[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – A former property agent who sublet six residential units in Geylang for illegal short-term stays via the online property rental platform Airbnb had his fine raised from $ 88,000 to $ 158,000 on Friday (Oct. 30). ) following an appeal from prosecutors.
The sentence was increased after Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon took an approach to split the fine into two components: one intended to disburse the offender’s illicit earnings, while the other separately punishes the offender.
He said that this approach, having a return component and a punitive component, better ensures that the offender is sufficiently punished and also ensures better consistent results.
In the case of Joel Su Jiqing, 39, the Chief Justice determined that the repayment component was $ 46,000, the actual earnings after deducting the lease payments he had made to the property owners.
Regarding the punitive component, the Chief Justice concluded that a sum of $ 112,000 reflected Su’s guilt and the damage caused by his crimes.
The Chief Justice ruled that this “bifurcated approach” should be used to determine the fines to be imposed on first-time offenders using residential property to provide short-term accommodation, which is illegal in Singapore.
Under the Planning Act, a first-time offender can only be sentenced to a maximum fine of $ 200,000 per charge.
Su was a real estate agent and owner of The Coffee Cart, or TCC, when he sublet six private residential properties to local and foreign guests in 2017 and 2018.
He did not own the properties but leased them after lying to the owners that the units were for his personal use or for TCC’s business.
Su admitted that he selected properties in Geylang because he believed that residents there were less likely to complain.
Before being charged with the present crimes, he was investigated for providing illegal short breaks, but was released after he claimed he had no other Airbnb properties.
Undeterred by this, he went on to lease four more properties and also changed his Airbnb hostname from “Jo” to “Mik” to avoid detection.
Last year, Su was charged with providing illegal short stays at six properties.
Prosecutors pressed for a fine of at least $ 235,000 after he pleaded guilty to four counts, and two counts were taken into consideration.
They proposed the bifurcated approach and argued that the amount of disgorgement should be the income generated of $ 115,000.
The district judge rejected these arguments.
He said the court should first determine the appropriate fine and then consider whether the amount was sufficient to return the offender’s ill-gotten gains.
The district judge also said that the lease payments, which are expenses, should be deducted when quantifying the amount to be disbursed.
The prosecution appealed, alleging that the $ 88,000 fine was grossly inappropriate.
On Friday, the Chief Justice argued that the bifurcated approach should be taken as a matter of principle.
He said the district judge’s approach could result in fines that do not adequately punish the offender.
It could also lead to inconsistent results because, all other things being equal, a criminal who made large profits would be better off than one who made lower profits.
On the contrary, the bifurcated deals with a structured and transparent framework that considers the difference between the fine imposed and the benefits slaughtered.
“This better ensures that the offender is punished sufficiently according to the damage he has caused and his guilt, and thus better ensures that the general fine is sufficiently dissuasive and retributive,” said the Chief Justice.
He added that the “necessary expenses” that allowed committing the infractions must be deducted in the computation of the amount to be returned.
[ad_2]
