Latest news with #StraitsTimes
Singapore Law Watch
5 hours ago
- Singapore Law Watch
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy
Jail for ex-lawyer who provided legal services while barred from practice due to bankruptcy Source: Straits Times Article Date: 31 May 2025 Author: Shaffiq Alkhatib Helen Chia Chwee Imm pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. A former lawyer was sentenced to six months' jail on May 30 after she charged two victims for legal services, even though she had been barred from practising law due to bankruptcy. On May 26, Helen Chia Chwee Imm, 55, who has since been struck off the roll, pleaded guilty to two charges – one count each of cheating and pretending to be authorised to act as an advocate and solicitor. Two other charges were considered during her sentencing. Before handing down the sentence, District Judge James Elisha Lee said the overriding sentencing consideration for offences under the Legal Profession Act is the need to protect the public. He added that stiff sentences are warranted for such offences. Judge Lee also noted that defence lawyer Nicholas Narayanan earlier told the court that Chia had depression due to incidents involving two other clients. One of them was a woman she represented in 2015, whose child was killed by the father. The judge said that while he empathised with Chia, there was a 'lack of clarity' on whether there was a contributory link between her mental state and her current offences. In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay said that Chia was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court in 1999. However, she did not have a valid certificate to practise law from Dec 17, 2016, after a bankruptcy order made against her earlier that month. Despite this, Chia met her first victim on Dec 19, 2016, for a consultation after the woman e-mailed her. They then discussed legal issues concerning the woman's care and custody of her son. Subsequently, and without Chia's involvement, the woman and her son's father signed an agreement to manage aspects of their child's life amicably. But on Aug 24, 2017, the woman contacted Chia again after disputes with the man resurfaced. She told Chia that she wanted to formally engage her as the lawyer. Chia agreed, concealing the fact that she did not have a practising certificate. After collecting $2,000 in legal fees, Chia gave her client legal advice. In a court application filed on Nov 9, 2017, Chia indicated that another lawyer was the solicitor in charge of the case, deliberately excluding her own name. It was only on Dec 18, 2017, after the woman asked Chia to attend a mediation session with her, that Chia revealed she was an undischarged bankrupt. In total, Chia collected nearly $13,700 from the woman. Separately, some time around Feb 12, 2018, Chia's friend – the second victim – asked her to act as the lawyer in her divorce proceedings and her plan to apply for a personal protection order. They met on Feb 13, 2018, and Chia reviewed her friend's divorce papers and personal protection order case file. The friend then formally engaged Chia to represent her in the divorce proceedings, and the latter did not say that she could not practise. Instead, Chia told the friend about the follow-up steps and quoted her legal fees of $20,000, saying it was a 'friend' rate – a third of what she would usually charge. After receiving a $3,000 deposit from her friend, Chia gave her legal advice and did a host of legal work for her. Chia also enlisted another lawyer to attend the court mentions for this expedited order matter. On May 2, 2018, the friend was dishonestly induced into paying her $23,000 as legal fees. Chia's bankruptcy order was annulled on May 22, 2018, and she was allowed to practise law again. But a disciplinary tribunal was appointed after a complaint of misconduct was made against her. In June 2021, Chia's friend found out from an article in The Straits Times about the tribunal that Chia had been a bankrupt and did not have a practising certificate when she was representing her. On Oct 26 that year, the tribunal found that there was cause for disciplinary action against Chia. She was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors in August 2022. In January 2025, Chia made full restitution to the two victims of the legal fees paid to her. She is now out on bail of $80,000 and is expected to begin serving her sentence on July 21. Shaffiq Alkhatib is The Straits Times' court correspondent, covering mainly criminal cases heard at the State Courts. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print 150
Singapore Law Watch
5 hours ago
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
Woman gets $1 a month in maintenance, after judge dismisses her appeal for spousal support
Woman gets $1 a month in maintenance, after judge dismisses her appeal for spousal support Source: Straits Times Article Date: 02 Jun 2025 Author: Theresa Tan She will continue to get nominal sum; ex-spouse's share of marital assets cut by 10%. A High Court judge dismissed a woman's appeal for spousal maintenance of $2,500 a month, but also reduced her former husband's share of marital assets by 10 per cent, given his multiple attempts to undermine the marriage and the woman's welfare. The 39-year-old woman, an administrative assistant who takes home $2,340 a month, will continue to get a nominal maintenance of $1 a month, which was earlier awarded by a district judge. The $1 is a symbolic sum which preserves her right to apply for monetary support from her former husband in the future, lawyers told The Straits Times. The woman, who filed for divorce in 2023, was married to a 46-year-old regular serviceman in the Singapore Armed Forces whose net salary is $5,212 a month. The couple has joint custody of their 12-year-old daughter, but the girl lives with the father. In his judgment on May 7, Justice Choo Han Teck awarded the woman 25 per cent of the matrimonial flat, up from 20 per cent the district judge gave her earlier. She also gets over $52,000 as her share of the other assets. Justice Choo also agreed with the district judge's decision not to award the woman a larger sum of spousal maintenance. The district judge had said the woman is working and can support herself, and she received a fair share of the marital assets. Besides, the amount she has to contribute to their child's maintenance – $327 a month – is not high. But the district judge had also noted that the woman is a foreigner who moved to Singapore for marriage and lacked family support here, and hence chose to preserve her right to nominal maintenance of $1 a month for a transitional period of four years. The woman's lawyer, Mr Russell Thio of Emerald Law, had argued that the district judge did not adequately consider her need for accommodation in awarding her just $1 in maintenance a month. This is especially since the woman – a former Indian national and Singapore permanent resident – cannot buy an HDB flat on her own, among other factors. But Justice Choo said the wife had not shown that her pay was insufficient to meet her monthly expenses, including housing, or that she has exhausted all means to find accommodation. The man was represented by Mr Sarbrinder Singh Naranjan Singh and Mr Nicholas Say of Sanders Law. In his judgment, Justice Choo said he saw no 'practical distinction' between an order for no maintenance and an order for nominal maintenance of $1. He said: 'However, as the Court of Appeal has held otherwise, I will leave the $1 order intact. It is a sum as inconsequential in substance as it is in appearance.' He was referring to another case where the Court of Appeal, which is the apex court, ruled that unless there is a maintenance order made during the divorce – such as a nominal $1 order – the spouse cannot seek maintenance in the future. Ms Angelina Hing, managing director of Integro Law Chambers, said the $1 nominal maintenance thus preserves the former spouse's right to apply for a more significant sum of maintenance if there are material changes in her financial situation or needs. In his judgment, Justice Choo was of the view that an order for no maintenance is still a 'subsisting order for maintenance' under Section 118 of the Women's Charter, meaning the order is currently in effect. And this should not prevent a former spouse from applying for maintenance in the future. He also said that under Section 113 of the Women's Charter, the court can order a man to pay maintenance to his former wife even after the divorce judgment has been granted. Ms June Lim, managing director of Eden Law Corporation, said: 'His judgment signals that this area of law might benefit from further consideration, clarification from the higher courts or through legislative reform, but until that happens, the precedent remains binding.' Judge reduces man's share of marital assets to signal disapproval of conduct Lawyers interviewed noted that Justice Choo reduced the man's share of the marital assets by 10 per cent to signal the court's disapproval of his conduct. The man received 75 per cent of the flat and 59 per cent of the other assets, with the rest going to the woman. Among other things he did, the man repeatedly denied the wife access to their daughter and he was penalised for contempt of court for having breached court orders. Such penalties involve a fine or a jail term, or both, though his penalty was not stated in the judgment. He also petitioned the HDB to acquire the flat because of his financial difficulties, and tried to send the woman back to India. He refused to let the woman add her name to the title deed of their matrimonial flat or let her repay the housing loan, which led to the forfeiture of the flat due to substantial arrears. At one point, she settled the outstanding arrears and maintained subsequent payments. Justice Choo said the HDB refunded all her payments, as she was not entitled to make such payments without her former husband's consent as the flat's sole owner. The woman was eventually evicted from the flat by the HDB and police officers. The man's actions deprived the woman of a larger sum that an open market sale of the flat would have yielded, Justice Choo said. Ms Edith Chen, a lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences and a consultant with Tan Rajah and Cheah, said marriage should be an equal cooperative partnership of efforts for the mutual benefit of both spouses. She added: 'If one spouse's conduct does not contribute to the partnership, but instead has a negative impact on the partnership, the court may take such negative impact into consideration and may reduce that spouse's share of the assets.' Ms Chen said that if a flat is considered a matrimonial asset under the Women's Charter, it is liable to be divided between the couple. This is even if one spouse fully financed the property, or the flat is under one spouse's name only. Theresa Tan is senior social affairs correspondent at The Straits Times. She covers issues that affect families, youth and vulnerable groups. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
3 days ago
- Singapore Law Watch
S'pore has no jurisdiction over Audrey Fang case, can't prosecute suspect if he's deported: MHA
S'pore has no jurisdiction over Audrey Fang case, can't prosecute suspect if he's deported: MHA Source: Straits Times Article Date: 30 May 2025 Author: Aqil Hamzah & Samuel Devaraj The Ministry of Home Affairs said on May 29 that it has communicated its position to its Spanish counterparts, and that the Singapore Government would assist them within the ambit of Singapore's laws. As the fatal stabbing of Singaporean Audrey Fang took place in Spain, Singapore has no jurisdiction over the alleged murder, and thus would not be able to investigate or prosecute Singaporean suspect Mitchell Ong if he were to be deported. This follows the news on May 28 that an attempt to deport the 44-year-old by Spanish immigration authorities had been rejected by a Spanish court. In response to queries, the Ministry of Home Affairs said on May 29 that it has communicated its position to its Spanish counterparts, and that the Singapore Government would assist them within the ambit of Singapore's laws. Law enforcement agencies there, meanwhile, have told the ministry that they are currently prosecuting Ong in Spain. News of the deportation request being blocked was first reported by Spanish daily La Opinion de Murcia on May 28. The deportation request was made by Spain's General Commissariat for Aliens and Borders, a national police agency that manages immigration and border control matters, and was supported by the lawyer representing Ms Fang's family. However, a judge ruled that Ong did not meet the criteria outlined in Spain's laws pertaining to the expulsion of foreigners, one of which states that immediate deportation can take place if an individual has been charged with a crime and is given a jail sentence of fewer than six years, or is given an alternate sentence, such as a fine. As the minimum jail sentence for Ong's potential murder charge is 15 years, the former insurance agent does not meet this criterion. Ong's lawyer, Ms Maria Jesus Ruiz de Castaneda, had told The Straits Times earlier in May that she is opposing the request. The Spanish immigration authority had also requested that Ong be banned from returning to Spain for 10 years, if the deportation had gone through. Ms Ruiz de Castaneda had earlier told Spanish media that an expulsion would be a violation of the rule of law and international treaties Spain has signed and ratified. 'He is involved in ongoing criminal proceedings in Spain, where he must be tried with due process,' she said. 'Expulsion would be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, the principle of non-refoulement and Spain's commitments against the death penalty.' She had previously called for the case to be dismissed, saying that all necessary evidence had to be examined and that Ong 'firmly and consistently' insisted he did not kill Ms Fang. Ms Fang, a 39-year-old architect, was found dead near a parking space for lorries in the town of Abanilla on April 10, 2024. She left Singapore on April 4 to travel alone to Xabia in the Valencia region of Spain, and was supposed to return eight days later, but became uncontactable on April 10. Her body was found with knife wounds and head trauma. Ong was arrested six days later. Testimonies from two of Ms Fang's friends on June 26, 2024, said Ms Fang and Ong had met on a social dating network. Her family's lawyer said she had told her friends she was meeting Ong during her holiday in Spain. In March, La Opinion reported that DNA from two men was found on her clothes, raising the possibility that more than one person was involved in her death. Ong, meanwhile, was also found to have been nominated as the sole beneficiary of Ms Fang's Central Provident Fund savings, with the accounts reportedly containing about $498,000. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
3 days ago
- Singapore Law Watch
Woman who claimed ‘voices' told her to abuse maid has jail term more than doubled to 7 years
Woman who claimed 'voices' told her to abuse maid has jail term more than doubled to 7 years Source: Straits Times Article Date: 30 May 2025 Author: Selina Lum Anita Damu, 57, was initially sentenced to two years and seven months' jail in 2018. A maid abuser had her prison sentence more than doubled to seven years after she appealed to the High Court to avoid jail time on grounds that she heard voices telling her to hurt the domestic worker. Anita Damu, 57, was initially sentenced to two years and seven months' jail in 2018, after a district judge accepted two psychiatric reports that she had abused the victim under the influence of auditory hallucinations. This explanation has since been rejected by the court. In increasing her sentence on May 26, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said the sentences imposed by the lower court on each of the charges she faced were manifestly inadequate. 'Among other things, they were infected by the erroneous assumption that the acts of abuse were caused by the auditory hallucinations,' he said. Anita, who is also known as Shazana Abdullah, had inflicted serious physical and psychological abuse on her 29-year-old Indonesian helper between 2014 and 2015. The abuse came to light in April 2015 after a Ministry of Manpower officer received information that the maid was being abused by her employer, and visited the flat. The officer reported the matter to the police after observing that the helper had welts on her face, burn marks on her hands and scars on her body. In September 2018, Anita pleaded guilty to five charges: one each for depriving the victim of rest, splashing her with hot water, burning her with an iron, poking her with a metal prong, and hitting her in the face with a slipper. Four other charges – for slapping the victim, pinching her with pliers on two occasions and pushing a cup of hot water towards her mouth – were taken into consideration for sentencing. During a sentencing hearing in October 2018, while her lawyer was arguing for her to be given a fine, she suddenly felt giddy and had to be taken to hospital. In December that year, she was sentenced to two years and seven months' jail. She was also ordered to pay $8,000 in compensation to the victim. Both she and the prosecution appealed against the sentence. The prosecution also appealed for a higher sum of compensation. She has paid an additional $4,000 in voluntary compensation on top of the ordered sum. When the appeal was first heard in 2019, Chief Justice Menon ruled that the psychiatric reports alone were not sufficient for the district judge to conclude that the woman was hearing voices when she abused the maid. The Chief Justice sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether she had suffered from such a condition. He said the offender should take the stand, as it was incumbent on her to present the best evidence available to support her assertion. Before she could testify, Anita was diagnosed with schizophrenia. She was assessed to be of unsound mind and unable to understand and follow court proceedings. Since June 2023, she has been confined at the Institute of Mental Health. On Aug 5, 2024, she was certified to be of sound mind and capable of standing trial. She and her family members eventually took the stand to testify before the district judge. In a judgment dated April 2, the district judge concluded that she did not suffer from auditory hallucinations and that her claim was a 'fabrication'. The appeal before Chief Justice Menon resumed on May 26. Deputy Public Prosecutor Timotheus Koh sought a jail term of four years and seven months, standing by the prosecution's submissions in 2019. He also sought a further $9,588 in compensation. Chief Justice Menon said the sentence sought by the prosecution was 'manifestly insufficient', looking at the totality of the offending behaviour, the harm to the victim and the cruelty towards the victim. He said he will explain his sentencing decision in a written judgment at a later date. He also allowed the prosecution's appeal on the compensation order. This means Anita has to pay a total of $21,588 to the maid. Chief Justice Menon noted that while most foreign domestic workers are well-provided for, occasionally some do not adjust well or have employers who fail to care for them. 'At times, they even fail to accord them the basic dignity due to a fellow human being. Sadly, this is such a case,' he said. He added that it was a 'matter of regret' that the case has taken this long to be resolved, in large part because of the litigation choices made by the accused. Selina Lum is senior law correspondent at The Straits Times. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
Singapore Law Watch
4 days ago
- Singapore Law Watch
Audrey Fang case: Spanish judge blocks suspect's deportation to S'pore over death penalty concerns
Audrey Fang case: Spanish judge blocks suspect's deportation to S'pore over death penalty concerns Source: Straits Times Article Date: 29 May 2025 Author: Aqil Hamzah As such, it is unlikely for the 44-year-old to face the death penalty if charged with murder, as a murder charge in Spain carries a jail sentence ranging from 15 years to 25 years. An attempt by Spanish immigration authorities to deport Mitchell Ong, the suspect in the fatal stabbing of fellow Singaporean Audrey Fang in Spain, was blocked by a local court over death penalty concerns. As such, it is unlikely for the 44-year-old to face the death penalty if charged with murder, as a murder charge in Spain carries a jail sentence ranging from 15 years to 25 years. News of the deportation request being blocked was first reported by Spanish daily La Opinion de Murcia on May 28. The deportation request was made by Spain's General Commissariat for Aliens and Borders, a national police agency that manages immigration and border control matters, and was supported by the lawyer representing Ms Fang's family. However, a judge ruled that Ong did not meet the criteria outlined in Spain's laws pertaining to the expulsion of foreigners, one of which states that immediate deportation can take place if an individual has been charged for a crime with a jail sentence fewer than six years, or given an alternate sentencing, such as a fine. Ong's lawyer, Ms Maria Jesus Ruiz de Castaneda, had told The Straits Times earlier in May that she is opposing the request. If the deportation had gone through, the Spanish immigration authority had also requested that Ong be banned from returning to Spain for 10 years. Ms Ruiz de Castaneda had also earlier told Spanish media that an expulsion would be a violation of the rule of law and international treaties Spain has signed and ratified. 'He is involved in ongoing criminal proceedings in Spain, where he must be tried with due process,' she said. 'Expulsion would be contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, the principle of non-refoulement and Spain's commitments against the death penalty.' She had previously called for the case to be dismissed, saying all necessary evidence had to be examined and that Ong 'firmly and consistently' insisted he did not kill Ms Fang. The 39-year-old architect was found dead near a parking lot for lorries in the town of Abanilla on April 10, 2024. She left Singapore on April 4 to travel alone to Xabia in the Valencia region of Spain, and was supposed to return eight days later, but became uncontactable on April 10. Her body was found with knife wounds and head trauma, and Ong was arrested six days later. Testimonies from two of Ms Fang's friends on June 26, 2024, said that Ms Fang and Ong had met on a social dating network, with her family's lawyer saying that she had told her friends she was meeting the former insurance agent during her holiday in Spain. In March, La Opinion reported that DNA from two men was found on her clothes, raising the possibility that more than one person was involved in her death. Ong meanwhile was also found to have been nominated as the sole beneficiary of Ms Fang's Central Provident Fund savings, with the accounts reportedly containing about $498,000. ST has contacted the Ministry of Home Affairs for comment. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
