On 18 December 2023, Adi Djusman (“Adi”), a 59-year-old sole director of Multi-Eka Trading Pte Ltd (“MTPL”) and Sui Jaya Pte Ltd (“SJPL”) was sentenced by the Court to a total of three years’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay $1,980,344.91 in penalties upon conviction of offences involving Goods & Services Tax (GST) evasion and money laundering.

For 16 counts of GST evasion under section 62(1)(b) and section 62(1)(c) of the Goods and Services Tax Act involving $660,114.97 of fraudulent GST refunds, Adi was sentenced to a total of 84 weeks’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay a penalty of $1,980,344.91, representing thrice the GST amount he evaded. 33 other GST evasion charges were taken into consideration for this sentencing.

For four counts of money laundering of $523,459.90 by transferring the fraudulent GST refunds overseas and by using the fraudulent GST refunds to top up his CPF account, Adi was sentenced to a total of 15 months’ imprisonment. Six other money laundering charges were taken into consideration for this sentencing.

Case highlights

Despite not conducting any businesses, Adi used fictitious invoices and listings to submit 20 GST returns for MTPL between 1 Jan 2015 and 31 Dec 2019 and 21 GST returns for SJPL between 1 Jan 2015 and 31 Jan 2020. This resulted in IRAS making payments to MTLP and SJPL, which should not have been made. 

Tax investigations subsequently revealed that both MTPL and SJPL were not conducting any business during their respective periods of refund claims. All GST returns filed during these periods were false. Additionally, Adi submitted false invoices and listings to IRAS officers during the initial enquiry period.

Investigations also revealed that Adi was residing in China during the period of his offences and had no known sources of income. The fraudulent GST refunds were credited into MTPL’s and SJPL’s Singapore bank accounts on a quarterly basis between 1 January 2015 and 31 January 2020. Around the end of every quarter, Adi would return to Singapore, during which time he would engage the services of cross-border money transfer service providers to remit the fraudulent GST refunds to bank accounts belonging to him and his wife in China. Adi also used a portion of his GST refunds to make contributions to his CPF account under SJPL’s name to create a facade that SJPL had business operations. In so doing, Adi had transferred and removed the benefits of his criminal conduct through GST evasion from Singapore – this constitutes the money laundering offences.  

Uncovering the offences

This case was uncovered through one of the many regular compliance programmes IRAS conducted across various industries to ensure tax compliance by individuals and businesses. Using data analytics and advanced statistical tools, IRAS was able to verify tax reporting and detect anomalies. 
Severe Penalties for GST Evasion

It is a serious offence to wilfully submit false GST returns by overstating any input tax, understating any output tax or including fictitious claims. Upon conviction, offenders face a penalty of three times the amount of tax undercharged, in addition to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or both.

With the enhanced sentencing framework for GST evasion effective since 2022, offenders will face a stiffer imprisonment sentence which takes into account the harm caused by the offender and his or her culpability, including the quantum of GST evaded, the degree of planning and premeditation and sustained period of offending. 

Money Laundering

It is an offence under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act for any person to conceal, disguise, transfer, convert, remove from jurisdiction, acquire, possess, or use benefits derived from criminal conduct. Upon conviction, offenders are liable to be punished with a fine not exceeding $500,000, or an imprisonment term not exceeding 10 years, or both. 

Singapore takes a serious view on fraudulent GST refund claims and related money laundering activities and will not hesitate to take a stern enforcement action against any individuals who commit these offences and persons who facilitate them.

Reporting of Malpractices

Businesses or individuals are encouraged to immediately report malpractices. IRAS will treat such reports as mitigating factors when considering the action to be taken. Those who wish to report malpractices can write to:

Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Investigation & Forensics Division
55 Newton Road, Revenue House
Singapore 307987
Email: [email protected]

Cash Rewards for Informants

A reward based on 15% of the tax recovered, capped at $100,000, would be given to informants if the information and/or documents provided lead to a recovery of tax that would have otherwise been lost. All payments are at the discretion of the Comptroller. IRAS will ensure that the identities of informants are kept strictly confidential. 

Three persons, aged between 38 and 50, will be charged in court on 19 December 2023 for their suspected involvement in separate cases of shop theft.

1. On 8 September 2023, the Police were alerted to a case of theft at Raffles City Shopping Centre. Preliminary investigations revealed that a 50-year-old woman was in possession of various beauty products and food items from a shop located within the shopping mall. This was not the only time the Police had been called in against the woman. The woman had also allegedly taken other items from shops at Changi City Point and NEX on 16 February 2023 and 8 April 2023, respectively. The stolen items had an estimated total value of more than $1,300. The woman will be charged with four counts of theft-in-dwelling under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871.
   
2. On 6 September 2023, the Police were alerted to a case of theft at Loyang Point. A 38-year-old man was arrested on 12 September 2023. Preliminary investigations revealed that the man had taken various items from a shop within the shopping mall thrice between 30 August 2023 and 6 September 2023. The stolen items had an estimated total value of more than $90. The man will be charged with three counts of theft-in-dwelling under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871. 
   
3. On 22 and 27 September 2023, the Police were alerted to a case of theft at a supermarket along Bukit Batok Avenue 8. Through follow-up investigations and with the aid of images from CCTVs, officers from Jurong Police Division established the identity of the woman and arrested her on 3 October 2023. Preliminary investigations revealed that the 49-year-old woman had taken numerous items from the shop on 15 and 26 September 2023. She was previously investigated for a case of theft at Jem on 15 December 2021. The stolen items had an estimated total value of more than $250. The woman will be charged with three counts of theft-in-dwelling under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871.

The offence of theft-in-dwelling under Section 380 of the Penal Code 1871 carries an imprisonment term of up to seven years and a fine.

The Police take a serious view of shop theft cases, and offenders will be dealt with firmly in accordance with the law. The Police will continue to work closely with stakeholders and the community to prevent and deter shop theft cases. The Police would like to remind retailers to remain vigilant against shop thieves, especially when large crowds are expected. Retailers are advised to adopt the following measures:

1. Ensure a good line of sight for the displays by using an appropriate shop layout;
   
2. Display advisory posters or signage against shop theft;
   
3. Display expensive merchandise in locked showcases or at prominent locations (e.g. near cashier counters);
   
4. Install CCTVs with recording system at the entrance/exit of the store to capture the facial features of shoppers; and
   
5. Deploy adequate security personnel to patrol the premises in luminous vests for deterrence.

In a recent ruling, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon rejected the appeal of a third-time drink-driving offender seeking a reduction of his lifetime driving ban.

The offender, Mr. Lee Shin Nan, argued that he felt pressured to move his car after an altercation with the owner of another vehicle blocked by his, according to The Straits Times.

Chief Justice Menon upheld the initial sentence of eight weeks’ jail, a $10,000 fine, and a lifetime driving ban imposed by a district judge.

Background of the Case

Mr. Lee Shin Nan, a 45-year-old individual, faced his third drink-driving conviction in June 2022. The incident occurred when he, after consuming four glasses of beer at a coffee shop along Serangoon Road, received a call to move his vehicle, leading him to drive to the nearest car park. However, he was stopped at a police roadblock on Petain Road, subsequently failing a breathalyser test. The test revealed 89 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, well above the prescribed limit of 35mcg.

Legal Proceedings and Sentencing

Mr. Lee pleaded guilty to the drink-driving charge on March 16, 2023, and received a sentence of eight weeks’ jail, a $10,000 fine, and a lifetime driving ban. Chief Justice Menon dismissed Mr. Lee’s appeal, asserting that the act of moving his car, even under pressure, did not constitute a “special reason” justifying a reduction of the lifetime disqualification.

Chief Justice’s Rationale

In his written grounds issued on Dec 18, Chief Justice Menon explained his decision, emphasizing the dangerous and irresponsible nature of Mr. Lee’s decision to drive after consuming alcohol, especially considering his prior drink-driving convictions. The Chief Justice deemed the desire to avoid unpleasant encounters insufficient justification for the reduction of the disqualification.

Sentencing Guidelines for Repeat Drink-Driving Offences

Chief Justice Menon also took the opportunity to set out sentencing guidelines for repeat drink-driving offences. Following the 2019 amendment to the Road Traffic Act, which doubled the maximum punishment for such offences, the guidelines provide a framework comprising four sentencing bands for fines and disqualification periods based on the repeat offender’s alcohol level.