Mr Cheng pleaded guilty to 2 charges of engaging with accomplices to cause a computer to secure access to data contrary to section 4 (10) of the Computer Misuse Act and 4 charges of conspiring with accomplices to commit theft of cash contrary to section 379 of the Penal Code. 94 further charges contrary to s 379, 108, and 511 of the Penal Code were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. The court noted various aggravating factors, including that the offences occurred in a group.

Mr Cheng’s case was the first of its kind in Singapore involving an entire criminal enterprise perpetrating ATM fraud. The difficulty of detecting such crimes was a key point raised in the sentencing hearing which emphasized the need for a deterrent sentence.

Sentencing: Mr Cheng pleaded guilty to 2 charges of engaging with accomplices to cause a computer to secure access to data contrary to section 4 (10) of the Computer Misuse Act and 4 charges of conspiring with accomplices to commit theft of cash contrary to section 379 of the Penal Code. 94 further charges contrary to s 379, 108, and 511 of the Penal Code were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing. The court noted various aggravating factors, including that the offences occurred in a group.

Mr Cheng's case was the first of its kind in Singapore involving an entire criminal enterprise perpetrating ATM fraud. The difficulty of detecting such crimes was a key point raised in the sentencing hearing which emphasized the need for a deterrent sentence.

Defendant Submissions: Mr Cheng submitted that he was not a mastermind of the criminal group and that he regretted his role in the offences. He sought the minimum sentence provided by law.

Prosecution Submissions: It was the prosecution case that the court should impose a sentence to promote deterrence due to various aggravating factors including the following: over 100 charges had been laid; sophisticated techniques were employed over a period of three months; there was a high degree of planning and organisation in which the accused played an active role; the accused was a member of an organised syndicate; and, finally, a large amount of money was stolen. The court also raised the need for general deterrence owing to the problematic nature of ATM fraud targeting financial institutions and that it was in the public interest for a message to be sent to like-minded individuals to discourage similar conduct. The court also noted that such offences undermine confidence in Singapore's efforts to become an economic hub.

Trial decision: The trial judge agreed with the prosecution that such crimes would erode confidence in the commercial and electronic banking systems of Singapore. He was of the view that such circumstances warranted a deterrent sentence. It was determined that it would be appropriate for Mr Meng to serve a sentence of 52 months on each of the CMA charges proceeded with, and six months' imprisonment on each of the theft charges. These sentences were ordered to run consecutively. In effect, the entire sentence to be served by the offender was 52 months' imprisonment.

The prosecution appealed the sentence imposed on Mr Meng. The prosecution case revolved around the application of the four broad principles of sentencing of deterrence, retribution, prevention and rehabilitation. In a case such as that of Mr Meng where he was the principal person involved in a sophisticated syndicate who sought to defraud financial institutions, the prosecution claimed that the principles of deterrence and retribution were paramount. The prosecution successfully argued the importance of these principles and how they applied to sentencing in the current case. Mr Meng was resentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment: 42 months’ imprisonment for each of the two CMA charges; 15 months’ imprisonment for each of the four theft charges. The sentences in all six charges are to run consecutively, giving rise to a term of 144 months’ (12 years’) imprisonment.