<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" bgcolor="#000000"> <table bgcolor="#000000" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="font12w">She inflates bills to get grants </td> </tr> <tr><td>IT consultant's scam exposed after govt body audits her claims</td> </tr><tr> <td class="font12w"> <table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr> <td class="font12w">By Crystal Chan</td> </tr></tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="font12w">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="font12w">
</td> </tr></tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="0">
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="rightline" valign="top"> <table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td class="font12" align="left" valign="top"> SHE tried to get her hands on government grants and subsidies by deception.
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="150"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr><td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]CHEAT: Lim Chin Yen <copyright> </copyright>[/SIZE][/FONT]</td></tr> </tbody></table> And to achieve her goal, Lim Chin Yen, an IT consultant, persuaded nine small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to take up her firm's services.
Lim, 33, told her clients that they could get a 'free lunch' as the funds would come from Spring Singapore's Local Enterprise Technical Assistance Scheme (Letas).
But earlier this year, she was jailed 10 months for cheating and attempted cheating.
One of her employees, Johnny Ong, was jailed seven months for abetting her.
By then, Spring had paid two of Lim's clients about $19,000 in grants.
The statutory board had made a police report after auditing Lim's projects.
After knowing that Lim was being investigated, the two clients, Komachi Enterprise and Aggregates Engineering, returned the money to Spring.
Under the scheme, Spring subsidises up to 50 per cent of the cost of approved consultancy projects.
The money would be paid only after the project was completed and the SME had paid its consultants.
But Lim, who owned Review Communications, never completed the projects.
She overstated the scope of her work and even inflated her prices to maximise the grants.
To cover her tracks, Lim billed her customers before refunding them through MediaBank, another of her companies.
The bills would show proof of payment and the refund was done from MediaBank's bank account to avoid being caught.
Her clients testified against her, saying the descriptions of the projects submitted to Spring were unknown to them and were never discussed during their meetings.
Fake charges
The supporting documents for the claims were all submitted by Lim, with tacit approval from her clients.
One client, Mr Jeffrey Heng, director of Ink Image Design, said he had approached Lim to develop a website.
Lim said the project would cost $11,000, way above Mr Heng's budget of $2,000.
But she convinced Mr Heng, who later became a prosecution witness, to take up her proposal, saying the rest of the $9,000 would come from the Letas grant.
Eventually, Lim convinced Mr Heng to inflate the bill to $22,000. As the grant allowed was up to 50 per cent, a grant of up to $11,000 could be obtained if Ink Image was billed $22,000.
In his testimony, Mr Heng said he agreed to be charged $22,000 on the understanding that the website would be virtually free and that he would have to pass the expected grant of $11,000 to Lim on receiving it from Spring.
Lim assured him that he would not get into trouble for agreeing to inflate the bill.
She said that at the worst, the application would be cancelled.
As it turned out, Spring only approved a grant amount of about $9,000 and Ink Image had to make up the difference of about $2,000.
Instead of getting $22,000 back, Mr Heng was given a refund of $20,000 from MediaBank.
In a written judgment released on 18 Nov, District Judge John Ng wrote: 'Mr Heng knew Lim was doing something less than above board but he was prepared to go along with it.'
None of Lim's clients have been prosecuted.
The judge noted that Lim's downfall came because she did not know that Spring would conduct audits.
Judge Ng wrote: 'Ink Image's system was only installed after the audit and she explained that it was an upgrade. This was simply a desperate attempt to cover up the fact that no system was installed in the first place.
'Lim was placed in such a situation because Ink Image was the first company to be audited and she was caught by surprise.'
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="font12w">
</td> </tr></tbody></table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="0">
<table align="right" border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="150"> <tbody><tr> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr><td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]CHEAT: Lim Chin Yen <copyright> </copyright>[/SIZE][/FONT]</td></tr> </tbody></table> And to achieve her goal, Lim Chin Yen, an IT consultant, persuaded nine small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to take up her firm's services.Lim, 33, told her clients that they could get a 'free lunch' as the funds would come from Spring Singapore's Local Enterprise Technical Assistance Scheme (Letas).
But earlier this year, she was jailed 10 months for cheating and attempted cheating.
One of her employees, Johnny Ong, was jailed seven months for abetting her.
By then, Spring had paid two of Lim's clients about $19,000 in grants.
The statutory board had made a police report after auditing Lim's projects.
After knowing that Lim was being investigated, the two clients, Komachi Enterprise and Aggregates Engineering, returned the money to Spring.
Under the scheme, Spring subsidises up to 50 per cent of the cost of approved consultancy projects.
The money would be paid only after the project was completed and the SME had paid its consultants.
But Lim, who owned Review Communications, never completed the projects.
She overstated the scope of her work and even inflated her prices to maximise the grants.
To cover her tracks, Lim billed her customers before refunding them through MediaBank, another of her companies.
The bills would show proof of payment and the refund was done from MediaBank's bank account to avoid being caught.
Her clients testified against her, saying the descriptions of the projects submitted to Spring were unknown to them and were never discussed during their meetings.
Fake charges
The supporting documents for the claims were all submitted by Lim, with tacit approval from her clients.
One client, Mr Jeffrey Heng, director of Ink Image Design, said he had approached Lim to develop a website.
Lim said the project would cost $11,000, way above Mr Heng's budget of $2,000.
But she convinced Mr Heng, who later became a prosecution witness, to take up her proposal, saying the rest of the $9,000 would come from the Letas grant.
Eventually, Lim convinced Mr Heng to inflate the bill to $22,000. As the grant allowed was up to 50 per cent, a grant of up to $11,000 could be obtained if Ink Image was billed $22,000.
In his testimony, Mr Heng said he agreed to be charged $22,000 on the understanding that the website would be virtually free and that he would have to pass the expected grant of $11,000 to Lim on receiving it from Spring.
Lim assured him that he would not get into trouble for agreeing to inflate the bill.
She said that at the worst, the application would be cancelled.
As it turned out, Spring only approved a grant amount of about $9,000 and Ink Image had to make up the difference of about $2,000.
Instead of getting $22,000 back, Mr Heng was given a refund of $20,000 from MediaBank.
In a written judgment released on 18 Nov, District Judge John Ng wrote: 'Mr Heng knew Lim was doing something less than above board but he was prepared to go along with it.'
None of Lim's clients have been prosecuted.
The judge noted that Lim's downfall came because she did not know that Spring would conduct audits.
Judge Ng wrote: 'Ink Image's system was only installed after the audit and she explained that it was an upgrade. This was simply a desperate attempt to cover up the fact that no system was installed in the first place.
'Lim was placed in such a situation because Ink Image was the first company to be audited and she was caught by surprise.'
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
