Liao Nuoqian v Public Prosecutor

Liao Nuoqian agreed with Gan Tie Xia, whom he knew from a Telegram group, to receive an unnamed Standard Chartered Union Pay debit card in Hong Kong and use it to buy goods in Singapore on a holiday, handing the goods to Mr Gan's associates. He was told Mr Gan wanted the funds in the linked account to flow out of China, and was promised a share of resale profits. On 27 and 28 August 2024, guided by an associate, Zhuo Zhijie, who left each store during the purchases to avoid recognition, he made 15 purchases of watches and gold bars, presenting the card as his own and forging the signature on its back. The goods were taken out of Singapore on 29 August 2024, except a gold bar worth $3,620 he kept as payment. RMB148,225 paid into the linked account had come from a scam in China, of which it was undisputed he had no specific knowledge.

He pleaded guilty to five charges of abetting cheating under s 420 of the Penal Code and one charge under s 51(1)(a) of the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, with 18 charges taken into consideration. The goods in the five cheating charges were worth $184,851.20. The District Judge applied the Fernando approach for credit card cheating and imposed 36 months' and 32 months' imprisonment on the cheating charges, giving a global sentence of 48 months. He appealed against the cheating sentences in Magistrate's Appeal No 9099 of 2025.

1. Whether the Fernando sentencing approach for credit card cheating applies to cheating with a debit card, and to an offender who did not obtain the card wrongfully.
2. Whether the Fernando sentencing ranges should be adjusted for the higher maximum penalty, and which range applied.
3. Whether the District Judge erred in assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors, including syndication, planning, sophistication, harm, deterrence, first offender status and co-operation.

The judge held that the Fernando approach applies equally to debit cards. A debit card linked to a large balance with no limit can cause more harm than a credit card, and banks, merchants and cardholders are all affected by misuse of either. That Mr Liao did not obtain the card wrongfully did not take the case outside Fernando: the list of card frauds there is not exhaustive, and the cheating charges concerned his deception of merchants at the point of sale, knowing he was not the cardholder.

The ranges did not need adjusting, as the three-judge court in Prakash had affirmed them; the higher maximum could be weighed when calibrating. Syndication alone placed the case in the 24 to 36 months range, and with little known about the syndicate, a 24-month starting point was right. The judge explained that factors used to set the starting point should not be counted again at the second stage.

The District Judge's uplifts were too high. Premeditation in handing over goods formed the basis of the CDSA charge, and Mr Liao had merely followed instructions, placing him in the lower rungs of the syndicate. Following instructions to forge a signature showed little sophistication. Too much weight was put on the sums: the merchants suffered no real financial loss and harm was low to moderate, though he did help put the scam victim's money out of reach. Specific deterrence still applied to a foreigner, the transnational element was seriously aggravating, and he was rightly not treated as a first offender. His co-operation showed genuine remorse. A 12-month uplift gave 36 months, reduced for remorse and then by 30% for his early plea, to 24 months.

Hoo Sheau Peng J allowed the appeal, holding that the sentences were manifestly excessive. Each cheating sentence was reduced to 24 months' imprisonment, with the sentence on the 2nd Charge running consecutively with the 12 months for the CDSA charge, giving a global sentence of 36 months' imprisonment backdated to his arrest on 30 August 2024.