The judgment in the case of Public Prosecutor v Giorgio Ferrari is now available on the internet - http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/63675.html
Normally, such judgments are only available free for a period of about 3 months, following which only Lawnet subscribers will be able to access it.
Readers of a previous blog will remember that the case involves charges relating to Goods and Services Tax and customs duties of over $400,000 payable by his alcohol business. It was surprising that with such a large amount of duty evaded, there was only a massive fine but no jail time. The judgment now clarifies the situation.
The alcohol was stored in a licensed warehouse where no duty is paid for the time being. For supplies to diplomatic missions like foreign embassies, the alcohol can be taken out without any duty having to be paid. However, the process requires applications for approval from Singapore Customs, which would delay delivery to customers. Because these customers required the alcohol at short notice, Ferrari would supply them with duty-paid alcohol from its own stock. It would later apply for the necessary Customs permits, and it would then use the duty free alcohol allowed under the permits to replace its earlier withdrawn stock. This was a breach of the Customs rules.
The court accepted that Ferrari had gained no economic advantage as in the end, no duty was evaded, but he had gained intangible advantages. The court allowed him to pay the huge fine of just over $2.5 million over a period of 30 months subject to sureties for the whole amount being provided.
The case is interesting as the judge remarks it is the first of its kind.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Hacking services
A recent local newspaper report covered the use of hacking services. These will, for a fee, hack into anyone's computer account like an e-mail account, and then provide the customer with the password to access the target account. Many of the hacking services are performed by parties who are overseas.
The above is clearly a case of unauthorised access under section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act. The issue that arises is when does such activity fall under the jurisdiction of the Singapore Court. Under Section 11 of the Act, the Act applies if the computer, program or data was in Singapore at the relevant time, or the accused was in Singapore at the relevant time.
Assuming in all the cases discussed below that the hacker is overseas, let's discuss the following situations (we will refer to the owner of the hacked account as the target and the person using the services of hackers as the customer) -
a) the target is a Singaporean or resident in Singapore. However, the customer uses the password obtained from the hacking services to access this account while the customer is in Singapore. Here, the accused is in Singapore so the offence is committed under the Act;
b) the target is a Singaporean or resident in Singapore, but the customer illegally accesses the account while he is overseas. Here, a big problem arises as to where the computer, program or data is. Even if the Internet Service Provider (ISP) is a Singapore company, there is still a problem since the relevant computer servers may be overseas. So no computer, program or data is in Singapore, and no offence is commmitted under Singapore law. Where the ISP or e-mail service is a foreign one, for example, Yahoo or Google e-mail services, it is even easier to argue that all relevant acts have taken place overseas, and therefore the Singapore courts have no jurisdiction.
A suggestion - the law should be amended to provide that where the account holder is resident in Singapore (to use the language of section 11 of the Act - "where the computer, program, or data is habitually used by a person resident in Singapore"), then the offence should be considered to have been committed in Singapore. This will protect the secrets and interests of Singaporeans and other local residents.
The above is clearly a case of unauthorised access under section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act. The issue that arises is when does such activity fall under the jurisdiction of the Singapore Court. Under Section 11 of the Act, the Act applies if the computer, program or data was in Singapore at the relevant time, or the accused was in Singapore at the relevant time.
Assuming in all the cases discussed below that the hacker is overseas, let's discuss the following situations (we will refer to the owner of the hacked account as the target and the person using the services of hackers as the customer) -
a) the target is a Singaporean or resident in Singapore. However, the customer uses the password obtained from the hacking services to access this account while the customer is in Singapore. Here, the accused is in Singapore so the offence is committed under the Act;
b) the target is a Singaporean or resident in Singapore, but the customer illegally accesses the account while he is overseas. Here, a big problem arises as to where the computer, program or data is. Even if the Internet Service Provider (ISP) is a Singapore company, there is still a problem since the relevant computer servers may be overseas. So no computer, program or data is in Singapore, and no offence is commmitted under Singapore law. Where the ISP or e-mail service is a foreign one, for example, Yahoo or Google e-mail services, it is even easier to argue that all relevant acts have taken place overseas, and therefore the Singapore courts have no jurisdiction.
A suggestion - the law should be amended to provide that where the account holder is resident in Singapore (to use the language of section 11 of the Act - "where the computer, program, or data is habitually used by a person resident in Singapore"), then the offence should be considered to have been committed in Singapore. This will protect the secrets and interests of Singaporeans and other local residents.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Asia Pacific Breweries case concluded?
The case of Asia Pacific Breweries (well known for its Tiger Beer) and the massive fraud of their Finance Manager Chia Teck Leng may have come to a close.
Chia had defrauded 5 banks with Singapore branches of over $100 million by using the name of his employer to obtain loans. His employer was unaware of his activities. He was sentenced to a record 42 years jail. Of the 5 victim banks, 4 sued but 2 dropped out halfway. Finally, only Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken from Sweden and Germany's Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank (HVB) continued with their claims.
Their arguments in court were based on the actual authority or the apparent authority of Chia to obtain finance for his employer, and negligence on the part of his employer. In a lengthy judgment, High Court judge Belinda Ang rejected all arguments of the banks and dismissed their claim. The court found that the banks had not followed proper procedures which would have led to the fraud being detected at an earlier date. As expected, the banks were ordered to pay the costs of the legal proceedings.
At a later date, the judge's decision will be summarised on this blog. In the meantime, the story may not have ended as an appeal appears to have been filed. It is rare for a judge to issue a written judgment if there is no appeal in a particular case.
Chia had defrauded 5 banks with Singapore branches of over $100 million by using the name of his employer to obtain loans. His employer was unaware of his activities. He was sentenced to a record 42 years jail. Of the 5 victim banks, 4 sued but 2 dropped out halfway. Finally, only Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken from Sweden and Germany's Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank (HVB) continued with their claims.
Their arguments in court were based on the actual authority or the apparent authority of Chia to obtain finance for his employer, and negligence on the part of his employer. In a lengthy judgment, High Court judge Belinda Ang rejected all arguments of the banks and dismissed their claim. The court found that the banks had not followed proper procedures which would have led to the fraud being detected at an earlier date. As expected, the banks were ordered to pay the costs of the legal proceedings.
At a later date, the judge's decision will be summarised on this blog. In the meantime, the story may not have ended as an appeal appears to have been filed. It is rare for a judge to issue a written judgment if there is no appeal in a particular case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)