In recent court proceedings, two Singaporean men received harsh sentences for their participation in illegal activities, ranging from moderating pornography websites to orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme.
Tan Wee Quan James Sentenced for Moderating Pornography Sites
A 37-year-old man, Tan Wee Quan James, was sentenced to three weeks in jail for his role in moderating nine pornography websites. The sentencing took place on 16 December 2024.
- Charges: Tan pleaded guilty to two charges of being involved in a business that publicly exhibited obscene materials and one charge of abetting the same. Seven further similar charges were considered during sentencing.
- Modus Operandi: Starting in 2014, Tan was recruited by a partner named Adrian to oversee user-uploaded videos, ensuring inappropriate content was removed. He was paid a portion of the website revenues.
- Family Involvement: Tan also recruited his sister to help moderate one of the sites in exchange for S$60,000 over two years.
The prosecution emphasized the need to safeguard the youth from potential harm due to exposure to obscene materials, linking such access to rising rates of sexual offences among the young.
Kenneth Kam Boon Hee’s Ponzi Scheme: A Costly Deception
Meanwhile, Kenneth Kam Boon Hee, 57, was sentenced to a staggering 10 years in prison for his role in a S$5 million Ponzi scheme, leaving over a dozen investors duped.
- False Representation: Convicted on 63 counts of cheating, Kam posed as a successful forex trader, luring victims with promises of a monthly interest of 3% on their investments.
- Scheme Details: Despite claiming high profits, Kam was utilising funds from new investors to pay returns to earlier ones, a typical hallmark of Ponzi schemes.
- Financial Impact: A total of about S$5 million was entered into his scheme, with charges against him involving a cumulative amount exceeding S$16 million.
Kam’s chronicling of deceit began in 2020, culminating in a series of charges that reflect the serious repercussions of misleading investors.
Both cases highlight the importance of legal frameworks in curbing illicit activities in Singapore and the enduring need for vigilance among investors in financial ventures.