a very sophisticated one’.
The Queen v Leung Kwok Chung	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] HKCA 178	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the scheme was ‘not a very sophisticated one’.
The Queen v Ajibola Swaju Oyalowo and Another	Court of Appeal	Yes	N/A	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the applicants’ one and only object in proceeding to Hong Kong was to defraud shopkeepers.
HKSAR v Lam Pui Tak	Unknown	Yes	N/A	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that offences relating to the use of credit cards were very common, and that even a first-time offender had to be sentenced to an immediate sentence of imprisonment for the purpose of deterrence.
HKSAR v See Chun Fat Billy	Unknown	Yes	N/A	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that credit card fraud is a serious matter which is prevalent and causes significant loss.
R v Blancaflor	Unknown	Yes	N/A	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that a group of persons used stolen credit cards to obtain goods.
HKSAR v Wong Wan Shan	Unknown	Yes	N/A	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the offences had been committed over a lengthy period of time and the fact that the applicant was a persistent offender, acting in concert with others as part of an accomplished thieving syndicate constituted aggravating factors in that case.
HKSAR v Chan Kwai-Fui	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] HKCA 377	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that the prevalence of such offences and the indication that the applicant was involved with others in the offences.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 403	Singapore
Tokyo Convention Act (Cap 327, 1985 Rev Ed) s 3(1)	Singapore
Penal Code s 420	Singapore
Penal Code s 417	Singapore
Penal Code s 511	Singapore
Penal Code s 474	Singapore
Penal Code s 109	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Credit Card Fraud
Sentencing
Deterrence
Misappropriation
Cheating
Public Interest
Benchmark Sentences
Transit Passenger
Financial Hub

15.2 Keywords

Credit Card Fraud
Sentencing
Deterrence
Criminal Law
Singapore
Appeal
Misappropriation
Cheating

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Sentencing	95
Criminal Procedure	90
Credit Card Fraud	90
Criminal Law	75
Commercial Fraud	60
Theft	40
Contract Law	20

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Sentencing
Credit Card Fraud
Criminal Procedure