Koo Kah Yee v Public Prosecutor: Remote Gambling Act & Sentencing Appeal
Koo Kah Yee, a Malaysian national, appealed to the High Court of Singapore against a 12-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court for abetting remote gambling under s 11(1) of the Remote Gambling Act read with s 109 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by Sundaresh Menon CJ, dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence appropriate and setting out a sentencing framework for offences under s 11(1) of the RGA. The case involved the provision of Singapore-based remote gambling services through the asure6 and 888pool websites.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic 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
Koo Kah Yee, a Malaysian national, appealed against her 12-month imprisonment sentence for abetting remote gambling. The High Court dismissed the appeal and set out a sentencing framework.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koo Kah Yee | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Robert Leslie Gregory, Chow Weng Weng |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Wong Woon Kwong, Lim Shin Hui |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Robert Leslie Gregory | L G Robert |
| Chow Weng Weng | Chow Ng Partnership |
| Wong Woon Kwong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Lim Shin Hui | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Koo Kah Yee, a Malaysian national, worked as an administrative staff member for a remote gambling syndicate.
- The syndicate operated two remote gambling websites: www.asure6.net and www.888pool.net.
- Koo Kah Yee's administrative work included preparing payroll, keying in accounts, and issuing cheque payments.
- The total betting revenue received by the asure6 website alone was $18,207,212.62 over a period of approximately 9 months.
- Koo Kah Yee recruited another administrative staff, Sunny Lai, into the syndicate.
- Koo Kah Yee was charged with abetting the provision of Singapore-based remote gambling services.
- Three other charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.
5. Formal Citations
- Koo Kah Yee v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9081 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 261
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Koo Kah Yee worked for Steven Seet as a secretary in a massage parlour in Singapore. | |
| Steven Seet offered Koo Kah Yee a job in Singapore as an accounts assistant with Erictex Trading. | |
| Koo Kah Yee commenced work at Erictex. | |
| Sunny Lai started working for the syndicate. | |
| Sunny Lai stopped working for the syndicate. | |
| Various members of the syndicate were arrested. | |
| Koo Kah Yee was arrested at the Woodlands Checkpoint. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Parity in Sentencing
- Aiding and Abetting
- Outcome: The appellant was found to have aided and abetted the provision of Singapore-based remote gambling services.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Aiding and Abetting
- Provision of Singapore-based Remote Gambling Services
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Gambling
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Koo Kah Yee | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 136 | Singapore | The District Court's decision which sentenced the appellant to 12 months’ imprisonment. |
| Public Prosecutor v Su Jiqing Joel | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 233 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the imposition of a fine to disgorge profits serves both a deterrent and retributive function. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Ah Moi (F) | N/A | Yes | [1949] MLJ 155 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the penalty imposed should be such that it will take away from the convicted offender the desire to offend in a similar manner again. |
| Lim Li Ling v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 165 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that deterrence calls for the imposition of fines to disgorge the profits of offenders who may also be sentenced to imprisonment. |
| Koh Jaw Hung v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 516 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that when determining the appropriate quantum of a fine, the offender’s ability to pay the fine may be a relevant consideration. |
| R v Jonathan Russell Green and John Green | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) | Yes | (1984) 6 Cr App R (S) 329 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that there may be a real risk that the default sentence in lieu of the payment of the fines might result in the overall sentence becoming excessive or disproportionate. |
| Ho Sheng Yu Garreth v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 375 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there may be a real risk that the default sentence in lieu of the payment of the fines might result in the overall sentence becoming excessive or disproportionate. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the overarching requirement of proportionality in sentencing. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lai Yen San | District Court | Yes | [2019] SGDC 39 | Singapore | Case involving the appellant’s colleague, Sunny Lai, arising from her involvement with the same syndicate. The High Court reduced Sunny Lai’s sentence on appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Elger Kua Meng Tern | State Court | Yes | [2019] SGMC 5 | Singapore | Case involving an accused person who pleaded guilty to one charge under s 11(1) of the RGA and another charge under s 4(1) of the CGHA for running a common gaming house. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sentencing considerations are broadly divided into offence-specific factors and offender-specific factors. |
| Ye Lin Myint v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2019] 5 SLR 1005 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that care must be taken to avoid doubly penalising the offender in the sentencing assessment. |
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that syndicated activities are inherently aggravating because they raise the spectre of organised crime and have deleterious effects on Singapore as a whole. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a particularly important and relevant consideration is the “international dimension” involved. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wang Ziyi Able | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 1082 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that when gambling activities are offered on remote or online platforms, these tend to add a further cloak of anonymity to both the providers and participants and make detection even more challenging. |
| Mehra Radhika v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that offences that are committed as a result of deliberation and premeditation will be viewed as attracting greater culpability as compared to those committed opportunistically or on impulse. |
| Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the level of sophistication in the planning, execution and concealment of the offence is also a relevant consideration. |
| Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 892 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the use of the Internet generally increases the culpability associated with an offence because it acts as a powerful multiplier that extends the reach of gambling activities. |
| Public Prosecutor v Quek Chin Choon | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 1169 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the use of the Internet generally increases the culpability associated with an offence because it acts as a powerful multiplier that extends the reach of gambling activities. |
| Public Prosecutor v Adri Anton Kalangie | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 217 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in the case of organised or syndicated offences, the offender’s role within the group and the tasks performed is a fact-specific inquiry to be undertaken with care. |
| Ong Tiong Poh v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 547 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an offender recruits others as accomplices into a criminal operation, that would usually be an aggravating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Tai Tee Janet and another | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 735 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where an offender recruits others as accomplices into a criminal operation, that would usually be an aggravating factor. |
| Neo Ah Luan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 1153 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a longer duration of offending typically demonstrates persistence in unlawful conduct and greater culpability compared to a one-off offence. |
| Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 | Singapore | Cited as a general reference for offender-specific factors. |
| Thong Sing Hock v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 47 | Singapore | Cited as a general reference for offender-specific factors. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited as a general reference for offender-specific factors. |
| Dinesh Singh Bhatia s/o Amarjeet Singh v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sentencing matrix is not meant to be applied rigidly and the appropriate sentence in each case must be determined with reference to the specific facts. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Remote Gambling Act (No 34 of 2014) s 11(1) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 109 | Singapore |
| Remote Gambling Act s 7 | Singapore |
| Remote Gambling Act s 5(1) | Singapore |
| Remote Gambling Act s 5(2) | Singapore |
| Remote Gambling Act s 5(4) | Singapore |
| Betting Act (Cap 21, 2011 Rev Ed) s 5(3) | Singapore |
| Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5 | Singapore |
| Organised Crime Act 2015 (No 26 of 2015) s 5(1) | Singapore |
| Organised Crime Act 2015 (No 26 of 2015) s 12(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Common Gaming Houses Act (Cap 49, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5(a) | Singapore |
| Remote Gambling Act s 9(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Remote Gambling Act
- Remote Gambling
- Syndicate
- Aiding and Abetting
- Sentencing
- Manifestly Excessive
- Administrative Staff
- Betting Revenue
- Transnational Crime
- Deterrence
15.2 Keywords
- Remote Gambling Act
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Appeal
- Koo Kah Yee
- Public Prosecutor
- Aiding and Abetting
- Remote Gambling
- Syndicate
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Remote Gambling
- Sentencing
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Statutory Offences
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
- Remote Gambling Act