SINGAPORE: In a pair of recent court cases, two individuals have found themselves behind bars for offences involving forgery, highlighting the consequences of dishonesty in professional settings.
Ma Lai Fatt’s Forgery Saga
Ma Lai Fatt, 56, an employee of Marchitects, was sentenced to three months’ jail after he pleaded guilty to forging documents related to fire safety at the National Library Board (NLB).
- Ma created a letter with the signature of a professional engineer, Mr Chen Kum Seng, without his permission.
- The forged documents were related to renovations intended to convert basement space into office use for NLB.
- His act of forgery led to safety concerns, risking staff welfare in the event of a fire.
Despite no financial loss resulting from his actions, the prosecution underscored the potential danger posed by his misdeeds, especially concerning public safety regulations.
Hu Qingjun’s Deceptive Tactics
In a separate case, 42-year-old Hu Qingjun was sentenced to four weeks’ jail for creating a forged letter from legal firm Rajah & Tann under instructions from his supervisor at Titan Technologies.
- Hu’s letter falsely claimed that Titan Technologies had engaged Rajah & Tann to pursue claims against Vlado Brokers.
- The intent was to mislead investors and delay their demands for returns, giving the impression that unscrupulous activities were being managed.
- This fraudulent act could have severely damaged the reputation of the law firm involved.
Hu admitted to feeling remorseful but continued to partake in the deception as he aimed to keep his job. He claimed he was merely following orders, yet the ramifications of his actions loomed large.
Foundational Integrity Matters
Both cases serve as a reminder that integrity in professional environments is paramount. The defence lawyers in each case pointed out that while these individuals did not personally gain from their actions, the long-term consequences highlight the serious nature of forgery.
In a society where public safety and trust are critical, these cases reinforce that bending the rules can lead to significant repercussions, both legally and reputationally.