Court finds worker's sole purpose was a permanent residency application, not genuine employment with the company
A foreign worker faced criminal prosecution for making a false declaration in his work pass application to the Ministry of Manpower.
The prosecution alleged he declared he would be employed as a sales and marketing manager when he had no intention of actually working for the company.
The worker denied the charge and argued he genuinely believed he would be employed when submitting the application. He claimed he only discovered he had been cheated after collecting the work pass.
Worker obtains work pass through online contact
The worker came across an advertisement on a messaging platform and contacted an unidentified individual regarding employment opportunities.
He subsequently liaised with this individual for matters relating to his work pass under a company in Singapore.
In early 2021, the Ministry of Manpower issued the worker an S Pass after receiving an application declaring he would work as a sales and marketing manager. The worker signed a declaration form as part of the application process.
From the date the work pass was issued until his arrest over a year later, the worker never worked for the company. He never received any monthly salary from the company during this entire period.
Worker never intended genuine employment
The prosecution argued the worker sought to purchase an S Pass without any intention of being genuinely employed. The prosecution asserted he made monthly payments to an unknown individual to maintain his work pass.
The prosecution relied on evidence from the company's sole director, who had pleaded guilty to involvement in a scheme involving six false work pass applications.
The director's responsibilities included collecting work permits for foreign workers and accompanying them to register their thumbprints.
The prosecution also relied on the worker's investigative statements and the declaration form he signed. The prosecution argued the worker's sole purpose was to stay in Singapore and eventually apply for permanent residency.
Worker challenges voluntariness of investigative statements
The defence challenged the voluntariness of the worker's investigative statements on several grounds.
The defence argued the investigators induced the worker by telling him he must be truthful or face prosecution without informing him of his right to remain silent.
The defence also argued that investigators promised the ministry was not pursuing him but only his boss.
The defence claimed investigators said the worker would be treated leniently and helped to recover money he lost if he cooperated.
The court held an ancillary hearing to determine whether the statements were voluntary. The worker also alleged he was placed in a cold cell without food and that handcuffs were too tight during his arrest.
Court admits statements as voluntarily given
The court noted the worker made no complaints about his experience during arrest or while in custody until trial commenced. The court found no evidence of any irregularities during the recording of his statements.
The court rejected the defence's assertion about inducement from the truth-telling caution. The court stated, "the caution for the accused to tell the truth and being liable to prosecution if anything false or untruthful is stated, is a standard one that is routinely administered during statement recording."
The court found "there is no positive obligation on the police or, for that matter, law enforcement agencies to inform suspects or accused persons that they may decline to answer a question that may incriminate them." The court admitted both statements as part of the prosecution's case.
Worker only wanted permanent residency in Singapore
The court found the worker's conduct after receiving his work pass showed he never intended to work. The court noted he was never interviewed by anyone from the company and never signed an employment contract.
The court stated, "I found it to be incredible that he waited for 14 months... in the belief that he would be working for [the company]." The court rejected the defence's assertion that the worker took reasonable and logical steps to seek employment.
The court found "his main purpose of obtaining the work pass was to enable him to continue his stay in Singapore and eventually apply for permanent residency."
The court gave full weight to his investigative statements that he never intended to be employed as a sales and marketing manager.
Court rejects defence that worker was cheated
The defence argued the worker only realised he had been cheated after collecting his work pass. The defence relied on the company director's testimony that the real boss lied to people and may have deceived the worker.
The court rejected this argument and found that the worker entered an illicit arrangement with the unidentified individual to legitimise his continued stay in Singapore.
The court stated, "it was clear that [the company] was a shell company that was set up to obtain work passes for foreign nationals like the accused to legitimise their stay in Singapore in exchange for monthly payments."
The court convicted the worker of the charge and sentenced him to nine weeks' imprisonment. The worker has appealed against his conviction and is currently on bail pending the hearing of his appeal.
