Shaikh Farid v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Misappropriation & CDSA Offences at Marina Bay Sands Casino
Shaikh Farid, Shaikh Shabana Bi, and Ho Man Yuk, foreign nationals, appealed against their convictions and sentences for criminal misappropriation and offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. The High Court dismissed their appeals, upholding the District Judge's decision that they had conspired to exploit a system glitch at the Marina Bay Sands casino to obtain and misappropriate $875,133.56 in Free Play Credits, which they then converted to cash. The court found that the elements of criminal misappropriation were met, and the CDSA charges were also proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals against convictions and sentences dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Foreign nationals exploited a system glitch at Marina Bay Sands casino to misappropriate funds. The court upheld convictions for criminal misappropriation and CDSA offences.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shaikh Farid | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Sarbrinder Singh |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Jiang Ke-Yue, Ang Siok Chen |
| Shaikh Shabana Bi | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Sarbrinder Singh |
| Ho Man Yuk | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Selva Kumara Naidu |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sarbrinder Singh | Sanders Law LLC |
| Selva Kumara Naidu | Liberty Law Practice LLP |
| Jiang Ke-Yue | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ang Siok Chen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Appellants were members of the Marina Bay Sands casino and eligible for Free Play Credits.
- A computer system glitch allowed Ho to redeem an unlimited number of Free Play Credits.
- Appellants swiped Ho’s card over 10,000 times to obtain over a million Free Play Credits.
- They used the credits to gamble and encashed winnings totaling $875,133.56.
- Appellants remitted some of the money to third parties and converted another portion into casino chips.
- Ho alerted Farid that the police were coming and directed him to remove $500,000.
- Farid and Shabana converted the $500,000 into casino gaming chips at Resorts World Sentosa.
5. Formal Citations
- Shaikh Farid v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal Nos 9005, 9006 and 9007 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 239
- Public Prosecutor v Ho Man Yuk & others, , [2017] SGDC 23
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ho swiped her membership card at a redemption kiosk. | |
| Ho returned to the casino and discovered $800 worth of FPCs had been credited to her account. | |
| Ho called Farid and Shabana and asked them to join her at the MBS casino. | |
| Appellants repeated numerous cycles of swiping, gambling, and encashing their winnings. | |
| Ho applied for an additional membership card. | |
| Ho was detained by the authorities at the MBS casino. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Misappropriation
- Outcome: The court found that all elements of criminal misappropriation were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Dishonest intention
- Misappropriation of property
- Property belonging to another person
- Offences under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act
- Outcome: The court found that the sums of money were funds obtained from the predicate CMOP offence and the Appellants knew that the source of the funds were all directly or indirectly derived from the predicate CMOP offence and constituted benefits of their criminal conduct.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Conversion of benefits of criminal conduct
- Transfer of benefits of criminal conduct
- Removal of benefits of criminal conduct from jurisdiction
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that there was a conspiracy among the Appellants to dishonestly misappropriate the Monies because each of them had admitted that the misappropriation was committed pursuant to a plan or agreement that they had entered into and each had played a different role in the process.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Agreement to commit an offence
- Meeting of minds
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Misappropriation
- Conspiracy
- Converting, transferring or removing property from jurisdiction
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
11. Industries
- Gambling
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Seng Kwan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 12 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the offence of criminal misappropriation under s 403 of the Penal Code and the distinction between criminal misappropriation and theft. |
| Caltong (Australia) Pty Ltd and another v Tong Tien See Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 94 | Singapore | Cited to draw an analogy to the process of tracing in civil law. |
| Krishan Chand v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 737 | Singapore | Cited for sentencing precedents in criminal misappropriation cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited by analogy, in the context of cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code, that the higher the quantum of money or value of property misappropriated, the heftier the sentence. |
| Chen Weixiong Jerriek v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person who commits multiple offences over several days may not be entitled to be treated as a first time offender. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 403 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 109 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act | Singapore |
| s 47(1)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act | Singapore |
| s 22 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 378 of the Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 7A of the Interpretation Act | Singapore |
| s 8(1) of the CDSA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Free Play Credits
- Marina Bay Sands
- System Glitch
- Swipe, Gamble and Encash
- Dishonest Intention
- TITO machines
- Sands Bonus Dollars Rewards
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Misappropriation
- CDSA
- Marina Bay Sands
- Casino
- Free Play Credits
- System Glitch
- Singapore
- Gambling
- Dishonest Intention
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Misappropriation
- Casino Law
- Gambling Law
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Misappropriation
- Statutory Offences
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing