Recent News
Deciphering Cheating And Aggravated Cheating Offences
Aug 22, 2023Cheating & Aggravated Cheating
Cheating is defined in Section 415 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:
“Whoever, by deceiving any person, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver or cause the delivery of any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”
To put it simply, the elements of cheating will be made out if a person (A) dishonestly/fraudulent/intentionally deceives another person (B) thereby inducing B to:
- deliver or cause the delivery of any property to any person;
- consent to another person retaining property; or
- do or omit to do anything which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property
For the purposes of this article, the elements of cheating, relevant for criminal lawyers, can be simplistically broken down as such:
- Delivery of property as a result of a deception; and
- The deception must have been fraudulent or dishonest.
We have previously explored the topic of “property” and “dishonesty”. For further information on “property” and “dishonesty” please refer to the article “Theft & Theft in Dwelling”.
In this article, we will briefly touch on the legal concepts of “deception” and “fraudulent”.
Deception
The first point to note is that in order for a person to be deceived, he/she must believe the representation to be true. This is a crucial point. If the person does not believe a particular representation there can be no cheating.
For instance, if a person (A) informs another person (B) that he (A) is selling real concert tickets which are in fact fake, and B goes ahead to buy the concert tickets even though he (B) somehow knew that the tickets were indeed fake, there is no deception. Why? Because B was never deceived – he knew that the tickets were fake, and yet went ahead to buy the fake ticket (although such a scenario would not likely to happen in real life).
Fraudulent
“Fraudulently” is defined in Section 25 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:
“A person (A) is said to do an act fraudulently if A does that act with intent to deceive another person (B) and by means of such deception, that an advantage should accrue to A or another person or detriment should befall B or another person (other than A), regardless of whether such advantage or detriment is temporary or permanent.”
Explanation 1.—Where the advantage or the detriment A intended by means of the act done is so slight that no reasonable person of ordinary sense or temper would complain of it, the act is not done fraudulently.
Explanation 2.—It is sufficient in any charge for an offence under this Code involving doing an act fraudulently to allege a general intent to act fraudulently without naming any particular person intended to be deceived.
Explanation 1 to Section 25 of the Penal Code is worthy of a quick mention. The drafters of the Penal Code were clearly anxious to prevent the criminalisation of trivial and minor lies.
Combination of the Elements
So, how do the elements combine together to constitute the offence of cheating? A simple example will illustrate the point:
A person (A) strikes up a conversation with another person (B) on Carousell. A informs B that he is selling Coldplay concert tickets. However, the concert tickets are fake. B, believing that the concert tickets are real, purchases the said tickets from A.
Is an offence of cheating made out? Yes, because:
- There was a dishonest deception on A’s part;
- B believed A’s deception; and
- A’s deception induced B to deliver money to A.
Punishment for Cheating
The punishment for cheating is set out in Section 417 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:
“Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”
Aggravated Cheating
There are other forms of cheating which the law considers to be more egregious than cheating simpliciter (i.e., Section 415 of the Penal Code). The most common of which is “cheating and dishonestly inducing a delivery of property” under Section 420 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:
“Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver or cause the delivery of any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
It is clear that Section 420 of the Penal Code provides for a much more serious punishment than Section 415 of the Penal Code. However, if there was a delivery of property pursuant to a dishonest inducement, an offence of cheating could potentially fall under either Section 415 or Section 420 of the Penal Code.
Sentencing Guideline
The punishment for cheating is usually commensurate with the amounts involved. The logic is undeniable. The greater the amount cheated, the higher the sentence will be. There are, however, other sentencing factors to consider.
For instance, in credit card cheating offences, a more severe sentence might be meted out. The Court’s rationale is simple: Given the pervasiveness of credit cards as a preferred mode of payment, the recurrence of credit cheating offences would threaten the reliability and security of Singapore’s credit infrastructure.
Another example would be cheating offences against public institutions. Of course, the rationale for a more severe sentence is clear. To cheat a public institution is to cheat the general public at large. In such instances, the Courts have consistently stated that general deterrence is warranted – in other words, a higher sentence might be meted out to an offender to “make an example out of him”.