MERLUR BINTE AHMAD v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Outcome
Application dismissedwe dismissed the application after hearing both parties.
Source: [2024] SGCA 8, Court of Appeal, decided 18 March 2024. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Belinda Ang, Steven Chong, Tay Yong Kwang |
| Charges / claim | Criminal Law |
| Outcome | Application dismissed |
| Counsel | Andre Jumabhoy LLC, Attorney-General's Chambers, Andre Darius Jumabhoy, Aristotle Eng, Hon Yi, Lee Zu Zhao |
Source: [2024] SGCA 8, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Merlur Binte Ahmad v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 8 was decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 18 March 2024, in Criminal Motion No 36 of 2023, with grounds of decision delivered by Tay Yong Kwang JCA on behalf of a coram that also included Steven Chong JCA and Belinda Ang JCA, following a hearing on 1 March 2024. The applicant, Merlur Binte Ahmad, was a Singaporean divorcee who was about 48 years old at the time of the offences in 2018, educated to O-levels and employed for almost 30 years as an operations assistant manager earning around $2,000 a month. According to the judgment she became acquainted online with a person known as Wayne Mark, whom she never met in person, after her divorce in 2012.
The applicant had been convicted by a District Court on seven charges under s 47(3) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A) (the "CDSA") for possessing monies in her DBS bank account, having reasonable grounds to believe the monies were Mark's benefits from criminal conduct; those Possession Charges concerned monies amounting to $83,000. She was also convicted on seven charges under s 47(2)(b) of the CDSA for removing such monies from Singapore. The catchwords record that the case concerned statutory offences under the CDSA. The applicant was represented by Andre Darius Jumabhoy and Aristotle Eng of Andre Jumabhoy LLC, with the Public Prosecutor represented by Hon Yi and Lee Zu Zhao of the Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment also referenced the Penal Code and the English Proceeds of Crime Act.
[2024] SGCA 8 explained
MERLUR BINTE AHMAD v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGCA 8) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 18 March 2024. It is categorised under Criminal Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2024] SGCA 8 about?
MERLUR BINTE AHMAD v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2024] SGCA 8) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Statutory offences — Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGCA 8 consider?
The judgment refers to Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A), English Proceeds of Crime Act, and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
Merlur Binte Ahmad, who had been convicted by a District Court on charges under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act for possessing and removing from Singapore monies she had reasonable grounds to believe were the benefits of a person's criminal conduct, applied for permission to refer four questions of law to the Court of Appeal. The monies had been transferred into her bank account in connection with a person she knew online as "Mark", and the courts below had found that she was not an innocent possessor once Mark informed her of the transfers. The Court of Appeal held that the questions were premised on innocent possession, which had been rejected on an unassailable finding of fact, and refused the application in its entirety, dismissing the criminal motion.
What was Merlur Binte Ahmad v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 8 about?
It was a Court of Appeal matter, decided 18 March 2024 with grounds by Tay Yong Kwang JCA, concerning Merlur Binte Ahmad's convictions on fourteen charges under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act relating to monies believed to be criminal benefits.
What charges did Merlur Binte Ahmad face under the CDSA ([2024] SGCA 8)?
She was convicted on seven charges under s 47(3) of the CDSA for possessing $83,000 in her DBS account, having reasonable grounds to believe it was Wayne Mark's benefits from criminal conduct, plus seven charges under s 47(2)(b) for removing such monies from Singapore.
Who heard Merlur Binte Ahmad v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGCA 8?
The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard Criminal Motion No 36 of 2023. Tay Yong Kwang JCA delivered the grounds of decision of the court, sitting with Steven Chong JCA and Belinda Ang JCA, following a hearing on 1 March 2024.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (2)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGCA 8)