Vijay Kumar v Public Prosecutor: Unlicensed Money Transfer Services & Sentencing Framework under Payment Services Act
Vijay Kumar appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against his sentence for providing cross-border money transfer services without a license, violating Section 5(1) of the Payment Services Act 2019. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence and establishing a sentencing framework for such offenses. The court adopted a 'single starting point' framework with a starting point of three weeks’ imprisonment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Vijay Kumar appealed his sentence for providing unlicensed money transfer services. The High Court established a sentencing framework under the Payment Services Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vijay Kumar | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Kanthosamy Rajendran |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Sentence Affirmed | Won | Hon Yi, Jordan Li |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kanthosamy Rajendran | RLC Law Corporation |
| Hon Yi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jordan Li | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tai Ai Lin | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- Vijay Kumar owned and ran East Village Pte Ltd, dealing with medicinal products and international calling cards.
- Kumar offered remittance services to customers, using the 'hawala' method.
- Kumar enlisted his nephew in Myanmar to disburse monies after collecting them in Singapore.
- Monies collected in Singapore were used to buy goods shipped to Kumar's nephew in Myanmar.
- Kumar charged between $2 to $10 per transaction, plus bank charges.
- Kumar started providing remittance services in 2018.
- Between February and June 2020, Kumar collected and remitted $10,123.20, earning a $80 service fee.
5. Formal Citations
- Vijay Kumar v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9194 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 109
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant carried on a business of providing a payment service without a license. | |
| Appellant carried on a business of providing a payment service without a license. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sentencing for Providing Payment Services Without a License
- Outcome: The court established a sentencing framework with a starting point of three weeks’ imprisonment for offenders claiming trial.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Appropriateness of custodial sentence
- Relevance of mitigating factors
- Application of general deterrence
- Applicability of Sentencing Precedents under the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act
- Outcome: The court found that while there are similarities, the sentencing precedents under the MCRBA have limited relevance and precedential value.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of MCRBA precedents
- Consistency of sentencing
- Scope of application
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against the sentence of two weeks’ imprisonment
- Imposition of a fine of $8,000 instead of imprisonment
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Section 5(1) of the Payment Services Act 2019
- Providing cross-border money transfer services without a license
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Regulatory Law
- Financial Regulation
11. Industries
- Financial Services
- FinTech
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Lange Vivian | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2021] SGMC 116 | Singapore | Cited as a comparison case for offences under Section 5 of the Payment Services Act 2019. |
| Public Prosecutor v Shahabudeen s/o Asappa Abdul Hussain | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2003] SGDC 122 | Singapore | Cited regarding custodial terms imposed by the High Court for first offenders under the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act. |
| Logachev Vladislav v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage, five-step framework. |
| Chinpo Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 983 | Singapore | Cited as one of the few reported High Court decisions concerning a sentence under s 6(2) of the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Khoon Yong | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2022] SGMC 43 | Singapore | Cited for the lack of High Court guidance on the appropriate sentencing framework for a s 6 MCRBA offence. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohideen Kunji Mohamed Rafi | Singapore High Court | Yes | (CR 16 of 2002) | Singapore | Cited regarding custodial sentences imposed on first-time offenders under the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ziard Mohd Zarook | Singapore High Court | Yes | (CR 17 of 2002) | Singapore | Cited regarding custodial sentences imposed on first-time offenders under the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act. |
| Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the single starting point framework. |
| Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited for the multiple starting points framework. |
| Abu Syeed Chowdhury v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 182 | Singapore | Cited for the benchmark framework. |
| Poh Boon Kiat v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 892 | Singapore | Cited for the sentencing matrix framework. |
| Wong Hoi Len v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 115 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the court laid down the benchmark sentence for the specific offence of causing hurt to public transport workers. |
| Public Prosecutor v Fernando Payagala Waduge Malitha Kumar | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 334 | Singapore | Cited as a case in which the benchmark sentence was laid down for the specific offence of credit card fraud. |
| Public Prosecutor v Zhu Yu | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2022] SGDC 172 | Singapore | Cited for the dominant sentencing principle for offences under s 5(3) of the PSA. |
| Public Prosecutor v Law Aik Meng | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that general deterrence is warranted where offences affect the delivery of financial services and/or the integrity of the economic infrastructure. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mihaly Magashazi | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2006] SGDC 135 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the fraudulent use of credit cards which involved the deception of financial institutions. |
| Abdul Mutalib bin Aziman v Public Prosecutor and other appeals | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 1220 | Singapore | Cited for the quest for broad parity and consistency in sentencing. |
| Ong Chee Eng v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 776 | Singapore | Cited for the need for a sentencing court to explore the full spectrum of sentences contemplated by Parliament. |
| Koh Jaw Hung v Public Prosecutor | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 516 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that fines may also accompany the custodial term in cases where there is evidence of profit, in order to disgorge the criminal benefits of the offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Abdul Bashar Khan | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 203 | Singapore | Cited as one of the few reported District Court decisions which set out the factual background and the court’s analysis on the sentence imposed on the offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Ah Ghoon | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 184 | Singapore | Cited as one of the few reported District Court decisions which set out the factual background and the court’s analysis on the sentence imposed on the offender. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chen Jiantao | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | (MAC 907914 of 2021) | Singapore | Cited for the lack of High Court guidance on the appropriate sentencing framework for a s 6 MCRBA offence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Payment Services Act 2019 (No. 2 of 2019) | Singapore |
| Section 5(1) of the Payment Services Act 2019 | Singapore |
| Section 5(3)(a) of the Payment Services Act 2019 | Singapore |
| Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act (Cap 187, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 6(2) of the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act (Cap 187, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 2(1) of the Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Payment Services Act 2019
- Money-Changing and Remittance Businesses Act
- Cross-border money transfer services
- Hawala method
- Sentencing framework
- General deterrence
- Single starting point framework
- Unlicensed remittance
- Custodial threshold
- Money laundering
- Terrorism financing
15.2 Keywords
- Payment Services Act
- Money Transfer
- Remittance
- Unlicensed
- Sentencing
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Financial Regulation
- Payment Services
- Money Transfer
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
- Criminal Law
- Payment Services Act 2019
- Sentencing Principles
- Money Transfer Services