Underage prostitute case - shrewd, calculated defence move by Subhas Anandan

[Papsmearer]

But this case is different. It is about a Singapore girl not another one of those foreigners etc. Pardon me but really I failed to see and political link here.

my understanding is she is vietnamese. i could be wrong, but u don't see many teenage sinkie girls doing this.

 

[Papsmearer]

Absolutely...this case is just based on the law n evidence...plain n simple...no politics no so called entrapment mumbo jumbo etc...i stand corrected but i get the impression tat police vice first brought down this internet pimp n then later discovered tat one of his gals was underage n local to boot...then the fun part began...

do you seriously believe that this is the only underage girl prostituting her self in singapore? do you seriously believe that the police have never come across underage prostitutes before? before this case, do you recall many prior trials involving underage girls for sex over the last 40 years? If non come to mind, than why suddenly this one and on such a large scale? ergo..... its political.

 

[Kinana]

The age of consent is 16 in singapore, you dumb fuck.

The age of consent in Singapore is 16 for all opposite-sex activity and only female same-sex sexual activity: Section 140: (1) Any person who – (...) (i) has carnal connection with any girl below the age of 16 years except by way of marriage (...) – shall be guilty of an offence

If she is 17 as u claim, than there is no underage sex case.

SInce she must have been 15 when she engaged in sex with these men, and due to the high number of customers, it can be safely assume she did this for more than a year, which would put her at 14 when she started.

It's a case of underage prostitution, not underage sex. Why yu so blur one?

 

[Papsmearer]

It's a case of underage prostitution, not underage sex. Why yu so blur one?

holy fuck, are u so stupid? Prostitution is NOT illegal in singapore. the case is about underage sex. Living off the avails of prostitution is illegal, in other words, the pimp can get charged regardless of the age of the prostitute. in this case, the 80 men can fuck as many prostitutes as they want. however, if thye fuck one underage girl, whether she is prostitute or not, than its an offence.

trouble with u is u are too stupid to see your own low IQ. First u bring up her age of 17, than I hear nothing from u when i pointed out that 17 is ok age to have sex, and the age of consent is 16. now u say the case is about underage prostitution.

Make up your mind. If she is 17 like u claim, she is not underage. And since prostitution is not illegal, there should be no "case of underage prostitution" as u claim.

My advice to u is when face with superior intellect, u best go queitly back to the hole u came from.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Stick to watching Law & Order n CSI...becuz tat abt sums up the merits of yr posts...bottom line no court wld entertain the kind of fishing expedition tat u hv in mind...which in any event is purely based on wild assumptions guesswork n conjecture wifout any basis in law...

Yes,little knowledge is dangerous....look at the mirror and take a deep bow.

Read my lips....or read my post.This is what I had said


And all your subsequent posts just tried to fit me into your little squares and circles.

So who iillustrates vanity,foolishness and even some obnoxious pompousness now?Again look at the mirror and take a deep bow.

Drivel?....you say drivel !

I have painted the possibilities.Read my lips once more.Or read my post

And when defense lawyers fishes for those possibilities....and even if the police actions does not exactly matches the technicalities of entrapment....the morality of police deliberately festering the crime will be a public out cry.

And Oh,yes! the internet platform and mobile communications does reveal contacts and conversation---most probably between the pimp and clients.But whether you communicated is not on trial.But whether penetration took place between an under aged girlie and adults is.Can you prove that Mr.Wannbe lawyer?

 

[Nice-Gook]

For folks who might be interested what indeed is an entrapment.Here is a letter by MRS ONG-CHEW PECK WAN Director, Corporate Communications Division for Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs) on 16th June 2006.

In reply to ST's article on "Entrapment: Lawyers say narcotics officers crossed the line in quest to nab offender, but any method of entrapment is legal here", 16 June 2006 .

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I stand corrected but prosecution's evidence shall prolly be along the the following lines: hp data, hotel records, pimp n prostitute's diaries n other contemporaneous documents/records plus testimony fm both the pimp n the prostitute...

The totality of abv evidence sld prolly be enuff to secure a conviction...

And Oh,yes! the internet platform and mobile communications does reveal contacts and conversation---most probably between the pimp and clients.But whether you communicated is not on trial.But whether penetration took place between an under aged girlie and adults is.Can you prove that Mr.Wannbe lawyer?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Totally irrelevant to the present material case as there no shred of evidence not even one iota relating to the issue of entrapment as classified under tne law...

For folks who might me interested what indeed is an entrapment.Here is a letter by MRS ONG-CHEW PECK WAN Director, Corporate Communications Division for Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs) on 16th June 2006.

In reply to ST's article on "Entrapment: Lawyers say narcotics officers crossed the line in quest to nab offender, but any method of entrapment is legal here", 16 June 2006 .

 

[Nice-Gook]

Here is something more relative to this case.

(A.)Entrapment is a defense to criminal charges when it is established that the agent or official originated the idea of the crime and induced the accused to engage in it.

1. The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2. Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
3. The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.

Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled

(B).But when an officer supplies an accused with a tool or a means necessary to commit the crime, the defense is not automatically established. Although this factor may be considered as evidence of entrapment, it is not conclusive.However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime.

As illustrated here.

In the case of child molestation, the same reasoning applies, and police must be very careful how they develop the online relationship with the potential molestor: If they go on the internet and say, "Hi im a 17 yr old girl looking for sex! I sure am horny! I really want some sex! call me at this # right away!!!", the very idea of having sex with the girl might be implanted into the mind of a person who otherwise might never have thought of having sex with an underage person. That would be entrapment.

On the other hand, if the police are careful to allow the online relationship to develop so the molestor is the one who brings up the idea of having sex, un-prompted by anything that the child has said online, then it will be clear that the molestor was already intent on committing the crime, and the police could clearly not be accused of putting the idea there. In other words, in such a case the person was not "otherwise unwilling."

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

This is my take n undersranding...

Before the late noughties there was no criminality viz consensual sex wif a person over the age of 16 regardless of whether it was commercial r otherwise...however come the late noughties due to international pressure on the issue of human trafficking particularly wrt minors the sin govt amended the law to make it illegal to engage in consensual commercial sex wif a person under the age of 18... however it is still legal to hv non commercial consensual sex wif a person abv the of 16...

As to the big brouhaha behind this present case...think the ans is obvious...this one involves a local girl who was a minor at the time of the transactions...the earlier cases all involved foreign minors...

do you seriously believe that this is the only underage girl prostituting her self in singapore? do you seriously believe that the police have never come across underage prostitutes before? before this case, do you recall many prior trials involving underage girls for sex over the last 40 years? If non come to mind, than why suddenly this one and on such a large scale? ergo..... its political.

 

[Nice-Gook]

On the other hand, if the police are careful to allow the online relationship to develop so the molestor is the one who brings up the idea of having sex, un-prompted by anything that the child has said online, then it will be clear that the molestor was already intent on committing the crime, and the police could clearly not be accused of putting the idea there. In other words, in such a case the person was not "otherwise unwilling."

Yes,I am replying to my own post.

This is to preempt those who are trigger happy.

Aren't the above contradicting my presumptions of possibilities?

Now,I did say simple minds work simply didn't I?

Let's see how many can see the relevance of the above to this particular case.

 

[Boliao]

holy fuck, are u so stupid? Prostitution is NOT illegal in singapore.

Patronizing a prostitute under the age of 18 is illegal if I'm not wrong.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Stick to watching Law & Order n CSI...becuz tat abt sums up the merits of yr posts...bottom line no court wld entertain the kind of fishing expedition tat u hv in mind...which in any event is purely based on wild assumptions guesswork n conjecture wifout any basis in law...

Obviously,you should stick to football only.Since your notion of court proceedings and soccer rules are precisely the same.Iron clad that is.A defense attorney can put any question to the witness; so long as he can convince the relevance to the sitting judge.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How does the CV of TT Durai has any relevance TT Durai vs ST?.....when the trial essentially arose because ST claimed TT Durai to have a [/FONT] gold-plated tap in his private room?

Go and figure.

Here are the excerpts:-


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Davinder Singh. Is this a complete and comprehensive CV of the matters in which you were engaged during the years covered by the CV?
T.T. Durai. Not exactly.

Q. Why have you omitted some matters?
A. No, I did not include a job, which I did in a company known as Bonyad. That was in I think 1990, 1992, I think.

Q. So this was Bonyad -- what were you doing there?
A. I was the representative in Singapore. It was an Iranian charitable foundation.

Q. How much were you earning there?
A. I was earning $7,000 at that point of time.

Q. In 1992, when this offer of full-time employment was made to you, you were also engaged with Bonyad; right?
A. I had - I think - I believe I gave up that vocation.

Q. No, I am asking you, in 1992. Were you not, when you were offered full-time employment in NKF, but did not take it up, also engaged with Bonyad?
A. I cannot recollect exactly.

Q. Come on, Mr Durai.
A. I think I - yes, I think, yes, I did for a few months in 1990.

Q. Therefore, that explains, does it not, or is one of the reasons why you did not want to take up full-time employment because acting for another charity would have been a conflict?
A. No, I gave that job up.

Q. Would you answer my question, please. At the time you were offered full-time employment, that was one of the reasons you did not take it up, because it would have been a conflict?
A. No, not exactly. Because I decided to give up the vocation in that particular institution.

Q. "Not exactly" meaning?
A. No, I have decided to give up the vocation in that particular organisation, at that point of time.

Q. Why did you not include Bonyad in the CV?
A. I did not think it was material.

Dec 31, 2005
[/FONT]

 

[myo539]

Patronizing a prostitute under the age of 18 is illegal if I'm not wrong.

You are absolutely correct. This Papsmearer guy simply does not know the difference.

It seems to him a hole is a hole - regardless of whether it belongs to someone 16 or 18.

The tragedy is, he still thinks he is very smart!

 

[myo539]

There is no master stroke by Subhas Ananda, the men will be convicted based on the girl's records and the pimp's testimony alone which are sufficient to prove guilt.
You see, in a desparate situation for the accused like this case, the men will grasp on to any naive straws put forward by Subhas. Of course, its his job to create any straws for these desperate men as well, hoping for a miracle to happen.
However, Singapore laws and courts are no nonsence one.
I hope the judge give the men heavier sentence than the Pei Hwa principal to teach them a lesson not to be so naive next time.

I am still waiting for the other 40 or so men to be charged.

peace

Very well put.
Indeed a miracle has apparently appears in our court. You can get someone to take the rap for your driving offences -and con the police - not once but twice - and the court lets you off with a $1,000 fine. The prosecutor even let you off without appealing for a stiff sentence or pronouncing "serve as a deterrence for increasing traffic accidents" and "safeguarding the public" nonsense. A precedent has been set.

 

[JohnnyQuid]

to all those out there..please do not be impressed by Subhas..honestly, nothing impressive about the guy..he is trying potry himself as Rumpole or Perry mason combined when he is certainly not..another guy is Sashi Nathan..who thinks he is God's gift to the legal fraternity...remember the NTU student case? honestly, if i were the student's parents I would have screwed him big time
Nice-Gook i think what u trying to advocate in this forum is on the issue of the non-illegality of entrapment in our justice system..however, I can assure you that in most cases, majority of the drug mules were not fools which is the common defence used by many drug mules arrested here..many were willing participants, however, many also turned to this profession out of desperation...it is the law specifically the MDA which we must scrutinize which carries a presumption clause...meaning guilty till proven innocent...
sine u mentioned the case of drug mule who was baited by CNB officer to bring drugs into SG, and if this is the case u were referring to..remember the CNB officer had also approached Subhas after he was arrested for rape and sodomy but when Subhas was defending the drug mule, Subhas chose to keep mum about the particular CNB guy..even when he was cross examining the said officer on the stand...
Finally as for these men involved..IMO, fret not this is not some hidden hand conspiracy theory case...from my observation this OKT simply got greedy pimping out this gal at $500 to $1k a pop...somewhere some1 must have realized they were being played here and informed the cops ...honestly, but I think these numbskulls deserve what they get..shit, u can get better SYTs from SBF of legal age and for much cheaper..and now they even show us how stupid they are by trusting a crook like Subhas...

 

[Kinana]

holy fuck, are u so stupid? Prostitution is NOT illegal in singapore. the case is about underage sex.

Nope, the case is about underage prostitution.
At 17, she is not underaged to have sex but underaged to be a prostitute you dummy!
You must be a stinking foreign who never followed singkie news!

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I will give u this..u do seem to hv tot thru the approach n process of cross examination n presentation of evidence in court...also i am more than happy to apologise n admit tat i am wrong if this in fact the case...

k i do agree wif u tat the court wld provide a certain amount of latitude to counsel particularly in a criminal case to put fwd his/her clt's case...n yes relevancy wld be critical...so yes i was wrong to say tat the court wld not allow the line of questioning as mentioned by u at the v outset n in this regard i apologise...

However my general overall position viz yr fishing expedition exercise remains unchanged...i dont think counsel for the defence shall be allowed to get v far on this line questioning becuz ultimately it does not lead to a any legitimate defence...morals n ethics alone do not constitute a legitimate legal defence...

My impression of how this case came abt is this...

The pimp was running a typical internet based pimping outfit...pics, stats of pros plus material hp. contact nos etc..sms communucation between pimp n punter usual course to arrange transaction...going by the various hotels n the fact tat at times the underage pros saw different punters at different hotels on the same day(think i read r heard abt this) suggests tat bking of hotel rms was done by punters n not the pimp r the the under aged pros...gather this is quite a common practice in the online pimping pros biz particularly wrt to local pros...punter sms' pimp to arrange transaction, date time n location...when punter has bked rm n gone up to rm, punter wld sms pimp wif rm details n the pros wld arrive shortly thereafter...nowadays becuz of the 2IC rule for transit hotels this arrangement may no longer apply for transit hotels but i dont think this applied during the material time n even if it did i wld say this evidence wld be even more detrimental to the defendants...underage pros enters rm n then usually wld sms pimp to say tat she is wif punter n is k, upon which under age pros wld normally ask for payment upfront if this is a first time meeting then complete transaction, then under age pros usually wld leave rm first followed by punter who wld check out...the contemporaneous evidence trail here wld be hp data, hotel records etc..

Police seem to hv got intel on this pimp n then smashed his operation...police appear to hv gathered pimp n under aged pros diaries n other docs wif relevant details on all material transactions plus statements fm pimp, under age pros n the defendants...so all prosecution evidence presented to the court wld prolly be this plus testimony fm pimp, under age pros n the other relevant parties like IO etc...

It is likely tat the police first monitored n conducted surveilance on this pimp n his operations before smashing it...so this leads me to yr main pt of contention...were the police aware the pros was under age while conducting surveilance?...possibly, this cant be ruled out...however wld this constitute a legitimate defence to the charges agst the defendants...i dont think so...yes cld create a moral n ethical cloud particularly if the police took a longer time than reasonably necessary time to intervene once they were aware tat the pros was underage...however i dont think this wld hv a material effect on the outcome of the case...

Oh yes if i am not mistaken think Subhas n afew other lawyers mentioned at latest court appearance tat they wld be challenging their own clients'/defendants police statements...which suggests tat the defendants' police statements may indeed be self incriminating to a certain extent at the v least...so i guess this trial wifin in a trial wld be v interesting indeed...

At the end of the day i think we r gonna c alot of poker face wayang n some defendants at least throwing everything they got including the kitchen sink to get the charges dropped r dismissed...in a way dont blame them becuz they r facing jail time...shall this kind of strategy work?...personally i dont think so...becuz based on the totality of all the evidence put together it appears to be an uphill case for the defendants, even if the under age pros comes off as a weak witness at the trial...

Bottm line it is a criminal offence to engage in commercial sex wif a person under the age of 18...n the strict obligation appears to be on the punter to make sure tat the pros is indeed over the age of 18...whether the pimp and or pros lies r puts fwd false docs etc is prolly immaterial to this case (apart fm a mitigation issue) becuz of this apparent strict obligation to do proper due dilligence...this is underpinned by public policy...perhaps unfair n unreasonable to the punter...but tat appears to be the legal position as i understand it...naturally i also stand corrected it if wat i say can be shown to be misconceived n incorrect...

Obviously,you should stick to football only.Since your notion of court proceedings and soccer rules are precisely the same.Iron clad that is.A defense attorney can put any question to the witness; so long as he can convince the relevance to the sitting judge.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How does the CV of TT Durai has any relevance TT Durai vs ST?.....when the trial essentially arose because ST claimed TT Durai to have a [/FONT] gold-plated tap in his private room?

 

[Nice-Gook]

please do not be impressed by Subhas..honestly, nothing impressive about the guy..he is trying potry himself as Rumpole or Perry mason combined when he is certainly not..another guy is Sashi Nathan..who thinks he is God's gift to the legal fraternity...remember the NTU student case? honestly, if i were the student's parents I would have screwed him big time

..it is the law specifically the MDA which we must scrutinize which carries a presumption clause...meaning guilty till proven innocent...
sine u mentioned the case of drug mule who was baited by CNB officer to bring drugs into SG, and if this is the case u were referring to..remember the CNB officer had also approached Subhas after he was arrested for rape and sodomy but when Subhas was defending the drug mule, Subhas chose to keep mum about the particular CNB guy..even when he was cross examining the said officer on the stand...

and now they even show us how stupid they are by trusting a crook like Subhas...

Agree with you.Subhas is bogus.

In my humble opinion,anything our shitty times promotes is hazardous to our health.And ST promotes Subhas.The only question is why.

I figure Subhas is a veiled PAP man.And PAP does not want this case fought in our courts.Very much because among the 40 charged many can well afford the lawyers;and good one to boot.Why not since their names and families are already dragged down the m&d.So,the PAP is playing to the gallery with Subhas--as the best criminal lawyer money can buy.And Subhas will lose for sure.

And when he lose.PAP can than hang him like a poster boy for the rest of the charged and the legal fraternity.Don't play play--there is no case to fight.Killing a chicken to frighten the monkeys.

 

[Nice-Gook]

I will give u this..u do seem to hv tot thru the approach n process of cross examination n presentation of evidence in court...also i am more than happy to apologise n admit tat i am wrong if this in fact the case...

k i do agree wif u tat the court wld provide a certain amount of latitude to counsel particularly in a criminal case to put fwd his/her clt's case...n yes relevancy wld be critical...so yes i was wrong to say tat the court wld not allow the line of questioning as mentioned by u at the v outset n in this regard i apologise...

...

Wow,not many will apologize in this forum.I too did the same to Sam,in another thread....got into a heated argument and than Sam pointed ,'isn't what you are saying is my ordinal stand?'So I apologized.

Ok,lets get back to the matters in hand.

Neither of us can prove anything conclusively.Since we do not have any thing material to begin with.We are privy to nothing.Hence everything is nothing but speculation.

But I have a bone to pick with our judiciary.Lees law lah.Where even the judges are denied the discretion.Everything about our court is like a rubber stamp.Just like our pseudo parliament.At least Hri Kumar,the PAP MP, alludes to this in his blog.

Hence I want this case to be fought in our courts.Even if the outcome in our kangaroo courts are quite predictable.But that is not the issue.The issues is ,let the AG face 40 odd defense lawyers.Who will put the police procedures and their method of crime fighting under the public scrutiny.

The result could be mind blowing.Just as it tumbled in TT Durai vs ST.....despite all involved are PAP men.The trail took it's own spin.Which what essentially was a defamation suit ended up putting the spot light on how similarly PAP and NKF were run.It almost cost the PAP 2006 elections.

That is what I hope to see in this case.Since all the arrested are well heeled with money to burn.Besides,their names and families already tarnished.What can they further lose?

Therefore,I see some public good arising out of this case.And this is a god given opportunity to put PAP/AG/judiciary/police on trial....with 40 odd defense lawyers.

I am sure,some where along the line a lot of PAP dirt will be be dug up.It's good for the general public.