Latest news with #376A
AsiaOne
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- AsiaOne
'We will sue him until he goes bankrupt': Victim's mother plans to sue ex-actor Ian Fang, Entertainment News
In the case of former artist Ian Fang sexually assaulting a girl, the victim's mother bluntly said that the sentence given to Fang was too light. The 35-year-old fomer MediaCorp artist was sentenced to 40 months' jail after he pleaded guilty to having sex with the girl before she turned 16. He had sex with the teen on nine occasions between June and July 2024, mostly unprotected. She eventually contracted human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually-transmitted disease. Chinese-language media outlet 8world spoke exclusively with the victim's mother, who agreed to a five-hour interview under the condition of anonymity. She expressed strong dissatisfaction with the court's verdict and urged the authorities to review the case, calling for a harsher sentence, including caning, to prevent Fang from harming other women in the future. Fang was charged under Section 376A(2)(b) of the Penal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment or a fine, or both — but does not include caning. Fang was not caned as the victim was 15 at the time of the offences. The verdict might have been different if she had been below 14, as he would have been charged for rape. Under Section 375 of the Penal Code, those convicted of rape could be jailed for between eight and 20 years, and receive at least 12 strokes of the cane. Fang, the mother alleged, used his celebrity status and position of trust to take advantage of her. "The age gap between them was significant, and Fang used his celebrity status to manipulate her into bed," she said. "The first time, he brought wine to the hotel to visit my daughter while she was unwell, raped her and afterwards told her not to tell us — warning that he could go to jail if anyone found out. He knew exactly what he was doing was wrong," she added. "He had an ulterior motive every time they met. If that's not exploitation, then what is?" she questioned. "I just can't accept it. He manipulated and coerced my child," she said. She was equally firm in her view of the sentence: "I'm very, very dissatisfied. He should have been caned. At least then there would be a lasting mark - something to remind him, and others, of what he did. Now, there's nothing. No consequence that stops him from doing this again." The mother also questioned why a gag order had initially been imposed on Fang's identity. She believed revealing his name could have encouraged other potential victims to step forward. "There might be more victims out there," she said. She accused Fang of ruining her daughter's life and infecting her with a sexually transmitted disease. "I'm going to sue him until he goes bankrupt," she declared. "Her first time should have been with someone who truly loved her — not someone like him. He's a predator. A wolf in sheep's clothing," she said. She has since hired a lawyer to begin civil proceedings: "Yes, civil suits are about compensation. But this isn't about the money. I want to sue him until he's bankrupt." If any damages are awarded, she added, the entire sum would be donated to charity: "We don't want a cent of his money." [[nid:718288]] This article was first published in The New Paper. Permission required for reproduction.
CNA
20-05-2025
- CNA
CNA Explains: Why was former actor Ian Fang jailed but not caned for his sexual offences?
SINGAPORE: Former actor Ian Fang was sentenced to 40 months' jail on Monday (May 19) after pleading guilty to sexual offences involving a then 15-year-old minor. The 35-year-old pleaded guilty to three charges of sexual penetration of a girl aged under 16. Three similar charges were taken into consideration for sentencing, along with one count of obstructing justice and one count of stalking. Social media users commenting on the case have asked why Fang did not receive caning. Which specific penalties does he face? Lawyer Sanjiv Vaswani of Vaswani Law Chambers noted that Fang pleaded guilty to two counts under Section 376A(1)(a) and one count under Section 376A(1)(b) of the Penal Code. The punishment provisions under this section fall under 376A(2) and 376A(3), which take into account different factors. Section 376A(3) provides the maximum penalty for a person who offends against a minor below 14 years old. The punishment in this case can be up to 20 years' jail, and a fine or caning. This section does not apply to Fang as the victim was 15 years old at the time of the offences. The applicable Section 376A(2) has two subsections - 376A(2)(a) and 376A(2)(b) - which provide the maximum penalties for those who commit offences against victims between 14 and 16 years old. The difference between them, however, is that Section 376A(2)(a) applies to an offender who was in a relationship exploitative of the victim. If sentenced under this provision, an offender can be jailed for up to 20 years and fined or caned. Fang was not sentenced under this. He was sentenced under Section 376A(2)(b), which excludes the element of an exploitative relationship. The maximum penalty under this section is a jail term of up to 10 years or a fine, or both. This section does not include caning.
