Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Intimidation by Anonymous Communication & Harassment
In Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against a 29-month imprisonment sentence imposed on Ye Lin Myint for criminal intimidation by anonymous communication and harassment. Ye Lin Myint, acting as an insurance agent, sent threatening communications to clients, prospective clients, and members of the public. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence and providing a sentencing framework for criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on criminal intimidation and harassment by Ye Lin Myint, who waged a campaign of threats using anonymized emails and pseudonyms.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment Upheld | Won | Christopher Ong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Thiagesh Sukumaran of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ye Lin Myint | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Ong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Thiagesh Sukumaran | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Foo Cheow Ming | Foo Cheow Ming Chambers |
4. Facts
- Appellant waged a campaign of criminal intimidation and harassment against clients and members of the public.
- Appellant used anonymized email accounts and a Bitcoin wallet to conceal his identity.
- Appellant sent communications threatening physical harm, reputational damage, loss of employment, and imprisonment.
- Communications caused considerable distress and public disquiet.
- Appellant pleaded guilty to 13 charges and consented to 30 charges being taken into consideration.
- Appellant was sentenced to 29 months’ imprisonment in the State Courts.
- Appellant appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
5. Formal Citations
- Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9029 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 221
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant waged a campaign of criminal intimidation and harassment. | |
| Communications which were the subject of the five proceeded charges were received. | |
| Communications which were the subject of the five proceeded charges were received. | |
| The five communications that were the subject of the five TIC charges were received. | |
| The communications which were the subject of the remaining 25 TIC charges were received. | |
| Appeal heard and dismissed. | |
| Detailed grounds for decision set out. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Intimidation
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence for criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.
- Category: Substantive
- Harassment
- Outcome: The court upheld the sentence for harassment by threatening communications.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court provided a sentencing framework for criminal intimidation by anonymous communication.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 4 SLR 409
- [2017] 2 SLR 449
- [2017] 3 SLR 447
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 879
- [2015] 5 SLR 122
- [2016] 4 SLR 1220
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 631
- [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406
- [2014] 2 SLR 998
- [2010] 1 SLR 874
- Totality Principle
- Outcome: The court determined that the totality principle was not breached by the aggregate sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 998
- [2010] 1 SLR 874
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Intimidation
- Harassment
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
- Sentencing Guidelines
11. Industries
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 409 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court can develop a sentencing framework from first principles. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of a sentencing matrix and the ability of the court to isolate the principal factual elements of the offence. |
| Koh Yong Chiah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 447 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is difficult to define the interest the offence was intended to protect, and it was correspondingly difficult to categorise s 182 offences based on a set of “principal factual elements”. |
| Zhao Zhipeng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 879 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that motive affects the degree of an offender’s culpability for sentencing purposes. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person who engages in drug trafficking activities “for personal gain would bear a higher degree of culpability than one who becomes involved only because he was coerced or threatened into doing it, or was exploited by virtue of his low intellectual ability or naivety”. |
| Lim Ying Ying Luciana v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 1220 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the commission of an offence out of malice or spite has been considered an aggravating factor, whereas the existence of a pressing financial need which causes the commission of the offence might be considered a mitigating factor. |
| Lim Siong Khee v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 631 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the commission of an offence out of malice or spite has been considered an aggravating factor. |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 406 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the existence of a pressing financial need which causes the commission of the offence might be considered a mitigating factor. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality principle has two limbs to it. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court may consider running more than two sentences consecutively where factors including the following are present: (a) a persistent or habitual offender; (b) multiple victims; and (c) there being a pressing public interest concern in discouraging the type of criminal conduct being punished. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ye Lin Myint | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGDC 36 | Singapore | The decision below, where the District Judge focused on questions of sentencing. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 507 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 503 | Singapore |
| Penal Code s 506 | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) s 3(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) s 3(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal intimidation
- Anonymous communication
- Harassment
- Sentencing framework
- Bitcoin
- Protonmail
- Malice
- Premeditation
- Abuse of position
- Totality principle
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal intimidation
- Harassment
- Anonymous communication
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Intimidation | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Harassment | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Harassment
- Criminal Intimidation